|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
England and Wales High Court (Commercial Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Commercial Court) Decisions >> Yarl's Wood Immigration Ltd & Ors v Bedfordshire Police Authority  EWHC 2207 (Comm) (30 September 2008)
Cite as:  1 All ER 886,  EWHC 2207 (Comm)
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
| (1) YARL'S WOOD IMMIGRATION LIMITED
(2) GSL UK LIMITED
(3) CREECHURCH DEDICATED LIMITED (BEING THE SOLE MEMBER
OF D J PYE SYNDICATE 962 AT LLOYD'S SUBSCRIBING TO
THE CONTRACT OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER 0000014763)
|- and -
|BEDFORDSHIRE POLICE AUTHORITY
MR J. WATSON QC, MR J. BEGGS and MR S. CRIDLAND (instructed by Weightmans) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 24 & 25 June 2008
Crown Copyright ©
|(2) The Preliminary Issues||7|
|(3) Facts agreed for the purposes of the preliminary issues hearing||13|
|(4) The legislation|
|(A) Riot and liability under the Riot Acts||33|
|(B) Legislation concerning immigration detention centres||38|
|(5) The parties' cases||42|
|(A) The status, powers and responsibilities of the parties||48|
|(i) The status of the first and second claimants|
|(ii) The relationship of the first and second claimants and the Home Secretary|
|(iii) The responsibility of the Bedfordshire Police force|
|(iv) Did the first and second claimants have a responsibility in respect of the risk of riot and disorder in the detention centre?|
|(B) The scope and intent of the 1886 Act||100|
|(i) The general approach|
|(ii) Do a detention centre's buildings qualify as "buildings" under the 1886 Act?|
|(iii) Are the claimants qualifying persons under the 1886 Act?|
|(a) The legislative predecessors to the 1886 Act|
|(b) Case law on the 1886 Act|
|(iv) Matters not taken into account|
|(a) Analogy with alleged common law "source of their own loss" principle|
|(b) The role of the Home Secretary under the Regulations made pursuant to section 3(2)|
|(c) Statements made during the Parliamentary consideration of the Bill that became the 1886 Act|
|(7) Conclusions on the preliminary issues and overall conclusion||157|
|Appendix: Extracts from the Yarl's Wood Joint Protocol Agreement and the Group 4 and Bedfordshire Police Contingency Plans for Yarl's Wood||Appendix|
Mr Justice Beatson:
(2) The Preliminary Issues
(3) Facts agreed for the purposes of the preliminary issues hearing
(4) The legislation
(A) Riot and liability under the Riot Acts:
" 8. A common feature of relevant provisions in the 1714, 1827 and 1886 Acts is that liability is strict. In that regard they adopt an approach found in much older statutes. Mr Colin Edelman QC, who appeared with Mr Andrew Burns for BPA, cited two examples. The first was the Statute of Winchester of 1285, which made the hundred where a robbery was committed answerable for any such robbery unless the bodies of the robbers were produced. The second was the Statute of Hue and Cry of 1585 which - in addition to providing machinery for enforcement against residents of a hundred liable under the Statute of 1285 - entitled such a hundred to claim over against an adjoining hundred after hue and cry was made in that adjoining hundred."
"9. The liability is strict in the sense that it arises whether or not the claim is made for something which could or should have been prevented. It gives those potentially liable a strong incentive to do what they can to prevent the relevant circumstances from arising. There are differences, however, in the way that the liability is expressed in each of the 1714, 1827 and 1886 Acts.
