We observed very little movement and activity within the units, and opportunities
for prisoners to engage with staff in a meaningful way or to undertake
constructive activities were very limited.33 We did not spend enough time in
each unit to offer a considered comment on staff and prisoner relationships
or to seek their view of each other. However, whilst we did not observe any
adversarial interactions, with one notable exception (Christchurch Women’s),
the relationships that we did observe, appeared distant. A typical daily ‘regime’
included only access to a shower, telephone call and solitary exercise in a small,
barren yard or cage, though there was a degree of staff discretion and some
variation in practices. For example, women serving a disciplinary punishment in
Christchurch Women’s prison were offered no telephone calls, whereas men in
Christchurch Men’s, Auckland South and Mount Eden Management units could
make one 5 minute telephone call daily, and At Risk prisoners in Auckland prison
could enjoy up to 15 minutes daily. Management plans, which are meant to be
tailored to the individual prisoner’s needs and the challenges they present, lacked
detail or individualized reintegration plans.
Conditions in punishment blocks
The use of segregation as a disciplinary punishment ('cellular confinement') was
fairly straightforward: a prisoner broke a prison rule, attended a disciplinary
hearing and was given a punishment, which could include time in a segregation
unit. Data from disciplinary hearings (or 'adjudications') indicated that most
punishments involving segregation time were proportionate and relatively short.
However, several of the prisons visited (including Christchurch Men’s, Rimutaka,34
Rolleston and Auckland Men's (Paremoremo)) also had a 'pound' unit which
was sometimes used for housing prisoners serving cellular confinement. It was
unclear whether these stays were appropriately recorded, and the 'pounds'
visited felt very isolated. Of particular concern were night time arrangements
in the 'pounds', as these units had no staff on site, but were instead supervised
by ‘rovers’ who come throughout the night who could only open door flaps but
not the doors themselves. This meant that if a prisoner self harmed or attempted
suicide at night time, or indeed had another medical emergency (for example, a
heart-attack), there was a reasonable chance that they would not be found for
some time, and even then there would be further delay whilst the 'rover' called
on other staff to make their way to the 'pound' so that the cell door could be
33 Prisoner-staff relationships and human interactions more generally are an important factor in mitigating the
negative effects of solitary confinement (see Deep Custody, 2015, Chapter five).
34 We were pleased to learn from that, following our visit to Rimutaka prison, staff were instructed to Òensure
that punishment cells are not used as a matter of course and if circumstances present themselves where
they are being considered to be used authorisation needed to be sought from the prison’s Director or Deputy
Director”(email communication).
32