Nearly 100 migrants suing Government over ‘ill-treatment’ at Manston centre

Your support helps us to tell the story

Support Now

Find out moreClose

As your White House correspondent, I ask the tough questions and seek the answers that matter.

Your support enables me to be in the room, pressing for transparency and accountability. Without your contributions, we wouldn't have the resources to challenge those in power.

Your donation makes it possible for us to keep doing this important work, keeping you informed every step of the way to the November election

Andrew Feinberg

White House Correspondent

A group of 96 migrants previously held at the Manston processing centre are suing the Government over claims they were subjected to “ill-treatment” by staff, the High Court has been told.

Lawyers acting for the asylum seekers say they were “unlawfully detained” at the short-term holding facility in Kent for varying periods between September and November 2022.

The individuals faced “egregious conditions”, including “instances of humiliation”, that affected their “personal hygiene and wellbeing”, the court was told.

At a hearing on Friday, a judge granted the migrants anonymity in the legal proceedings after being told they may be at risk of harm in their country of origin if identified.

The claims are being brought against the Home Office, with the department yet to formally file a defence.

It is understood the legal proceedings have been paused until late October this year, amid efforts to reach settlements in the cases.

Agata Patyna, representing the migrants, said in written arguments that the cases involved alleged “breaches of fundamental rights, including the right to liberty and prohibition on inhuman and degrading treatment, in respect of detention of large numbers of individuals in Manston House”.

“There is a strong public interest in the court determining the legality of the events complained of by the claimants,” she said.

The barrister said all of the migrants had made protection claims in the UK, with 54 being recognised as refugees or given humanitarian protection.

She said the group included unaccompanied children, women who were pregnant at the time of their detention, vulnerable people with mental health conditions and disabilities and victims of trafficking, sexual offences and torture.

The migrants should be anonymised “to protect their legitimate interests, safety, privacy and welfare” and in relation to the “highly personal, distressing information” allegedly linked to their treatment at Manston, the court was told.

This includes an alleged “lack of adequate access to feminine hygiene and menstruation products” and claims linked to “severe bleeding in pregnancy/miscarriage” and “struggling to breastfeed a disabled child”, Ms Patyna said.

She added that allegations are made over “a child wearing soiled nappies”, the “humiliation of Muslim women by having to remove their hijabs in front of others” and the “humiliation of a Muslim child having to eat non-Halal meat”.

One child has an “ongoing fear of going to the toilet on their own, without an adult present, in consequence of the trauma suffered while detained”, the court was told.

Judge John Dagnall concluded that granting anonymity to the migrants was “necessary to secure proper administration of justice” and protect their interests.

He said: “It does seem to me that I should also bear in mind that, particularly in the light of recent events, there are sections of the populous who may be adversely inclined to asylum seekers”.

The Manston site hit the headlines in 2022 after concerns were raised about overcrowding.

It is used to process new arrivals of people who have entered the UK by boat crossing the English Channel.

In November 2022, 4,000 people were at the site – at least double its 1,600 capacity – in what was branded by one Kent MP as a “breach of humane conditions”.

Overcrowding with “unacceptable conditions” was flagged by inspectors the previous month, with the Home Office previously saying significant improvements had been made since then.

A Home Office spokesperson said: “It would be inappropriate to comment while there are ongoing legal proceedings.”