"10. Under the 1714 Act the provisions imposing liability on the hundred, repeated in similar terms for cities or towns which either formed counties of themselves or did not form part of a hundred, were as follows:
…the inhabitants of the hundred in which such damage shall be done, shall be liable to yield damages to the person or persons injured and damnified by such demolishing or pulling down wholly or in part; and such damages shall and may be recovered by action to be brought in any of his Majesty's courts of record at Westminster …"
"11. Under the 1827 Act laws relative to remedies against the hundred were consolidated and amended. As regards relevant types of injury to property caused by persons riotously and tumultuously assembled together the 1827 Act stated in s 2 (with similar provision in s 12 for localities not in the nature of a hundred):
… the Inhabitants of the Hundred, Wapentake, Ward, or other District in the nature of a Hundred, by whatever name it be denominated, … shall be liable to yield full Compensation to the Person or Persons damnified by the Offence …"
"12. In cases where "… the Damage alleged to have been sustained … shall not exceed the Sum of Thirty Pounds …" ss 8 and 9 of the 1827 Act provided a summary remedy under which Justices at Petty Sessions, if they found that a claimant had sustained relevant damage,
"… shall make an Order for Payment of the Amount of such Damage …"
"13. The long title of the 1886 Act in its original form was "An Act to provide Compensation for Losses by Riots." This preceded a preamble in the following terms:
"Whereas by law the inhabitants of the hundred or other area in which property is damaged by persons riotously and tumultuously assembled together are liable in certain cases to pay compensation for such damage, and it is expedient to make other provision respecting such compensation and the mode of recovering the same."
"Compensation to persons for damage by riot
2.—(1.) Where a house, shop, or building in a police area has been injured or destroyed, or the property therein has been injured, stolen, or destroyed, by any persons riotously and tumultuously assembled together, such compensation as herein-after mentioned shall be paid out of the police fund of the area to any person who has sustained loss by such injury, stealing, or destruction; but in fixing the amount of such compensation regard shall be had to the conduct of the said person, whether as respects the precautions taken by him or as respects his being a party or accessory to such riotous or tumultuous assembly, or as regards any provocation offered to the persons assembled or otherwise.
(2.) Where any person having, sustained such loss as aforesaid has received, by way of insurance or otherwise, any sum to recoup him, in whole or in part, for such loss, the compensation otherwise payable to him under this Act shall, if exceeding such sum, be reduced by the amount thereof, and in any other case shall not be paid to him, and the payer of such sum shall be entitled to compensation under this Act in respect of the sum so paid in like manner as if he had sustained the said loss, and any policy of insurance given by such payer shall continue in force as if he had made no such payment, and where such person was recouped as aforesaid otherwise than by payment of a sum, this enactment shall apply as if the value of such recoupment were a sum paid.
Mode of awarding compensation
3.—(1.) Claims for compensation under this Act shall be made to the compensation authority of the police area in which the injury, stealing or destruction took place, and such compensation authority shall inquire into the truth thereof, and shall, if satisfied, fix such compensation as appears to them just.
(2.) A Secretary of State may from time to time make, and when made, revoke and vary regulations respecting the time, manner, and conditions within, in, and under which claims for compensation under this Act are to be made, and all claims not made in accordance with such regulations may be excluded. Such regulations may also provide for the particulars to be stated in any claim, and for the verification of any claim, and of any facts incidental thereto, by statutory declarations, production of books, vouchers, and documents, entry of premises, and otherwise, and may also provide for any matter which under this Act can be prescribed, and for the compensation authority obtaining information and assistance for determining the said claims.
Right of action to person aggrieved
4.—(1.) Where a claim to compensation has been made in accordance with the regulations, and the claimant is aggrieved by the refusal or failure of the compensation authority to fix compensation upon such claim, or by the amount of compensation fixed, he may bring an action against the compensation authority to recover compensation in respect of all or any of the matters mentioned in such claim and to an amount not exceeding that mentioned therein, but if in such action he fails to recover any compensation or an amount exceeding that fixed by the compensation authority, he shall pay the costs of the compensation authority as between solicitor and client.
Application of Act to wreck and machinery
6. This Act shall apply—
(b ) in the case of the injury or destruction, by persons riotously and tumultuously assembled together, of any machinery, whether fixed or movable, prepared for or employed in any manufacture, or agriculture, or any branch thereof, or of any erection or fixture about or belonging to such machinery, or of any steam engine or other engine for sinking, draining, or working any mine or quarry, or of any staith or erection used in conducting the business of any mine or quarry, or of any bridge, waggon-way, or trunk for conveying minerals or other product from any mine or quarry;in like manner as if such plundering, damage, injury, or destruction were an injury, stealing, or destruction in respect of which compensation is payable under the foregoing provisions of this Act, and as if, in the case of such ship, boat, or cargo not being in any police district, such plundering, damage, or destruction took place in the nearest police district.
