Recommendation 9: Ensure effective operation and auditing of all Rule 35 limbs
From The Brook House Inquiry Report, published 19 September 2023.
Recommendation
The Home Office must, across the immigration detention estate, assure itself that all three limbs of Rule 35 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001 (reports by a medical practitioner where: (i) it is likely that a detained person's health would be injuriously affected by continued detention (Rule 35(1)); (ii) it is suspected that a detained person has suicidal intentions (Rule 35(2)); or (iii) there is a concern that a detained person may have been a victim of torture (Rule 35(3))) are being followed, are operating effectively and are adequately resourced, in recognition of the key safeguarding role that the Rule plays. The Home Office must also regularly audit the use of Rule 35 in order to identify trends, any training needs and required improvements.
In brief (written by this site)
The Inquiry asked the Home Office to ensure and audit Rule 35 operations. In a letter of May 2025, quoted in a July 2025 court judgment, Dame Angela Eagle, Minister for Border Security and Asylum, stated that the Home Office was reviewing Detention Centre Rules 34 and 35 to reform safeguarding, but did not mention auditing (Dame Angela Eagle, May 2025). In December 2025, Mrs Justice Jefford in the Administrative Court found that evidence showed no progress had been made on reviewing the rule because other work was prioritised (Mrs Justice Jefford, Dec 2025). HM Inspectorate of Prisons found in September 2025 that significant weaknesses remained in Rule 35 processes, with appointment scheduling delays and routine failures to report detainees suspected of having suicidal intentions (HM Inspectorate of Prisons, Sep 2025).
Sources
AI-generated summary of the record on this page, checked by a second model and automatic checks, 5 Oct 2026. The record below is the sources' own words.
About this summary
This recommendation applies across many organisations. The record reflects central policy activity; adoption in individual organisations may vary.
Government response
30 out of the 33 recommendations made by the Brook House Inquiry have been accepted or partially accepted.
How this response relates to the recommendation
Site note: The written answer gives this sentence once, for 30 of the 33 recommendations together: every recommendation except 7, 19 and 30, which it says were rejected. It does not say which of the 30 were accepted in full and which in part, so the site records "Accepted, fully or in part (not specified)". The same words are recorded on recommendations 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32 and 33. Recommendations 1, 2 and 3 are among the 30 but are not given this row, because the Minister's letter of 22 May 2025 states a position on each of them.
Earlier statement from Home Office (1)
6.4.1. There are a number of safeguards underpinning detention decisions which are highlighted in this response. In June 2016 the Home Office introduced the detention gatekeeper who review the suitability of individuals for detention, with a clear focus on removability and vulnerability. In September 2016, the adults at risk in immigration detention (AaR) policy was implemented, setting out that vulnerable people should be detained only when the immigration factors outweigh the risk of harm to the individual in any given case. These measures were still bedding in during the relevant period and are now considered business as usual and fully integrated into detention decision making processes. The Home Office is clear that decisions to detain, and subsequent decisions to maintain or release must be made in accordance with detention policy, including the AaR policy.
6.4.2. The Home Office is currently undertaking a review of the AaR policy and DC Rules 34 and 35. DC Rule 34 requires that every detained individual be given a physical and mental examination within 24 hours of admission to an IRC, provided they consent to this, and DC Rule 35 ensures that particularly vulnerable detained individuals are brought to the attention of those with direct responsibility for authorising, maintaining and reviewing detention.
How this response relates to the recommendation
Site note: CP 1041 is organised by ten key issues, not by recommendation, and states no position on any individual recommendation. Its only general statement of acceptance is that "The government has carefully considered and accepts the broad thrust of the recommendations". The words "in principle" do not appear anywhere in the document.
Delivery
Home Office says in progress (22 May 2025)
The Home Office is currently undertaking a wholesale review of the Adults at Risk in Immigration Detention (AaR) policy and Detention Centre Rules 34 and 35, with external engagement sessions with external stakeholders having recently taken place. All feedback options for reform have been captured and we remain on track to complete the review in spring 2025. This work will aim to deliver significant reform to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of safeguarding policies. The review seeks to ensure vulnerable people are quickly identified and place individual needs at the centre of the Adults at Risk policy.
From: R (D1914 and AAA) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; R (AVY) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Dame Angela Eagle, Minister for Border Security and Asylum
Site note: These are the words of the letter of 22 May 2025 from the Minister for Border Security and Asylum to Bell Ribeiro-Addy MP, as reproduced in the judgment in R (D1914 and AVY) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 1853 (Admin). The letter itself is not published: it is on GOV.UK nowhere, was not deposited in Parliament and is not annexed to the judgment, so the judgment is the record that carries it and is the source this row cites. The judgment quotes it on this recommendation at paragraph 168.
Earlier statement on delivery (1)
Home Office (15 January 2025)
the remaining 13 (recommendations 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 31, 32 and 33) on track for closure by summer 2025
Site note: One written answer of 15 January 2025 addresses all 33 recommendations in groups: it names each recommendation in one of four groups and says nothing further about any of them individually. It does not say which of the 30 it describes as "accepted or partially accepted" were accepted in full and which in part.
Site note: The source gives this passage once, for the 13 remaining accepted recommendations. The same words are recorded on recommendations 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 31, 32 and 33.
What other bodies have found
In their own words. These do not change the delivery statement above.
Administrative Court (15 December 2025)
Recommendation 9 from the Inquiry was a review of the operation of Rule 35 to ensure that all three limbs were operating properly. Ms Hardy’s evidence indicated that that review was being undertaken. However, the working group minutes showed that no progress had been made and other work was prioritised.
From: R (AH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; R (IS) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Mrs Justice Jefford, High Court judge
Site note: These are the words of the judge, Mrs Justice Jefford, at paragraph 260 of her judgment in R (AH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 3269 (Admin), summarising the evidence before the court about the Home Office's response to this recommendation. It is the court's account, not a statement by the Home Office.
Published evidence
Published findings referenced by inspectorates, select committees, official progress reports, and other sources. Source type badge indicates whether the finding is independent or government self-reported. Each finding is this site's summary of what the source found, with a link to the source; this site does not add its own progress rating.
Summary by this site of the published finding
3.11 Local Home Office teams were well focused on the need for health care to improve the reporting of safeguarding need and had introduced monitoring and weekly meetings to improve performance. However, there were still significant weaknesses in the Rule 34 and 35 processes (see Glossary). 3.12 It could take up to three weeks to schedule a Rule 35 appointment, which was far too long. There was an almost routine failure to submit Rule 35 reports when detainees were suspected of being suicidal.
View detailed findings
3.11 Local Home Office teams were well focused on the need for health care to improve the reporting of safeguarding need and had introduced monitoring and weekly meetings to improve performance. However, there were still significant weaknesses in the Rule 34 and 35 processes (see Glossary). 3.12 It could take up to three weeks to schedule a Rule 35 appointment, which was far too long. There was an almost routine failure to submit Rule 35 reports when detainees were suspected of being suicidal.
Responsible bodies
Themes and tags
Who has spoken
- Home Office
Response, delivery statement - Administrative Court
Finding