sandee292000
04-08-2004, 05:31 AM
Prison service mulls appeal
08 April 2004 http://www.stuff.co.nz/inl/images/null.gif
UPDATED REPORTThe Corrections Department has yet to decide whether to appeal a High Court decision yesterday which ruled five public prison inmates were held unlawfully in solitary confinement.
Nine inmates had taken a case against the department's behaviour management regime (BMR) policy – Corrections' attempt to improve the conduct of some of New Zealand's most difficult prisoners.
The conditions under which the prisoners were held would improve as their behaviour improved.
However, Justice Young found BMR was run on an ad-hoc and poorly organised basis. His decision means five prisoners can now seek damages from the Department.
"We haven't seriously considered the issue of appeal at all," Public Prison Service general manager Phil McCarthy told National Radio today.
". . . it's a theoretical possibility, but whether that is the most appropriate route to follow to get the outcomes that we need to be able to continue to manage the service appropriately has yet to be sorted out."
The judgement revealed "some specific things" that were below the standard he would expect, Mr McCarthy said.
The judge ruled BMR breached the Bill of Rights in failing to treat prisoners with humanity and dignity.
"While inmates may not have been treated deliberately cruelly, this was collectively treatment that fell well below standards that befits a human being, including one who is in prison and who has behaved badly in prison.
"Unlawful and difficult behaviour by prisoners can never justify unlawful conduct by their jailers," the judge said.
However, he dismissed a number of inmates' complaints as exaggerated or untrue.
Mr McCarthy said the judgement had rejected a number of the most serious allegations, such as claims of torture, degrading treatment and excessive force.
However, the judge had found Corrections "did not come up to par in some respects," Mr McCarthy said.
"We need to deal with that."
He said Corrections had always thought it had the ability to run an incentive-based prison regime, but the judge seemed to be saying any such regime could cross the line into punishment, which would be unlawful.
"My main concern. . . is that we do have the ability to put these very small number of very dangerous people in a safe environment and provide them with some means of working their way out of there."
Corrections would review the decision and consider possible internal disciplinary action, Mr McCarthy said.
Tony Ellis, lawyer for the prisoners, told National Radio it was possible all would be eligible for damages. He estimated around 200 prisoners in total had been on the programme.
"There clearly needs to be significant and major changes," Mr Ellis said.
"When Mr McCarthy said... that he was unaware of what was going on, I'd ask myself with some amazement if the general manager public prisons doesn't know what's going on in the prison service and he created this programme, as a society is it safe to have a manager who doesn't know what's going on?"
The judge had ruled no matter how bad your crimes were, you were still entitled to basic human rights, Mr Ellis said.
"Whether you've murdered somebody or not, you can't be treated in a way that doesn't befit treatment of a human being. They are not animals, they are not chickens, they cannot be held in conditions like animals are held."
08 April 2004 http://www.stuff.co.nz/inl/images/null.gif
UPDATED REPORTThe Corrections Department has yet to decide whether to appeal a High Court decision yesterday which ruled five public prison inmates were held unlawfully in solitary confinement.
Nine inmates had taken a case against the department's behaviour management regime (BMR) policy – Corrections' attempt to improve the conduct of some of New Zealand's most difficult prisoners.
The conditions under which the prisoners were held would improve as their behaviour improved.
However, Justice Young found BMR was run on an ad-hoc and poorly organised basis. His decision means five prisoners can now seek damages from the Department.
"We haven't seriously considered the issue of appeal at all," Public Prison Service general manager Phil McCarthy told National Radio today.
". . . it's a theoretical possibility, but whether that is the most appropriate route to follow to get the outcomes that we need to be able to continue to manage the service appropriately has yet to be sorted out."
The judgement revealed "some specific things" that were below the standard he would expect, Mr McCarthy said.
The judge ruled BMR breached the Bill of Rights in failing to treat prisoners with humanity and dignity.
"While inmates may not have been treated deliberately cruelly, this was collectively treatment that fell well below standards that befits a human being, including one who is in prison and who has behaved badly in prison.
"Unlawful and difficult behaviour by prisoners can never justify unlawful conduct by their jailers," the judge said.
However, he dismissed a number of inmates' complaints as exaggerated or untrue.
Mr McCarthy said the judgement had rejected a number of the most serious allegations, such as claims of torture, degrading treatment and excessive force.
However, the judge had found Corrections "did not come up to par in some respects," Mr McCarthy said.
"We need to deal with that."
He said Corrections had always thought it had the ability to run an incentive-based prison regime, but the judge seemed to be saying any such regime could cross the line into punishment, which would be unlawful.
"My main concern. . . is that we do have the ability to put these very small number of very dangerous people in a safe environment and provide them with some means of working their way out of there."
Corrections would review the decision and consider possible internal disciplinary action, Mr McCarthy said.
Tony Ellis, lawyer for the prisoners, told National Radio it was possible all would be eligible for damages. He estimated around 200 prisoners in total had been on the programme.
"There clearly needs to be significant and major changes," Mr Ellis said.
"When Mr McCarthy said... that he was unaware of what was going on, I'd ask myself with some amazement if the general manager public prisons doesn't know what's going on in the prison service and he created this programme, as a society is it safe to have a manager who doesn't know what's going on?"
The judge had ruled no matter how bad your crimes were, you were still entitled to basic human rights, Mr Ellis said.
"Whether you've murdered somebody or not, you can't be treated in a way that doesn't befit treatment of a human being. They are not animals, they are not chickens, they cannot be held in conditions like animals are held."