As to claimants in the case of churches, public institutions, &c
7. For the purposes of this Act—
(a ) where a church or chapel has been injured or destroyed, or any property therein has been injured, stolen, or destroyed, the churchwardens or chapelwardens, if any, or, if there are none, the persons having the management of such church or chapel, or the persons in whom the legal estate in the same is vested; and(b ) where a school, hospital, public institution, or public building, has been injured or destroyed, or any property therein has been injured, stolen, or destroyed, the persons having the control of such school, hospital, institution, or building, or the persons in whom the legal estate in the same is vested;shall be deemed to be the persons who have sustained loss from such injury, stealing, or destruction, and claims may be made by any one or more of such persons in relation both to the building and to the property therein, and payment to any such claimant shall discharge the liability of the police authority to pay compensation, but shall be without prejudice to the right of any person to recover the compensation from such payee.
9. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—
The expression 'person' includes a body of persons, corporate or unincorporate."
"All claims shall be so delivered within fourteen clear days after the day when such injury, stealing, or destruction took place.
Provided that the police authority, on application to be made before the expiration of the fourteen days, may, for special cause shown, enlarge the period of fourteen days to forty-two days, and in the event of such application being refused, the applicant may, within seven days after such refusal, appeal to the Secretary of State, whose decision shall be conclusive as to whether the claim shall be received."
The provisions in the 1886 and the 1894 regulations also made provision for an appeal to the Secretary of State against a refusal to extend time: see Wise, The Law on Riots and Unlawful Assemblies 3rd ed., 1889, and 4th ed., 1907. The provision in the earlier versions of the regulations is in substantially similar terms to that in the 1921 Regulations.
(B) Legislation concerning immigration detention centres:
"Contracting out of certain detention centres
149.—(1) The Secretary of State may enter into a contract with another person for the provision or running (or the provision and running) by him, or (if the contract so provides) for the running by sub-contractors of his, of any detention centre or part of a detention centre.
(2) While a detention centre contract for the running of a detention centre or part of a detention centre is in force—
(a) the detention centre or part is to be run subject to and in accordance with the provisions of or made under this Part;
(4) The Secretary of State must appoint a contract monitor for every contracted out detention centre.
(6) The contract monitor is to have—
(a) such functions as may be conferred on him by detention centre rules;(b) the status of a Crown servant.
Intervention by Secretary of State
151.—(1) The Secretary of State may exercise the powers conferred by this section if it appears to him that—
(a) the manager of a contracted out detention centre has lost, or is likely to lose, effective control of the centre or of any part of it; or(b) it is necessary to do so in the interests of preserving the safety of any person, or of preventing serious damage to any property.
(2) The Secretary of State may appoint a person (to be known as the Controller) to act as manager of the detention centre for the period—
(a) beginning with the time specified in the appointment; and(b) ending with the time specified in the notice of termination under subsection (5).
(3) During that period—
(a) all the functions which would otherwise be exercisable by the manager or the contract monitor are to be exercisable by the Controller;(b) the contractor and any sub-contractor of his must do all that he reasonably can to facilitate the exercise by the Controller of his functions; and(c) the staff of the detention centre must comply with any directions given by the Controller in the exercise of his functions.
(4) The Controller is to have the status of a Crown servant.
Detainee custody officers
154.— (1) On an application made to him under this section, the Secretary of State may certify that the applicant—
(a) is authorised to perform escort functions; or(b) is authorised to perform both escort functions and custodial functions.
(2) The Secretary of State may not issue a certificate of authorisation unless he is satisfied that the applicant—
(a) is a fit and proper person to perform the functions to be authorised; and(b) has received training to such standard as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for the performance of those functions.
(5) If the Secretary of State considers that it is necessary for the functions of detainee custody officers to be conferred on prison officers or prisoner custody officers, he may make arrangements for that purpose.
(6) A prison officer acting under arrangements made under subsection (5) has all the powers, authority, protection and privileges of a constable.
(7) Schedule 11 makes further provision about detainee custody officers.
Custodial functions and discipline etc. at detention centers
155.—(1) Custodial functions may be discharged at a detention centre only by—
(a) a detainee custody officer authorised, in accordance with section 154(1), to perform such functions; or(b) a prison officer, or a certified prisoner custody officer, exercising functions in relation to the detention centre—(i) in accordance with arrangements made under section 154(5); or(ii) as a result of a contract entered into under section 150(1)(b)."
