Brian Christopher Dalrymple · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 18 Sep 2014•West London

Published report and response evidence

This report’s concerns and statements found in recipients’ published responses. Statements are included even where no link to an individual concern is recorded. A link shows an evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
6

Raised in this report

Recipients
5

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 5 recipients

Stated actions
1

Described in responses

Full report text

This is the full text from the original published report.

Open published report

Concerns and recipient responses

Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised6

  1. Absence of a comprehensive and accessible computerised clinical record for each detainee
    Part of recurring concern: Electronic patient records failing to make relevant clinical information available and actionablePart of recurring concern: Incomplete, inaccurate or unavailable clinical and care records
  2. Employment of medical practitioners without knowledge necessary to their role
  3. Inadequate routine medical assessment of segregated detainees

Stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.1

  1. The GEO Group UK Ltd

    Consider lessons from the inquest in relation to the company’s other operations where appropriate.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.1

  1. The GEO Group UK Ltd

    No practicable steps can be taken concerning Harmondsworth working practices because management responsibility transferred to Mitie.

    Unable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Absence of a comprehensive and accessible computerised clinical record for each detainee

Wider context from the report

“(5) The absence of a comprehensive and accessible (computerised) clinical record relating to each detainee at IRCs Harmondsworth and Colnbrook. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Electronic patient records failing to make relevant clinical information available and actionable; Incomplete, inaccurate or unavailable clinical and care records.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Employment of medical practitioners without knowledge necessary to their role

Wider context from the report

“(3) Medical practitioners may be employed at Harmondsworth IRC without knowledge necessary to that role. The locum GP who gave evidence at the inquest was unaware of Detention Centre Rules 2001 or of the duties imposed on him- rule 35, for example. He was also unaware that healthcare staff had access to wing history documents. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Inadequate routine medical assessment of segregated detainees

Wider context from the report

“(4) Routine medical visits to segregated detainees are inadequate properly to assess detainees' healthcare needs. The evidence was that each detainee would be asked through the wicket “Any medical problems?”, and if the answer was negative, there would be no further interaction- witness ████████ described the practice as “not fit for purpose”; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Lack of detention staff awareness and recognition of mental-health indicators

Wider context from the report

“(1) There is a lack of awareness amongst detention staff at Harmondsworth of: (i) behaviours (and reported experiences) which may indicate the existence of mental health issues affecting particular detainees- particularly in relation to schizophrenia; and (ii) the need to ensure that such potential indicators are brought to the attention of those responsible for the particular detainee's healthcare. Despite the training which had been received by such staff prior to Mr Dalrymple's detention, indications of his mental ill-health were not recognised as such. Witness ████████ identified events and circumstances from the point of Mr Dalrymple's presentation at port and throughout his period of detention that he said “should have been picked up” and triggered a psychiatric assessment (for which there was an “overwhelming need”). In Mr Dalrymple's case such concerns were not properly acknowledged at Harmondsworth. The DCOs had not received sufficient training in the recognition of relevant indicators. The evidence was that officers were and remain unclear whether particular behaviours, unusual in local society at large, should be regarded as significant amongst the population at Harmondsworth. It was clear from the evidence given by the Deputy Immigration Manager, and that of a clinical Contract Manager / Interim Healthcare Manager that significant reliance is placed on the detention officers to raise concerns over a detainee's mental heath. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure frontline personnel recognise mental-health indicators.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to actively communicate relevant observations to healthcare staff

Wider context from the report

“(2) Relevant and significant observations recorded by detention centre staff and others are not actively brought to the attention of relevant healthcare staff. In the present case, custody officers' entries in wing history records were sufficient (alone or in combination) to alert a reader to the possibility of mental health issues affecting Mr Dalrymple whilst detained at Harmondsworth IRC; these indicators were missed. In the terms of Witness ████████ the overall picture of developing (relapsing) mental disorder was not available to any one set of people. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to bring potential mental-health indicators to responsible healthcare staff

Wider context from the report

“(1) There is a lack of awareness amongst detention staff at Harmondsworth of: (i) behaviours (and reported experiences) which may indicate the existence of mental health issues affecting particular detainees- particularly in relation to schizophrenia; and (ii) the need to ensure that such potential indicators are brought to the attention of those responsible for the particular detainee's healthcare. Despite the training which had been received by such staff prior to Mr Dalrymple's detention, indications of his mental ill-health were not recognised as such. Witness ████████ identified events and circumstances from the point of Mr Dalrymple's presentation at port and throughout his period of detention that he said “should have been picked up” and triggered a psychiatric assessment (for which there was an “overwhelming need”). In Mr Dalrymple's case such concerns were not properly acknowledged at Harmondsworth. The DCOs had not received sufficient training in the recognition of relevant indicators. The evidence was that officers were and remain unclear whether particular behaviours, unusual in local society at large, should be regarded as significant amongst the population at Harmondsworth. It was clear from the evidence given by the Deputy Immigration Manager, and that of a clinical Contract Manager / Interim Healthcare Manager that significant reliance is placed on the detention officers to raise concerns over a detainee's mental heath. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure frontline personnel recognise mental-health indicators; Unreliable circulation of safety-critical mental health information.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Consider lessons from the inquest in relation to the company’s other operations where appropriate.

Verbatim wording from the response

“However, the lessons learned from Inquests such as this are invaluable and I can assure you on behalf of GEO that we will be considering them very carefully in relation to the company’s other operations where appropriate, and in order to try and ensure that tragic deaths, such as this, can be avoided in future.”

Source location

2014-0410-Response-by-The-GEO-Group-UK-Ltd
Page 1 · response
Published 18 September 2014

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

No practicable steps can be taken concerning Harmondsworth working practices because management responsibility transferred to Mitie.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As the Contract for the management of Harmondsworth IRC passed to Mitie on 01st September 2014, there is of course no practicable steps GEO can take in relation to the working practices at Harmondsworth.”

Source location

2014-0410-Response-by-The-GEO-Group-UK-Ltd
Page 1 · response
Published 18 September 2014

Open published response
Back to top

Information checked against the published report and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Official responses located
1/5

Data last updated 7 September 2026