Video Conferencing At IRC Colnbrook
Peter Rose is the Head of Security and Operations at Colnbrook Immigration Removal centre. He joined Serco in 1996 after a long career in the Army where he served as a Gunnery Officer and was at one time responsible for the setting up of practise ranges during the first Gulf war. It was during this time he developed a healthy scepticism for technological fixes. This was due in no small part to finding out that electronic systems designed to work in northern Europe were less than reliable in the hotter climate of the gulf. He had to instigate a ‘back to basics’ drive to enable our forces to have effective use of their gunnery. It has given him a belt and br aces attitude to matters.
Colnbrook immigration removal centre is the most secure removal centre within the UKBA estate. It has been built to category B prison standard. It is located close to London Heathrow Airport and was opened August 2004. The short term holding facility is used by UK Border Agency enforcement units to reduce reliance on police facilities and to provide a short term assessment/induction facility prior to moving to a main centre. It is used by both adult males and females. The contract director, Michael Guy, has a senior management team which consists of a deputy contract director and five assistant directors for residence, religion culture and activities, HR & development, security and operations and compliance. It has 388 bed spaces. It uses a video conferencing system to enable court appearances to be made without the Detainee having to leave the centre. Custodial Review visited to see how it works and the effects it has on detainees and staff.
CR the Custodial Review
PR Peter Rose
CR You have had a video conferencing system here for a while, how long has it been in use? And who had it installed
PR The system has been here for about three and a half years, it was installed by the UK Border agency after a requirement for it was written into the centres operating contract. Its presence and use is now a prerequisite of holding the operating contract.
CR Can a detainee insist on going to court?-Even though the video link is far more convenient?
PR I believe they can, it’s their right to do so however most choose to stay within this facility and use the convenience of the video link. I served 3 years in the court service and it used to be that someone could insist on a court appearance, however now the video link is established that right has been changed. However a judge can still insist on seeing a prisoner or detainee in person in court if they wish to.
CR Why was it installed and what have been the benefits?
PR From the Centres perspective its best explained if I describe how we operated the system when people had to appear in person in court.
First thing in the morning we would assemble the 5 to 10 individuals who were due to go to court. They would go through the process required for them to leave the centre. This involved them having to be given everything they may need for the whole day. Paperwork, medication, dietary information, information on where they were going and why.
Then a van would arrive from the court escort service and they would be driven to the court at Hatton Cross. They would be locked up at the court all day, save for the time they were actually in the courtroom. If they were seen early or late, they would be there until everyone had been in court- usually 5pm. This can be a very frustrating and stressful time, mostly because they are unable to do any of the activities they would normally have access to here. Then the van would bring them back, possibly calling on two other centres on the way. On their return they would have to go through the process of being accepted back into the centre, searched and ID checked. Then they may need to be fed and have any issues addressed. It is a whole day out and a huge amount of stress for both the individual and organisation for what may be just a 10 minute appearance in court. Then there are the financial, personnel and environmental costs involved in all the organisation and transport.
So the UKBA looked at this and decided that it would be possible the save the costs of transport and organisation and relieve the detainee of the stress and boredom involved in spending a day moving around in a restricted environment. There were also a few incidences of disturbances when a decision went against a detainee, and as they had spent the day in a stressful environment they reacted in a way that was uncharacteristic. They are far fewer when the situation happens in their usual environment. It is possible to give a detainee all the benefits of appearing in court without them having to leave the centre.
CR What about operating the system?-Does it have a large dedicated room and an operator? And what about the detainees legal representation and their ability to talk privately?
PR We have a virtual courtroom; it’s a small room with a desk and chair. There is a microphone on the desk and there is a large video screen and a video camera. Its not a large room, however it is private and the sound does not carry outside the room. The door does have a small observation window so that occasional visual checks can be made if it is thought necessary. The legal representative is usually at court however they can be within the room. Quite a lot of the detainees present their own cases to the court, so the legal representative’s location is not an issue. If the detainee needs to speak to the lawyer then the judge can call a recess. Quite often there is a preliminary talk between them prior to the Judge starting the hearing.
 CR Who wrote the specification for the equipment? Were their reservations? Did Serco install it and who maintains it?
PR We did not have any input into the equipment at all. At the time of its installation I was the Security Manager here and I had a lot of serious reservations about it being installed. This was partly my attitude to reliance on technical solutions. Another of my major concerns was that it would be damaged by a detainee who became disgruntled by a decision. And that they could become injured as a result. As the detainee is alone in the room for most of the time I considered this to be a substantial risk. The installation was done by the UKBA private contractor. We provided the room and the services, the contractor came in and all the equipment and software was installed. They also maintain it and will come out within 24 hours to sort out any problems. This is the case for any exclusively UK Border Agency IT equipment, their contractors supply and maintain it. We at SERCO have our own IT equipment arrangements. The system has broken down once, however it was fixed in very short order and the court appearances were rescheduled for another day.
CR What about sitting the person in the chair and turning the kit on, is that done by UKBA staff or Serco personnel? Is it used only for court appearances?
PR It’s operated by our staff, originally the system could only connect with one court, now it can be used to connect with any court that has similar equipment, our staff have been trained to operate the equipment on UKBA behalf. However they tell me it’s not a complex process to learn. It’s not used exclusively for the court, for the first time recently we had a video link with the Netherlands, this was so that the officials in that country could determine if the person we had in residence was one of their citizens. We have quite a lot of visits from embassies when there is some doubt as to the nationality of a person. If the video link can be used to save time and travel it clearly makes sense to do it.
CR What about damage to the equipment by a dissatisfied detainee, does it happen and why?
PR There has only been one case of it in the three and a half years. And the incidence is much lower than the number of problems we have in court and a lot less than I thought it would be. I think the reasons for this are that people who may react in an adverse way to a judge’s decision are not as stressed as they would be after a day spent at the court. This is probably due to their being in an environment they are used to; they have not had a long day spent in travelling in a van and sitting in a court cell. It’s also perceived by the detainees as a facility that helps them, so they don’t take out their disappointments on it. They view the video link as something that gives them access to their lawyer as well as the judge. So there are benefits to the detainee as well as considerably lower costs. I am now convinced of its benefits, not just from the environmental and cost point of view, but also from the point of view of the comfort and convenience of the detainee.
CR Thanks for talking to the Custodial.
|