"2.—(1) A detainee custody officer exercising custodial functions has power—
(a) to search (in accordance with rules made by the Secretary of State) any detained person in relation to whom the officer is exercising custodial functions; and(b) to search any other person who is in, or is seeking to enter, any place where any such detained person is or is to be held, and any article in the possession of such a person.
(2) The power conferred by sub-paragraph (1)(b) does not authorise requiring a person to remove any of his clothing other than an outer coat, jacket or glove.
(3) As respects a detained person in relation to whom he is exercising custodial functions, it is the duty of a detainee custody officer—
(a) to prevent that person's escape from lawful custody;(b) to prevent, or detect and report on, the commission or attempted commission by him of other unlawful acts;(c) to ensure good order and discipline on his part; and(d) to attend to his wellbeing.
(4) The powers conferred by sub-paragraph (1), and the powers arising by virtue of sub-paragraph (3), include power to use reasonable force where necessary.
"(1) Where it appears necessary in the interests of security or safety that a detained person should not associate with other detained persons, either generally or for particular purposes, the Secretary of State (in the case of a contracted out detention centre) or the manager (in the case of a directly managed detention centre) may arrange for the detained person's removal from association accordingly.
(2) In cases of urgency, the manager of a contracted out detention centre may assume the responsibility of the Secretary of State under paragraph (1) but shall notify the Secretary of State as soon as possible after making the necessary arrangements.
(3) A detained person shall not be removed under this rule for a period of more than 24 hours without the authority of the Secretary of State.
(4) An authority under paragraph (3) shall be for a period not exceeding 14 days.
(7) The manager may arrange at his discretion for such a detained person as aforesaid to resume association with other detained persons, and shall do so if in any case the medical practitioner so advises on medical grounds.
(8) Particulars of every case of removal from association shall be recorded by the manager in a manner to be directed by the Secretary of State.
"41. - (1) A detainee custody officer dealing with a detained person shall not use force unnecessarily and, when the application of force to a detained person is necessary, no more force than is necessary shall be used."
Rule 53 provides that "no person shall have access to a detention centre unless authorised by statute or the manager or the Secretary of State".
(5) The parties' cases
"The Act of Parliament makes no exceptions at all – it provides simply that if injury is done by any persons riotously and tumultuously assembled together, then compensation is to be paid by the police authority in whose district that riot takes place."
(A) The status, powers and responsibilities of the parties:
(i) The status of the first and second claimants:
(ii) The relationship of the first and second claimants and the Home Secretary:
(iii) The responsibility of the Bedfordshire police force:
"No doubt there is an absolute and unconditional obligation binding the police authorities to take all steps which appear to them necessary for keeping the peace, for preventing crime, or for protecting property from criminal injury; …."
Mr Gatt placed considerable reliance on the statement that the obligation is "absolute and unconditional".
"There is no doubt that it is the duty of the police to give adequate protection to all persons and their property. In discharging this duty those in control of the police must exercise their judgment as to the manner in which that protection should be afforded."
"in deciding how to exercise his public duty of enforcing the law and keeping the peace, a chief constable has a discretion, which he must exercise even-handedly. Provided he acted within his discretion the courts would not interfere … in exercising that discretion a chief constable must clearly have regard to the resources available to him".
"Has the defendant done all that he knew was in his power to suppress the riots, that could reasonably be expected from a man of honesty and of ordinary prudence, firmness, and activity, under the circumstances in which he was placed?"
"Group 4 are responsible for the maintenance of order inside the complex. If the situation deteriorates then Group 4 can call on additional personnel both locally and regionally some of whom are control and restrain trained. If the situation is such that they cannot on their own deal with it effectively then Group 4 will after consultation with the Silver Commander … hand over the control of the Centre to the police as per the agreed protocol"
(iv) Did the first and second claimants have a responsibility in respect of the risk of riot and disorder in the detention centre?
(B) The scope and intent of the 1886 Act.
(i) The general approach:
"This constitutional consideration does not mean that, when deciding whether statutory language is clear and unambiguous and not productive of absurdity, the courts are confined to looking solely at the language in question in its context within the statute. That would impose on the courts much too restrictive an approach. No legislation is enacted in a vacuum. Regard may also be had to extraneous material, such as the setting in which the legislation was enacted. This is a matter of everyday occurrence."
