Inhuman and degrading treatment of FGP – Serco


West Midlands against Policing for Profit asked the West Midlands Police Authority:

In a High Court Judgement in the case of FGP on 5th July 2012 a high court judge found that Serco, had acted in violation of the detainee’s right not to be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment. The Court found that to have restrained FGP in this way throughout his admission to hospital was a violation of his right not to be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment and was therefore in violation of Article 3 ECHR.  The judge noted that FGP was co-operative and very concerned for his own health. It must have been clear, he said, the FHP was a vulnerable man. The judge accepted the evidence that FGP was degraded and humiliated by the treatment meted out to him by Serco staff and that they had failed to consider whether an alternative way of dealing with the matter might be found. The judge added “The officers presence in, or if it was possible to see into the room, outside the door was surely all that was needed”.

The judgement can be downloaded here:

http://www.medicaljustice.org.uk/tools-for-ensuring-rights/case-law/1958-fgp-case-serco-shackling-detainee-for-8-days-breached-art-3-050712.html

1.       Did Serco declare this case when they answered the question at Pre-Qualification stage as to whether the company had been found guilty of “committing any acts of grave misconduct in the course of their business and profession?”

2.       Or has Serco notified the West Midlands Police Authority subsequent to this judgement?

3.       If Serco didn’t advise West Midlands Police Authority  of this finding of a serious human rights violation against it what action is the Police Authority proposing to take in regard to this ?

The Authority’s response is:

Question 1 – No.

Question 2 – No.

Question 3 – In undertaking the procurement process for business partnering the Authority is subject to EU law and the requirements of the Public Contracts Regulations. The Authority is under a duty to treat bidders equally.  The regulations provide for mandatory grounds which require the exclusion of a bidder in cases such as convictions for bribery.  There are discretionary grounds to exclude a bidder where there has been grave misconduct in the course of a business or profession or where there is a criminal conviction relating to a business or profession. It is not considered that the case referred to in your question constitutes grave misconduct such as would justify excluding Serco from bidding and no action is proposed.

The full reply from WMPA can be read here Article 3 judgement

Comment

The Procurement Regulations allow for the social considerations, including human rights, to be part of the selection criteria for the procurement process so long as potential bidders are treated equally. EU legislation of which the Procurement Regulations are a part have sought to uphold human rights. Further given the nature and range of the services identified on the OJEU notice for the BPP contract, including custody and crime investigation functions, human rights considerations should reasonably form part of the technical specification and selection criteria.

 

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s