Human Rights and Prisons - Rethinking Crime and Punishment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

would help to increase prisoner confidence in the complaints system. It is not clear whether this has been the case. Prison Inspectors Inspectors of Corrections are independent of individual prisons, albeit staff of the Department of Corrections. A prisoner can contact an inspector at any time – prisoners have access to a free phone line, they should be given at least 24 hours notice of any Inspectorate visit, and should be available to attend interviews. Inspectors have formal access to any person and any records within the prison. They can also make any recommendations about practices and procedures, and issue any direction to staff. Since 2005, the Department of Corrections annual report has included information on the work carried out by Inspectors of Corrections (as required by s190(1)(b) of the Corrections Act 2004). The Inspectorate‟s latest report detailed that during 2008/09, over 6,000 contacts by or on behalf of prisoners were made to the Inspectors. 2,799 formal complaints were subsequently received – an increase of 26 per cent on the previous year. These mainly related to prisoner property and the timeliness of disciplinary charges. Of these, just 93 (3.3%) were found to be justified complaints (justified meaning that it was seen to merit further intervention). Inspectors also undertook system reviews in particular risk areas, namely: the directed segregation system; the system for identifying and managing prisoners at risk to themselves; prison internal complaints system; and the system for managing independent sanitation and hygiene inspections (Department of Corrections, 2009c). The Inspectors have been useful in providing a first point of „quasi-external‟ contact for prisoners. They have also been helpful in highlighting the discrepancy between law/ policy and practice of staff on the unit floor. Yet, a couple of problems can also be identified (see Ombudsmen‟s Office, 2005): That they are also faced with prisoner trust issues – as they are not regarded (and are not) completely independent from the Department of Corrections; That they have been placed under increasing pressure of work – based on rising complaints and staffing absences – and this has impacted on their ability to undertake prompt investigations. The Ombudsmen’s Office Prisoners can also take their complaints to the Ombudsmen‟s Office. Ombudsmen officers will visit each prison, on a fairly regular basis, and they can be contacted via a free telephone number. During the year to 30 June 2009, 4,687 prisoner complaints were received by the Ombudsmen (Ombudsmen‟s Office, 2009). This was a 56% increase on the 3,010 complaints received the previous year. These complaints principally revolved around prisoner property (907), prison transfers/movement (460), 104
staff conduct and attitude (370), prisoner discipline and misconduct (337), prisoner telephone calls and written communications (322), prisoner health services (266), s22 14 (259), prison conditions (226), personal and official visitors (174), security classifications (160) and access to information (165). In the same year, it appears that some prisons were the source of more complaints than others: with Spring Hill (567), Rimutaka (491), Auckland (396), Christchurch (396), Hawkes Bay Regional (389), Auckland Regional Women‟s (254), Waikeria (348), Mt Eden (261), Auckland Central Remand (272), Tongariro/Rangipo (219), and Otago Correctional Facilitiy (181) being the source of most complaints. Why this has occurred is unclear. Most prisoner contacts to the Ombudsmen‟s Office are resolved by providing advice, explanations or information to the prisoner over the phone. In 2009, almost two thirds of the complaints made by and on behalf of prisoners were resolved through the provision of advice or explanation (Ombudsmen‟s Office 2009:102). The Office will not usually take up a complaint unless the prisoner has first pursued an internal remedy; around 20% of complaints in 2009 were returned to the Department for reconsideration. Following this, complaints will generally be resolved through informal intervention with the prison concerned. Around 10% of complaints in 2009 were resolved in this manner. While the Office appears to have a good informal relationship with individual prisons, it has previously been noted that formal inquiries by the Office to Department headquarters have been met with „considerable delay‟ (Ombudsmen‟s Office, 2005:62). Whether this is still the case is unclear. The Ombudsmen must be notified of serious incidents, such as assault allegations or deaths in custody. They monitor investigations of deaths in custody and serious incidents, and can conduct their own independent investigations if they consider this is necessary. As detailed below, the Office has also been designated as a National Preventive Mechanism for the Torture Protocol. In recent years, the Ombudsmen have also taken a valuable role in investigating, on their own initiative, specific prison issues. These have related to the criminal justice sector (2007), prisoner transport (2007b), the detention and treatment of prisoners (2005), and a current investigation focuses on health services within the prisons. These commendable reports have been a crucial element in highlighting rights issues within penal institutions in New Zealand. The Role of Other Organisations / Individuals Both Members of Parliament and Justices of the Peace can enter a prison, examine it and the condition / treatment of the prisoners, and then inform the manager of their observations. All observations are to be permanently recorded. 