"A court would only be justified in departing from the plain words of the statute were it satisfied that: (1) there is clear and gross balance of anomaly; (2) Parliament, the legislative promoters and the draftsman could not have envisaged such anomaly, could not have been prepared to accept it in the interest of a supervening legislative objective; (3) the anomaly can be obviated without detriment to such legislative objective; (4) the language of the statute is susceptible of the modification required to obviate the anomaly."
Lord Nicholls adopted this statement in Canterbury CC v Colley  AC 401.
(ii) Do the detention centre's buildings qualify as "buildings" under the 1886 Act?
(iii) Are the claimants qualifying persons under the 1886 Act?
(a) The legislative predecessors to the 1886 Act
" If the Act had never been made the trespassers would have been liable to answer for the whole injury in damages. To encourage people to resist persons thus riotously assembled, and to reward those, who, by doing their duty, shall have incurred their resentment, the same law has made a further provision, that as the trespassers are to be hanged the country shall pay the damages: and this by way of inducement to the inhabitants to be active in suppressing such riots which it is their duty to do and which being thus made their interest too, they are more likely to execute. This is the great principle of the law, that the inhabitants shall be in the nature of sureties for one another." (emphasis added)
"The case is clear: the Act puts the hundred, for civil purposes, in the place of the trespassers …"
Willes J stated:
"The hundred is not answerable criminally, but they cannot be considered free from blame. They may have been negligent, which is partly the principle of the Act…."
(b) Case law on the 1886 Act:
"an action to recover compensation under the statute; it was not brought to recover damages for any default on the part of the police authority."
"…the fact that this camp was a private place does not, in my opinion, prevent it being a place in which a riot could take place and in which damage by riot might take place. But it is said that the police had no control over the soldiers and that they were helpless to do anything. I do not think that contention is right. I think the police had the right of control directly a felony was committed in their presence. Of course they had not the power of exercising control. … [T]he fact that it might not be physically possible for the police to quell a disturbance does not affect the question of their legal rights. I am far from being satisfied that if the police in the neighbourhood of a military camp see the soldiers breaking it up they have not a legal right to apprehend them for the breach of the peace or for the felony which they are committing."
Swift J later (at 65) stated:
"the Act of Parliament does not give a citizen a right to compensation for damage by riot on any principle of blaming the police over the matter. The fact that the damage has been done in spite of the care and protection of the police or because of the negligence of the police does not affect the right of the claimant to have compensation. It is a right which is given to the individual who is hurt by a riot to have his damages shared by the whole of the community, and the community for the purpose of this sharing is the police district within which the building injured or destroyed is situated. The plaintiff is entitled to have the wrong which was done to her shared by all the contributors to the police fund in the police district of Surrey."
"…It is said that this camp under the circumstances ceased to be within the police district. The circumstances are that this camp was inhabited by soldiers who were under military discipline and control by military police. It was more convenient and very much wiser that soldiers… should be controlled by their own police than by the civilian police in the district. … But that is a long way from saying that the camp and the soldiers are taken out of the jurisdiction, if I may call it so, of the civilian police, and that the civilian police are in law deprived of the rights they would otherwise have within that part of the police district. There is no foundation, in my opinion, for saying anything of the sort. For convenience the officers wisely employed pickets and military police to look after the soldiers, and for convenience the civilian police do not interfere, as a rule, but they still maintain their rights in that part of the police district just the same as they do in other parts of it. There may be difficulties in their way in exercising those rights because of the necessarily superior forces possessed by the military powers in time of war; but that does not affect the legal position in the least. Therefore it seems to me quite clear that this camp was within the police district, and the first requisite to bring the matter within the Act is satisfied."
"…It is said that the Act must be… construed, whether by rule of common sense or otherwise, as to exclude for the purposes of the Act from the expression "Police District" any district in which a body, not the ordinary civilian police, is by law charged with the maintenance of law and order, and is itself empowered to maintain a police force; and it is said that this area was such a district because the military authorities were charged with the maintenance of law and order, I suppose so far as those who are under their jurisdiction were concerned, and were empowered to maintain a police force. In my opinion that proposition is quite unsustainable; there is no authority for it, nor can I in reason see any ground for contending that, because the particular individuals who formed the military body were subject to military discipline, the area in which they live should be withdrawn from the ordinary police protection of the rest of the county. That proposition therefore seems to me to fail."
