Skip to content
© Copyright, Independent Monitoring Boards 2025.

Brook House inquiry lessons ignored: Home Office failing to tackle toxic culture and overuse of restraint in detention

Published:

The Independent Monitoring Board (IMB) has today (26 November 2025) published a report on the use of force against people in immigration detention.  IMBs’ findings reveal a troubling pattern of force being applied inconsistently, disproportionately, and without adequate justification, often undermining the dignity and welfare of highly vulnerable individuals.

The report highlights how routine handcuffing, particularly during hospital transfers, appears to have become the default rather than the exception – indeed, Gatwick IMB found that nearly 100% of detained individuals taken to hospital appointments were restrained. In one case, a frail 70-year-old man was handcuffed despite paperwork noting no evidence of risk, yet the duty director’s approval cited risk on escort, raising serious questions about the oversight of risk assessments.

The IMB National Chair, Elisabeth Davies, has written to the Home Office raising concerns about the volume of handcuffing and the lack of clear justification provided. The outcome of the promised Home Office review of handcuff usage and risk assessment procedures is keenly awaited. Meanwhile, IMBs continue to observe blanket approaches to handcuffing and inconsistent justifications for its usage.

Key findings include:

  • Inconsistent application of restraint: Practices vary between facilities run by Home Office contractors, with some decisions appearing to be influenced by operational convenience or local preferences rather than individual risk.

At Luton Airport, the IMB was informed that detained individuals are routinely handcuffed when being escorted to removal flights due to authorities expressing this as a preference, a factor that the IMB believes should have no bearing on the decision to use restraint. In contrast, at Manchester and Birmingham airports, the decision is left to contracted escort staff. At Manchester’s Dallas Court reporting centre, men are routinely restrained, but women are not.

  • Missed opportunities for de-escalation: Language barriers and a failure to use interpretation services may have led to the unnecessary use of force, with many individuals left unable to understand what is happening.

In one case, force was used against a detained person who did not stand when asked. Had translation services been used this may have negated the need for any use of force, as what was perceived as non-compliance may have simply been a lack of understanding.

  • No evidence of a trauma-informed approach: Despite many detained people having experienced trauma, including torture and trafficking, IMBs found nothing to indicate that this was being considered when planning or executing force interventions.

A man with mental health difficulties had a Vulnerable Adult Care Plan in place, but officers failed to follow the guidance included on how to support him. As a result, he became distressed and force was used against him.

  • Concerning staff attitudes and organisational culture: Some staff and trainers demonstrated a disregard for proportionality and accountability, with reports of coercive practices and inappropriate comments during training.

A personal protection trainer told officers, “If someone’s coming at me, I’m going to keep myself safe. I don’t worry about what’s proportionate, I won’t worry about Serco or my job, my priority is to look after myself”.

  • Significant gaps in the recording of force: IMBs identified incomplete documentation, inaccurate records, and ineffective review processes, raising concerns about governance and accountability.

A man was subjected to multiple restraints, including rigid bar cuffs, a waist-restraint belt, and thigh and ankle restraints for over four and a half hours, and was twice carried by a four-person team. Yet the documentation omitted key information, including any evidence that the individual had failed to comply despite this being the justification given to the IMB for the continued use of restraints.

Elisabeth Davies, IMB National Chair, said:

“The findings of this report are deeply concerning. For the use of force to be lawful, it must be necessary, reasonable, proportionate and justifiable, but what we are seeing is a system where restraint has become routine, oversight is weak, and the dignity of detained individuals is too often disregarded.

The Brook House inquiry showed how abuse can flourish when warning signs are ignored and toxic cultures take hold. Worryingly, this report highlights that the Home Office is still not doing enough to prevent such failures from happening again. Without urgent attention to the culture within detention settings, the rights and dignity of those held risk being further eroded.

We need meaningful cultural change and robust accountability to protect the rights of highly vulnerable people in detention. As National Chair, I call on the Home Office to act urgently to strengthen oversight, embed trauma-informed practices, and ensure that force is only used when absolutely necessary.”