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