"… It is said that by virtue of the powers with which the military authorities possess, having taken possession of [Whitley Common] as I have mentioned, that area ceased to be part of the police district as defined under the Act and was taken out of it. That appears to be a complete misapprehension of the facts. The area of the camp was, and still is, within the police district, although it was exclusively occupied by soldiers, and there seems to me to be no reason at all for suggesting that the ordinary barracks in any county occupied by the forces of the Crown and owned by the Crown are not within the police district in which they are situated. No authority has been suggested for that proposition, and it cannot be contended that military barracks are an Alsatia. The law runs there. Everybody in the military barracks is subject to the criminal law and to the civil law, and the police authorities have ordinary rights to enforce process there, subject to such limitations as may be imposed by the fact that the premises are premises of the Crown. I think that this area quite plainly was within the police district; … I have no doubt at all that this district continued to be part of the police district."
"In an ordinary case if damage is done in barracks the damage for the most part would be done to Crown property. I am far from saying that the Crown would not be entitled under those circumstances to recover compensation. Of course, questions would arise which under the Act with regard to damage would make it difficult in some cases, at any rate, to recover compensation."
"If a crowd of people collect in angry and threatening fashion this should become obvious to the local forces of order and it would then become their duty to prevent the crowd from becoming a riot. This is a duty which has been recognised for centuries and which until the 19th century was put upon the local administrative area, the hundred or wapentake, or whatever name it might be called; and there was a duty upon them to compensate for damage which was done by persons assembled riotously and tumultuously. The Act of 1886, in fact, did no more that modernise the mode of obtaining compensation and transferred the burden from the inhabitants of the hundred or wapentake to the local police authority. There is nothing secret or furtive about a crowd of people who are acting riotously and tumultuously. It seems to me that the right to compensation from public funds was given because public authority had failed to protect the public who were menaced by a threat which was, or ought to have been, obvious to the forces of law and order as they existed from time to time. In my judgment, the word "tumultuously" was added to "riotously" for the specific reason that it was intended to limit the liability of compensation to cases where the rioters were in such numbers and in such state of agitated commotion, and were generally so acting, that the forces of law and order should have been well aware of the threat which existed, and, if they had done their duty, should have taken steps to prevent the rioters from causing damage."
"There is a statutory duty on [the Bedfordshire Police Authority] to maintain an efficient and effective police force" and the 1886 Act "imposes a strict liability on [the Bedfordshire Police Authority] for a failure to prevent tumultuous and riotous assemblies causing injury to or theft of or destruction of certain types of property. If as part of the activity of maintaining an efficient and effective police force in Bedfordshire [the Bedfordshire Police Authority] fails to prevent such assemblies from doing this, then it is liable."
(iv) Matters not taken into account
(a) Analogy with alleged common law "source of their own loss" principle
"The doctrine of absolute liability, which was invented by the courts, can lead to absurd results when coupled with the employer's vicarious liability. .... So the courts have quite properly introduced a qualification of the employer's absolute liability. A principle of law has been established that, although in general the employer is under absolute liability in respect of such a breach, the employer may have a defence to an action against him by an employee who is also in breach."
(b) The role of the Home Secretary under the Regulations made pursuant to section 3(2)
(c) Statements made during the Parliamentary consideration of the Bill that became the 1886 Act:
(7) Conclusions on the preliminary issues and overall conclusion
(1) Joint Protocol Agreement Between Bedfordshire Police and Group 4 Immigration Services in Respect of Resolving Disturbances/Incidents at Yarl's Wood, Clapham, Bedford
1. Group 4 is contractually bound by the Secretary of State to run the Immigration Detention Centre known as Yarl's Wood (the "Detention Centre"). Nothing contained within this document alters that. The safety and security of everyone detained, employed and visiting within the centre must rest with Group 4 and nothing in this Agreement shall in any way alter the responsibilities and obligations of Group 4 under its contract with the Secretary of State (the "Contract").
