Human Rights and Prisons - Rethinking Crime and Punishment

Complaint and Inspection Procedures
Compensation Following Assault (NZ)
Edgecombe v Attorney-General [2005] DCR 780 (DC)
In this case concerning a claim for compensation by a prisoner who had been
assaulted by a prison officer, it was held that assault was a breach of the right
of a person deprived of liberty to be treated with humanity and respect.
However, compensation was not the only redress available. Had Mr
Edgecombe cooperated with police, the officer concerned would have been
prosecuted and required to pay reparation.
Grounds For Judicial Review (NZ)
Greer v Prison Manager at Rimutaka Prison 18/12/08, Ronald Young J, HC
Wellington CIV-2008-485-1603
Mr Greer complained of unfair treatment toward him by specific Department of
Corrections staff – including in relation to transfer of legal documents and
refusing requests to access computers and internet – and sought judicial
review of their conduct. The Judge held however, that these were essentially
complaints that the Department staff were not acting as Mr Greer wished;
while perhaps frustrating, the staff members actions warranted no judicial
review. It was not appropriate that courts be involved in dealing with
management-level disputes.
Alleged Failure To Provide Education; Protection Of Complainants In
Respect Of Torture/Ill-Treatment (NZ)
Clark v Governor-General, 27 May 2005, Gendall J, High Court –
Wellington, CIV-2004-485-1902, Unreported
Mr Clark complained that he had been assaulted by prison officers while in
prison, and brought proceedings against the state. Part of his claim was that
the state had breached its obligations by failing to provide education, review,
investigation and protection of complainants in respect of torture and ill
treatment. The Attorney General sought the striking out of this claim.
At issue was whether those obligations, which stem from Articles 10-13 of the
Convention Against Torture and Articles 2(3) and 7 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), have been incorporated
obligations into domestic law. If they are arguably incorporated, the question
was whether New Zealand has already met those obligations.
Justice Gendall held that it can be argued that NZBORA and the Crimes of
Torture Act 1989 incorporate wider rights under Convention Against Torture
and ICCPR ensuring primary rights against torture and ill-treatment are
upheld. Out of the four claimed obligations, the duty to put in place a system
to properly investigate claims of torture and ill-treatment is arguably a
sufficiently justiciable matter to found claim in domestic law. Similarly the duty
135