Figure 12: ARWCF ISU activity room I was disappointed to see that the board displaying the names of all the women in the unit was still located in the centre of the unit, as it was in 2017, in clear sight of all visitors to the unit and the women housed in them. This breached their right to privacy and confidentiality. I repeat my recommendation that it is removed out of sight. ISU cells were not always used for the purposes for which they were intended, and staff were not always clear about the criteria for placement in them. We were told that women could be sent to the ISU because staff were unable to assess them, for example deportees who would ‘come here because they can’t answer questions [in Reception]’ (Officer); women arriving at the prison with histories of self-harm in the last six months; and other women for whom there was no other place in the prison.41 At the time of our visit, by way of illustration, the ISU at ARWCF housed 5 women (out of 12 available cells), including a woman who, as staff put it, was “overweight and with poor hygiene” because “she can’t fit anywhere else”; a woman who was “unpredictable and very unwell” and a woman who was newly arrived at the prison but “wasn’t engaging with nurses so they assumed self-harm”. 41 40 For further analysis of reasons for ISU/ARU placements and their compatibility with international human rights standards see also Shalev, S (2017) Thinking outside the box? A review of seclusion and restraint practices in New Zealand. Wellington: New Zealand Human Rights Commission and; Harris A and Stanley E. Exacerbating risks and diminishing rights for ‘at-risk’ prisoners. Criminology & Criminal Justice. 2018;18(5):515-532, at p. 520.