2. The Bedfordshire Police has a legal duty to act in certain circumstances, using their powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and the Immigration Acts.
3. The purpose of this Agreement is to ensure a speedy response by Bedfordshire Police officers to serious incidents at the Detention Centre and one, which does not adversely affect their other operational duties.
4. The command and control of police officers, however engaged, remains always with the Bedfordshire Police.
5. Likewise, the command and control of Group 4 employees always remains with Group 4 management.
6. Nothing at 4 or 5 above prevents joint operations, the free flow of information and joint control within an agreed silver command structure giving primacy of command to Bedfordshire Police in the event that the assistance of Bedfordshire Police is requested by Group 4 in accordance with the Contract.
7. Staffing levels of Group 4 in support of the Contract will not in any way be altered as a result of this Agreement. It is the duty of Group 4 to manage all minor or protracted incidents within the Detention Centre under the terms and conditions of the Contract.
8. In the event of one of the following criteria being met, and only on the authority of an officer not below the rank of Superintendent, Bedfordshire Police undertake to assist Group 4 in resolving or containing the incident. The level of response will depend on the view of the authorising officer as to the severity of the incident.
i. Serious incident requiring Group 4 to establish an Incident Command and supporting structure pursuant to the Contract beyond the control of Group 4; or
ii. Threats of escape by large number; or
iii. The commission of a serious criminal offence where there is a threat to life or serious damage to property;
AND in the opinion of Group 4's Centre Manager, that Group 4 employees cannot reasonably resolve the incident safely. In these circumstances the Centre Manager will formally hand over control to the police by way of a written authority (see Annex 'A') and similarly when control is returned this will also be in writing (see Annex 'B'); both written authorities shall contain the time and date of the formal handover.
10. A full Gold/Silver/Bronze command structure will be implemented. Command of the operation will be with the senior police officer for the duration of the operation. Group 4 will undertake to provide appropriate staff for the various levels of command and will provide a communications base.
11. Group 4 will undertake to fund, without reservation, all officers judged by the officer in charge to be sufficiently needed to resolve the situation safely, their numbers and deployment being the sole responsibility of the Bedfordshire Police.
12. Nothing within this Agreement guarantees any police response beyond their statutory duties.
14. If any incident became protracted and was not involving any criminal activity, i.e. potential escape, then Bedfordshire Police will only support Group 4 for a period not exceeding 12 hours, beyond which time Group 4 will assume full responsibility.
(2) Yarl's Wood Immigration Centre
Group 4 Contingency Plans
2. Incident Command Structure
It is expected that for most incidents the Gold, Silver and Bronze Command Team would be mainly Group 4 personnel. However, it is recognised that in cases where support is requested (or imposed by the Immigration Service) from the Prison Service in the guise of 'Operation Tornado', the Gold Command Team would be operated by Prison Service National Operations Unit. In these circumstances, it is also likely that Prison Service Gold would appoint their own commanders at both Silver and Bronze levels.
2. Incident Briefing
Where possible, the Duty Manager/Duty Shift Manager should ensure that all staff who are required to participate in any way towards the resolution of an incident are fully briefed about:
• Location of incident
• General outline of incident (to date)
• Details about persons (including staff) involved
• Any current or likely dangers
• Precise instructions about individual roles and lines of command/authority
• Communications instructions
• Any plans for resolution of the incident
• Arrangements for relief, stand-down and refreshments
• De-brief process
In the case of protracted incidents the 'incident briefing' process will be conducted under the direction of the Staff Officer (silver command team) for:
a. All incoming internal/external Group 4 staff
b. All incoming external agency support staff i.e. Prison Service
c. All incoming operation 'Tornado' teams
d. Relief Silver Command Team members
e. All responding emergency services i.e. Police, Fire, and Ambulence
In preparation, the staff member carrying out the incident briefing should use the incident briefing form (Annex A) to record the details of the briefing. This form should be retained and passed to the Security Manager at the conclusion of the incident. The Security Manager should retain this form in the incident report file.
