Mr R’s and Mrs R’s Story
Jump to
Mr R has learning disabilities and a mental health condition which causes paranoia. In December 2006 he went overseas on holiday to stay with some family friends for a few days. His parents had meant to travel with him, but were unable to do so because of his father’s ill health. This was the first time Mr R had travelled abroad on his own.
On his return Mr R was stopped by two trainee customs officers at his local airport because of the large amount of tobacco he was carrying. The officers then interviewed Mr R about his trip, his means of funding it, and the tobacco. Contrary to the UK Border Agency’s guidance, the customs officers did not check at the start of the interview whether Mr R was fit and well, or whether he had any medical condition of which they needed to be aware, nor did they ask him to read and sign the notes of the interview. If they had done so, they would have discovered that Mr R could not read or write. Mr R told them that he received benefits, but could not tell them what they were. The officers strip searched Mr R, at one point leaving him naked. One of the officers noted that the reasons for the strip search had been that a drugs trace test (which was known to be unreliable) on Mr R’s luggage had proved positive, and because Mr R had appeared ‘nervous, evasive’ when questioned. Although Mr R had referred to his disabilities and one of the officers had written ‘Mental health problems. Disability.’ in his notebook, the officers took no action in response to this and simply continued with the interview. No drugs were found. Mr R was later allowed to leave, but the tobacco he had been carrying was seized.
Mrs R subsequently complained about the way the UK Border Agency had treated her son. She said that he had found the ordeal frightening and humiliating, and had been left so traumatised that he refused to travel on his own, or from the local airport, again. In their initial response to the complaint the UK Border Agency expressed cynicism about the extent of Mr R’s disability and his needs. They continued to do this throughout the complaints process, despite Mrs R sending them evidence of the disability benefits Mr R was receiving and reports on his mental health and abilities from a consultant psychiatrist and a psychologist.
What our investigation found
We found that the UK Border Agency had not had regard to Mr R’s disability rights in the way that it had carried out its functions, nor taken account of those rights as a relevant consideration when making decisions regarding Mr R. Those failings were apparent both in their treatment of Mr R and in their handling of Mrs R’s complaint.
As soon as Mr R had referred to his disabilities, the customs officers should have stopped the interview and rearranged it for when an appropriate adult could be present to protect his rights. Instead, not only had they pressed on regardless, they had failed to follow proper interviewing protocols, which might have helped them to identify Mr R’s disabilities, and deal with him appropriately as a vulnerable adult. Had the UK Border Agency done what they should have done and arranged for an appropriate adult to be present, that person would have been able to explain that Mr R’s difficulties in answering questions were due to his learning disabilities and not evidence of evasive behaviour. Not only would the matter not have progressed as far as a strip search, but Mr R would have had support and protection in what was for him a terrifying situation.
The UK Border Agency’s subsequent failure to acknowledge Mr R as a disabled person in their complaint handling, together with the loss of the tape recording of Mr R’s interview, only added insult to injury.
We found that Mr R experienced injustice as a consequence of the maladministration in the UK Border Agency’s interaction with him and that Mrs R experienced injustice as a consequence of the maladministration in their complaint handling. We upheld the complaint about the UK Border Agency.
What happened next
The UK Border Agency apologised to Mr R and Mrs R and paid Mr R £5,000 compensation for the distress, humiliation, intimidation and anxiety they had caused him, and £1,000 to Mrs R for the offence and upset caused to her by their poor handling of her complaint. The UK Border Agency also agreed to explore with Mrs R and Mr R what the UK Border Agency might do to enable Mr R to feel comfortable using his local airport in the future. The UK Border Agency further agreed to review the disability awareness training provided to their customs officers, with a particular emphasis on identifying non-visible disabilities, such as learning disabilities and mental health conditions. They also agreed to review their policy on the storage of tape recordings.
