HMI Prisons finds concerns over conditions, healthcare, safeguarding and access to legal representation at Tinsley House

His Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons for England and Wales (HMI Prisons) yesterday published the report of an unannounced inspection of Tinsley House Immigration Removal Centre (IRC) near Gatwick, finding that the centre was generally safe and decent, but there were significant concerns over healthcare, safeguarding and living conditions. The concerns, especially over healthcare, led inspectors to rate the IRC as being 'not sufficiently good'.

You can download the 54-page report here.

The inspection was carried out between 15 June and 2 July 2026, at which time, 136 men were detained at the centre. As HMI Prisons notes, many detainees at Tinsley House are now being held under the UK–France 'one in, one out' agreement after arriving from the Manston short-term holding facility in Kent or from a Home Office reporting centre.

Six issues were identified by HMI Prisons as priorities for immediate action. The identification of potential modern slavery victims was poor, with delays in producing reports required to safeguard vulnerable detainees. Twenty-one people brought from Manston in the previous six months were subsequently found to be children, with delays in resolving age disputes. Some accommodation was poorly ventilated, while communal toilets and showers had persistent foul smells linked to drainage problems. Healthcare services were poorly governed, with concerns over staffing, training and supervision. Mental health provision was inadequate, with no psychological or therapy services despite high levels of need. The centre also did not systematically assess or address the needs of people being released or removed, with some vulnerable and high-risk detainees released without accommodation.

Healthcare was a particular concern. The report states: "Health care was the strongest negative theme in our interviews with detainees. The speed of appointments, quality of care and dismissive attitude of health care staff were all strongly and regularly expressed as concerns."

Conditions in some parts of the centre were strongly criticised. Inspectors found showers and toilets to be in an "unacceptable" condition.

The inspection found that many detainees were anxious about their immigration cases. Some had expected to be accommodated in hotels, while information about what they could expect when removed to France under the 'one in, one out' deal was limited. More than half of detainees had been released during the previous six months, while 41% had been removed.

Detainees experienced delays and barriers when trying to secure legal representation or communicate with legal advisors.

HMI Prisons noted: "Over one half of detainees had arrived in small boats and were detained for removal to France. French returns cases were not progressed with sufficient urgency or attention to safeguarding. These cases had increased the need for speedy legal representation, but detainees had to wait up to a week for the first available detention surgery appointment, and some had to attend several surgeries before their case was taken on. Concerns had emerged about the quality of specific lawyers, but these had not been raised with the Legal Aid Agency.

"We found insufficient case progression in cases we reviewed where detainees were in prison before their detention. There were further delays after they had been detained. In one case, it took the Home Office three months to confirm that a detainee had not appealed a refusal of asylum, during which time there was no case progression. In another, the detainee had so far been waiting three months for a decision on his asylum claim."

While the average time spent in Tinsley House was 39 days, two detainees had been held for over six months, the longest being held for 463 days.

The report identified a number of child safeguarding failures, In the six months before the inspection, 21 detainees brought to Tinsley House from Manston were subsequently assessed as children and released into the care of West Sussex Children's Services. Inspectors reviewed five cases and found all five had initially been interviewed at Manston by video link, with three interviews taking place in the early hours after an arduous Channel crossing. In one case, a detainee who arrived in Dover at 1.26pm was not interviewed until 4.52am the following morning. Inspectors said such circumstances were unlikely to encourage full and accurate disclosure of vulnerabilities.

Inspectors also found weaknesses in subsequent age assessments. In three of the five cases reviewed, Home Office staff assessed the detainees as adults and detention continued. All three disputed the findings. In two cases, Children's Services initially also assessed them as adults without conducting face-to-face assessments, relying on the Home Office interview records. Legal intervention subsequently led to face-to-face assessments, which found both were children. They had each spent about a month at Tinsley House after first telling the Home Office they were under 18.

The inspection found that only one of eight concerns raised during the previous 2023 inspection had been fully addressed, with one partially addressed and six remaining unresolved. Inspectors said they were likely to return within the next year to assess progress.

Charlie Taylor, the Chief Inspector of Prisons, said: "It was disappointing that the centre had not responded to many of the concerns that we raised last time and it is likely that we will return in the next year for an independent review of progress. We will expect to see the deterioration halted and a renewed energy amongst leaders and staff to address our findings."

More positively, the report noted that most detainees said staff treated them well and inspectors observed generally positive interactions. Staffing levels were described as generally good, although inspectors raised concerns about whistleblowing and whether staff who reported concerns felt they were taken seriously.

The report also highlighted some positive practices, including a free visitor minibus, support from social workers to help detainees maintain family contact, and Wi-Fi-enabled smartphones that improved access to email and communication with authorities.