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