Human Rights and Prisons - Rethinking Crime and Punishment
Human Rights and Prisons - Rethinking Crime and Punishment
Human Rights and Prisons - Rethinking Crime and Punishment
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
to be provoked must be assessed objectively. A breach of s17D does not<br />
give rise to a private law cause of action; <strong>and</strong> even if a private law cause of<br />
action was available, in this case the very high threshold for exemplary<br />
damages was not surmounted.<br />
Cell Confinement As Factor In Bail (NZ)<br />
R v Kahui 2/10/07, Heath J, HC Auckl<strong>and</strong> CRI-2007-092-14990<br />
In considering whether there is just cause for continued detention, s 8(1)(a)<br />
Bail Amendment Act 2007 requires the Court to take into account „whether<br />
there is a real <strong>and</strong> significant risk‟ of flight, interference with witnesses or<br />
evidence <strong>and</strong> re-offending, as well as s 8(1)(b) considerations of „any matter<br />
that would make it unjust to detain the defendant‟.<br />
In this case, although previous breaches of bail conditions established a „real<br />
<strong>and</strong> significant risk of re-offending‟, the nature of Mr Kahui‟s detention – which<br />
entailed cell confinement for 23 hours per day for his own protection – was a<br />
countervailing factor which made continued detention unjust.<br />
Disciplinary Procedures<br />
Legal Representation – Distinction Between Prison Discipline Regime<br />
And CJS (NZ)<br />
Taylor v Visiting Justice at Arohata Prison 24/7/07, Wild J, HC Wellington<br />
CIV-2007-485-613:<br />
This is one of several recent cases – following Drew v Attorney-General<br />
[2002] 1 NZLR 58 – dealing with the distinction between the prison discipline<br />
regime <strong>and</strong> criminal justice system, <strong>and</strong> the (lesser) requirements of legal<br />
representation that attach to the prison discipline context. The relevant<br />
statutory provisions are ss 128 <strong>and</strong> 133-140 Corrections Act 2004 <strong>and</strong><br />
Schedule 7 to the Corrections Regulations 2005.<br />
Legal Representation (NZ)<br />
Thompson v Attorney-General 1/11/07, John Hansen J, HC Christchurch<br />
CIV-2007-409-2364; CIV-2007-409-2245<br />
This case concerned the assault of a prisoner by two others, Thompson <strong>and</strong><br />
Pryce. Following the incident, the Visiting Justice sentenced the men to 15<br />
days‟ cell confinement <strong>and</strong> 90 days' loss of privileges, the maximum penalty<br />
available under the Corrections Act. Thompson <strong>and</strong> Pryce sought judicial<br />
review of this decision on the grounds of lack of legal representation,<br />
evidential issues, <strong>and</strong> unreasonableness. They were unsuccessful. It was<br />
deemed the the Visiting Justice hearing did not require legal representation,<br />
that the decision was reached following eyewitness accounts by prison<br />
officers <strong>and</strong> photographic evidence of the assaulted prisoner‟s injuries. In the<br />
circumstances, the Visiting Justice faced a clear-cut credibility issue <strong>and</strong> was<br />
entitled to favour officer evidence.<br />
132