Draft circulated within the Home Office, marked "not for onward distribution," three revisions, October to November. Leaked in redacted form the following spring.

DRAFT 1 (12 October) — circulated by S. Foss, Cabinet Office

Subject presents facts not accommodated by any existing statutory category. Neither the Immigration Act framework (no established method of entry) nor ordinary criminal procedure (no offence disclosed) provides a lawful basis for continued detention beyond the initial 24-hour period.

Recommendation: legal team to identify or construct an interim administrative category pending clarification of facts.

[Margin note, handwriting not identified]: There is no such category. That's rather the point being raised.

DRAFT 2 (19 October) — revised following ministerial input

Recommend the term "protective detainment" to describe the interim status: detention exercised in the interests of both public order and the subject's own safety, pending clarification of identity, origin, and intent.

Note: this term does not presently exist in statute. Legal team advises that its use should be confined, in the first instance, to internal and operational communications, pending review of whether primary legislation may be required to place it on a firmer footing.

[Margin note, S.F.]: "Confined to internal communications" lasted eleven days. See Draft 3.

DRAFT 3 (2 November) — following first press use of the term

The term "protective detainment" has now entered public usage following its reference in a ministerial statement. Legal team's earlier caution regarding its informal status is noted but, as a practical matter, overtaken by events. Recommend the department proceed on the basis that continued, consistent use of the term in public-facing communications will, over time, establish it as a recognised operational category, notwithstanding the absence of a specific statutory footing.

Legal team wishes it recorded, for the file, that this approach was advised against.

Appendix, DRAFT 2 (found stapled to the reverse of the leaked copy, author unattributed)

Precedent review: officials asked to identify any prior instance in UK administrative law of a detention category being established through consistent usage rather than statutory instrument. Legal team's honest answer, recorded verbatim: "We are not aware of one. We are aware of the opposite happening — categories established informally and later struck down once challenged — but we are not aware of one that survived a challenge simply because nobody managed to bring one in time."

[Margin note, second hand, initials illegible]: "Nobody managed to bring one in time" is doing a great deal of quiet work in that sentence.