14 This relates to s22 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act that provides that persons should not be subject to arbitrary detention. 105
Page 2 and 3:
Contact the Human Rights Commission
Page 4 and 5:
10. Staff .........................
Page 6 and 7:
Executive Summary This literature r
Page 8 and 9:
are concerns about educational prov
Page 10 and 11:
2. The Cultural and Legal Context R
Page 12 and 13:
this context, the law is one crucia
Page 14 and 15:
Significant New Zealand case law ha
Page 16 and 17:
Reconviction and reimprisonment rat
Page 18 and 19:
dominance of custody is also assert
Page 20 and 21:
On a financial level, this increasi
Page 22 and 23:
Zealand „will offer savings of be
Page 24 and 25:
In response to such criticisms, the
Page 26 and 27:
For instance, overseas studies (Cra
Page 28 and 29:
surveillance, control and managemen
Page 30 and 31:
4. Material Conditions Material con
Page 32 and 33:
Issues The accommodation for prison
Page 34 and 35:
However, it has been used for perio
Page 36 and 37:
Health dietician who provides input
Page 38 and 39:
5. Activities Law and policy framew
Page 40 and 41:
across the penal estate (and within
Page 42 and 43:
Sex Offender Treatment Programme -
Page 44 and 45:
That „therapunitive‟ prisons re
Page 46 and 47:
The consolidation of programmes tha
Page 48 and 49:
Educational Achievement (NCEA); Sec
Page 50 and 51:
Ultimately, she argues for the esta
Page 52 and 53:
up to five minutes per week (s77(3)
Page 54 and 55: Issues Volunteers can provide a who
Page 56 and 57: There are concerns about telephone
Page 58 and 59: The use of temporary release so tha
Page 60 and 61: Reintegration Unit - currently avai
Page 62 and 63: 6. Health Services Law and policy f
Page 64 and 65: In reply to such long-lived argumen
Page 66 and 67: suggests that Corrections staff are
Page 68 and 69: Applications for the compulsory ass
Page 70 and 71: when a prisoner‟s mental health d
Page 72 and 73: Restraints must be compatible with
Page 74 and 75: used. A rub-down of the person may
Page 76 and 77: The UN Basic Principles for the Tre
Page 78 and 79: As noted previously (Section 7.2),
Page 80 and 81: An inability to cope with the initi
Page 82 and 83: azor blade policy, under which high
Page 84 and 85: The Department has also issued a Di
Page 86 and 87: of young people. The Ministry of Ju
Page 88 and 89: foster care, multi-systemic therapy
Page 90 and 91: prisoners were ignored. Such approa
Page 92 and 93: in a study that exposed the limits
Page 94 and 95: sexual abuse. However, they also no
Page 96 and 97: Kaumatua have official standing as
Page 98 and 99: of detention together with convicte
Page 100 and 101: 9. Protection Measures This section
Page 102 and 103: 9.3 Disciplinary Procedures Law and
Page 106 and 107: Alongside the Ombudsmen‟s Office,
Page 108 and 109: and Victims’ Claims Act 2005 that
Page 110 and 111: 10. Staff Law and policy framework
Page 112 and 113: 10.2 Culture Unlike the literature
Page 114 and 115: eality, the numbers of new staff wi
Page 116 and 117: Employees should perform their duti
Page 118 and 119: 11. Conclusion This review has show
Page 120 and 121: Staff-prisoner ratios require impro
Page 122 and 123: Moreover, New Zealand‟s use of pr
Page 124 and 125: the Minister of Corrections on a ra
Page 126 and 127: The Sentencing Amendment Act (No 2)
Page 128 and 129: 12.2 Relevant New Zealand Legal Cas
Page 130 and 131: eginning of the process was a proce
Page 132 and 133: to be provoked must be assessed obj
Page 134 and 135: Distinction Between Prison Discipli
Page 136 and 137: to protect complainants who allege
Page 138 and 139: Refusal To Attend A Funeral Can Be
Page 140 and 141: Treatment Example Of Degrading Trea
Page 142 and 143: Mandatory Life Imprisonment Without
Page 144 and 145: Brennan N (2010) „Prison Staff to
Page 146 and 147: Coyle A and Stern V (2004) „Capti
Page 148 and 149: Treatment or Punishment, In the Mat
Page 150 and 151: HM Chief Inspector of Prisons (2009
Page 152 and 153: Liebling A (2006) „Suicides in Pr
Page 154 and 155:
Ministry of Justice (2007) Conventi
Page 156 and 157:
Ombudsmen‟s Office (2007b) Invest
Page 158 and 159:
Sachdev S (2008) „Private Punishm
Page 160 and 161:
Tolmie J (2007) „Women and the Cr
show all

Human Rights and Prisons - Rethinking Crime and Punishment

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?