Other events were recorded as incidents and noted as such in the woman’s file
for no fault of their own. For example, the following incident report describes
events at the ISU at 4:50 in the morning, when an officer was conducting
welfare checks on a woman who appeared to be asleep:
“I switched the main white light on as she was undercover for a long time.
I didn’t see any movements under her cover so I kicked the door numerous
times and banged on the window, no response. I even went outside
and banged her window with the bundle of keys and still didn’t see any
movement or response.
I was concerned and informed [on call manager] who granted approval to
open her cell door. Officer xx, officer xx and myself unlocked the cell door
to check on the prisoner. She hasn’t replied until I pulled the blanket off
her and she just woke up and said she was ok. On questioning her why she
didn’t reply she said she was in a deep sleep. The cell door was closed at
05:17 hours with nil issues.”
Whilst the officer’s concern for the woman’s welfare is to be applauded, one
must wonder if banging on the cell door and windows with a bunch of keys
in the middle of the night was conducive to the health and wellbeing of the
woman involved and other women in the unit. It also seems curious that an
incident report noting the woman whose only misdemeanour was to sleep
deeply as the ‘perpetrator’ was then filed, feeding into inflated reports of
‘incidents’ and likely following the woman for the rest of her time in custody.
With few exceptions, incident reports revealed little evidence of attempts
to communicate with the women involved either before or after the event.
Good communication and assessing the reasons for difficult and challenging
behaviours are key to the success of both Hökai Rangi and Change Lives Shape
Futures, and their apparent absence raises questions about the translation of
strategies to practice on the ground.
“A case-by-case analysis of some of the incident reports
which were available to me found that the slightest
acts of perceived disobedience were often responded
to harshly. Minor events were recorded as assaults and
charged as such...”
48