(3) Bedfordshire Police Contingency Plan No 149 Yarl's Wood
1.1 Yarl's Wood is an Immigration Detention Centre run by Group 4 Immigration Services under a contract on behalf of the United Kingdom Immigration Services. Officers from the Immigration Service are also present at the Centre. The Centre can hold up to 900 men, women and children of various nationalities, religious beliefs and denominations who are illegal entrants into the country and whose right to remain is being considered by the Immigration Service. The Centre will consist of two separate secure units. One holds up to 450 males and the other up to 450 single families and family groups. Those detained in each unit are allowed free association at all times, although they are expected to be in their rooms by midnight – this is not enforced. The complex and each unit within are secure in that entry and exit are controlled.
1.2 The Centre is not intended to hold exceptional risk detainees. Those that do become an exceptional risk will be removed by Group 4 to more suitable accommodation – generally a prison.
The intention of this Operational Order is in the event of an incident as far as reasonably practicable:
• To ensure the integrity of the security of Yarl's Wood IDC.
• To ensure the normal operation of the Centre by working with the other agencies.
• To ensure the safety of the public, the staff, the Police and those detained within Yarl's Wood IDC.
• To prevent and detect criminal offences and to keep the peace.
3. Risk Assessments
The following specific risks to the public have been identified that may affect the public/participants in this operation:
• Public Disorder
Control measures are shown at Appendix C.
3.2 Health and Safety
The following specific risks to Police Officers have been identified that may affect the Police Officers involved in this operation:
• Ground Conditions/Weather Conditions
• Major Incident
• Poor Communication
• Internal Layout
• Knives in Kitchen
Control measures are shown at Appendix C.
4.1 There are a number of scenarios and Police responses to consider. Officers engaged in any operation at the Centre must be mindful of the need for scene preservation for any subsequent criminal investigation.
(a) Escape/Attempted Escape of a Detainee.
(b) Demonstration outside the Centre.
(c) Serious Incidents within the complex which could include:
• Serious Public Disorder/Riot
• Hostage/Siege Situation
• Roof Top Protest
• Bomb Threat
• Violent Detainee
(d) Death of a Detainee.
(e) Partial/Full Evacuation of Premises.
(f) Industrial Dispute.
4.2 The Police response to any incident at the Yarl's Wood I.D.C. will be dependant on the seriousness of the incident. To assist the 'B' Division Chief Inspector or the Duty Inspector 'B' Division, Call Handling Centre must dispatch a double crewed uniformed mobile to the Centre to make contact with the Duty Officer Group 4 and obtain a situation report. This unit will act at the Control vehicle until further notice or the arrival of the Duty Inspector who will assume the role of Bronze Commander. The Duty Superintendent must also be briefed in relation to any incidents at the Centre.
4.3 If a large scale Police response is required it will be co-ordinated by Operational & Contingency Planning, G Division.
4.9 PROTOCOL – A joint protocol between Group 4 and Bedfordshire Police has been agreed in respect of resolving disturbances/incidents within Yarl's Wood I.D.C., a copy of the agreement is attached at Appendix D.
4.10 PRIMACY – Group 4 are contracted by the Home Office to deal with safety and security of their personnel and those detained within Yarl's Wood I.D.C.. However, in the event of the following criteria being met, and only on the authority of an Officer not below the rank of Superintendent, Bedfordshire Police will assume control of the Centre.
(a) Serious incident that Group 4 on their own cannot safely resolve or
(b) Threat of escape by a large number or
(c) The commission of a serious criminal offence where there is a threat to life or serious damage to property
AND in the opinion of the Group 4 Centre Manager, Group 4 cannot reasonably resolve the incident safely. In these circumstances the Centre Manager will formally hand over control to the Police by way of a written authority, and similarly, when control is returned this will also be in writing. Both written authorities will contain the time and date of the formal hand over. The written authorities are attached at Annex A and Annex B of the protocol.
4.11 Police Response Options
(c) Serious Incident Within the Complex
Policeresponse will be to preserve life and property and to prevent and detect criminal offences. The integrity of the Security of Yarl's Wood I.D.C. will be a priority. The Police response will include CMS trained PSU's. Group 4 are responsible for the maintenance of order in the complex. If the situation deteriorates then Group 4 can call on additional personnel both locally and regionally some of whom are control and restrain trained. If the situation is such that they cannot on their own deal with it effectively then Group 4 will after consultation with the Silver Commander (Superintendent) hand over the control of the Centre to the Police as per the agreed protocol.