9.  Conclusions — Ngā whakamutunga

Conclusions about prison detainees

Where New Zealand does well — Ngā mahi pai e oti nei i Aotearoa

• Legislation is well developed and generally consistent with international standards.
• The new legislation will include an explicit reference to international human rights standards relevant to the detention of prisoners.
• Policy is well developed and addresses a range of specific human rights concerns, including providing for the minimum rights of prisoners, and specific guidelines for prisoners with special needs.
• Some good provisions have been made for the specific cultural and other needs of Maori and Pacific prisoners, including through the roles of Kaiwhakamana and Fautua Pasefika.
• Good quality data on detainees and their characteristics are publicly available.
• Independent complaints and monitoring services are provided by the inspectorate and the Office of the Ombudsmen.
• New Zealand has lower rates of unnatural deaths in custody than other comparable countries.

Where we need to do better — Kia piki ake te pai i roto i enei wahanga

• Control and sanctions: Concerns have been expressed about the use of non-voluntary segregation, the excessive periods of lock-down, and the Taunoa case in particular emphasises that independent review of practice in these areas is essential.
• Safety: Any deaths in custody or injuries to prisoners or staff are a concern and continuing efforts must be made to prevent them. Improvements could be made to reduce any delay in handling complaints, and to address any perception of partiality in investigating complaints of staff assaults on prisoners.
• Monitoring and inspections: Greater external inspection and monitoring of day-to-day conditions in prisons has been suggested. The mandates and resources of existing monitoring and inspection bodies should first be reviewed before considering the creation of any new inspection body.
• Special needs: Provisions for refugees and asylum seekers, pregnant women, and prisoners who are physically or mentally unwell must be closely and specifically monitored in recognition of the special rights and needs of these groups of detainees.
• People with disabilities: The lack of reliable data on the numbers of prisoners who have a disability (whether physical or intellectual) must be addressed. This will allow more accurate assessment of the adequacy of current levels of service provision to disabled people, and will identify specific areas for improvement.
• Mental health: A small number of prisoners requiring urgent treatment for mental illnesses remain in prison while they wait for an available bed in a forensic mental health facility.
• Workforce development: New Zealand does not rate well against international comparisons for staff-to-prisoner ratios. Human rights training has not been mainstreamed into staff training.
• Facilities: A number of issues (including age mixing and mixing of remand and sentenced prisoners, and the use of isolation, segregation and lock-down) also point to the need to upgrade and increase the capacity of New Zealand 's prison facilities and alternatives to prisons.

Conclusions about military detainees

Where New Zealand does well — Ngā mahi pai e oti nei i Aotearoa

• It is evident that this is an area where policy and procedures are well and clearly laid out and practice is closely and internally monitored.
• The BoRA, and equal employment opportunities and anti-harassment policies are taught to newly appointed staff members, and knowledge of these is assessed every year as part of staff training and competencies.

Where we need to do better — Kia piki ake te pai i roto i enei wahanga

• On the other hand, there are no published data on military detention and no external monitoring or review of practice.
• Given the strictness of military discipline and the notoriety that there has been about inappropriate behaviour among the defence forces of other nations around the world, New Zealand would be well served by taking a more open approach to what happens within its own boundaries.

Conclusions about mental health detainees

Where New Zealand does well — Ngā mahi pai e oti nei i Aotearoa

• The detention of those with mental illness is governed by legislation and regulations that have been developed with a regard to the requirements of international human rights standards.
• The roles of the Commissioner for Health and Disability and of District Inspectors provide an external audit option and therefore a further check that the rights of service users are being met.

Where we need to do better — Kia piki ake te pai i roto i enei wahanga

• The data indicate that many service users are held for lengthy periods in conditions where they have limited freedom of movement, are isolated from others and are subject to sensory deprivation

• It appears that restraint, seclusion and other practices limiting freedoms are, at times, being used in ways that are inappropriate under human rights standards.
• Some facilities do not meet national standards, or provide substandard levels of facilities or service, and as a result service user rights may be compromised.
• Workforce development and training concerns have been noted in a number of contexts.
• There are moral, ethical and legal concerns surrounding all forms of compulsory assessment and treatment. [90]

Conclusions about detainees with intellectual disability

Where New Zealand does well — Ngā mahi pai e oti nei i Aotearoa

• Most disabled people are not detained in institutions. New legislation coming into force in 2004 provides for the compulsory care and rehabilitation of those who have a disability and have been charged with an imprisonable criminal offence.
• The new legislation closes the gap which has existed since 1992, provides for the rights of people detained under the Act, and provides a separate legal framework for people who have an intellectual disability.
• There are clear policies on the treatment of disabled detainees in penal institutions.
• The Ministry of Health is currently working on a new system that will provide better data in this area.

Where we need to do better — Kia piki ake te pai i roto i enei wahanga

• There is a current paucity of data on those with disabilities who are detained in any type of institution.
• While many people support the development of a specific legal framework which sets out rights and monitoring mechanisms (IDCCR Act), some fears have been raised about the impact of the new legislation, and careful monitoring of the implementation of the new legislation is recommended.
• Effective monitoring of those with disabilities who are in institutional care is urgently needed. Provisions under the new legislation for review through the Health and Disability Commissioner and District Inspectors have not yet been tested, and will need to be reviewed to ensure they are adequate.

Conclusions about detention in police cells

Where New Zealand does well — Ngā mahi pai e oti nei i Aotearoa

• Police cells provide minimum accommodation for people awaiting a court hearing and a remand. They are suitable for a very short period only and, for adults, this is how they are generally used.

Where we need to do better — Kia piki ake te pai i roto i enei wahanga

• The most important issue in relation to police cells is that young people are being held in them for periods of several days - in some instances, a week or more. This would be unacceptable for an adult, let alone for a young person. This problem is due to a shortage of secure youth detention facilities. The situation can only be remedied by urgently providing alternative accommodation.
• The large numbers of people who are being kept in police cells as a result of drug or, most commonly, alcohol abuse is a serious problem. Systematic reliance on police cells is not a suitable or adequate response to the problem of alcohol abuse.
• Public reports based on external monitoring and inspections are not currently part of practice in relation to cells in police stations.
• Information on the numbers of people being held, characteristics of detainees, lengths of time held, complaints, injuries, and deaths in police cells is not currently available publicly.

Conclusions about detention of children and young people

Where New Zealand does well — Ngā mahi pai e oti nei i Aotearoa

• New Zealand legislation relating to when children and young people can be detained appears generally to comply with international standards including UNCROC.
• New Zealand has a comprehensive set of rules, contained in legislation and elsewhere, that place sensible limits on when children and young people can be detained, and also emphasise the need to treat children and young people humanely and with respect when they are detained.

Where we need to do better — Kia piki ake te pai i roto i enei wahanga

• There is strong support for extending the protections available to young people under 17 years of age to those aged 17.
• There are reasonably strong indications that practice in Child, Youth and Family residences is not matching the standards in legislation and other guidelines. This raises an issue about the effectiveness of the training given to staff at residences.
• There is strong criticism about the lack of Child, Youth and Family beds for young people who need to be detained and the resulting significant numbers of young people detained in police cells for lengthy periods.[91]
• There is strong criticism of the continued mixing of youth and adult offenders and strong support for the withdrawal of New Zealand 's reservation to UNCROC on this point.[92]
• There is a lack of official information available on the numbers, characteristics and experiences of children and young people across the range of places in which they may be detained.
• Previous ~
• Top ~
• Next