Expert opinion from Victoria University Wellington - Te Herenga Waka
Opinion: At a time when government departments are shedding workers to fund budgetary cuts, the news that staff shortages have caused prisoners to be in solitary confinement for periods longer than eight months is frightening.
This revelation is one of several in the Prison Inspectorate’s most recent report, published on Wednesday. It documents breaches of prisoners’ legal minimum entitlements in units 11, 12 and 13 at Auckland Prison in the nine months from October 2022 to July 2023.
Minimum entitlements for prisoners are stipulated in the Corrections Act. They include things such as access to medical treatment, sufficient bedding for warmth, health and comfort, five minutes a week on the telephone, and one hour of exercise outside of a cell each day.
So, what did the inspectorate find?
For nine months, all the prisoners in these three units were denied their entitlement to spend one hour outside of their cell a day. Instead, they were unlocked once every second day for one to two hours. A total of 107 men were subjected to these strict conditions for more than three months; 22 were on this regime for more than 251 days. This meant they remained alone in their cells for 46 to 50 hours at a time. Rather than being exceptional, this became the norm.
Prisoners reported they could go days without talking to anyone and were lonely – “the days passed slowly and it was difficult to remain positive”. They had little to do but watch television, minimal contact with family, and difficulty attending rehabilitation programmes. Telephone access was also limited. This affected their ability to contact lawyers, and access was often restricted to times when family members were busy at work or school.
One of the units investigated, unit 11, houses the Special Needs Unit and the Intervention and Support Unit – respectively accommodating prisoners with complex needs and those assessed as at risk of self-harm. To subject these vulnerable people to long hours alone in a cell seems particularly heartless. During the 16 days from March 1-16, the total time Intervention and Support Unit prisoners had outside their cells ranged from 40 minutes to 3 hrs 20 mins.
The lock-up regime these prisoners were subjected to is consistent with the standard definition of solitary confinement, namely confinement for “22 hours or more a day without meaningful human contact”. More than 15 days of this is considered prolonged and prohibited by the United Nations. More sobering is the understanding that compliance with the Corrections Act minimum entitlement of one hour a day outside a cell doesn’t even reach this human rights standard.
Prolonged solitary confinement damages mental and physical health, sometimes permanently. Prisoners the inspectors interviewed were “particularly withdrawn, nervous, overwhelmed or paranoid. Some prisoners struggled to hold a conversation with the inspectors and said they felt awkward and uncomfortable”. Some “had covered the cell windows and observation panels and when [the inspectors] entered the cells it was dark with no natural light”. This suggests these prisoners’ ability to reintegrate into society had been significantly compromised.
Other minimum entitlements were also deficient. Evening meals were served as early as 2.35pm, causing prisoners to be hungry at night. A prisoner experiencing chest pain wasn’t seen until 13 days after requesting an appointment. Another, suffering dental pain for three months, was only seen after he made a complaint. Others had health appointments frequently rescheduled – one 11 times.
Staff shortages were the prime cause for these breaches. Units were at times short of up to 10 corrections officers when being fully staffed required 19. They also lacked experienced people and the officers they had were described as “fatigued”. These problems affected custodial and healthcare roles. Having inexperienced staff led to blanket approaches to security, rather than assessing the specific risk of individuals. An example was the use of four or five custodial officers to move prisoners when the required number for moving maximum-security prisoners is three. This risk-aversion was specifically criticised by the inspectorate and exacerbated low staff levels.
The report presented a system under pressure. But it also raises the question, why were no measures put in place to stop the harm continuing? The Department of Corrections’ national office in Wellington was fully aware of the situation by at least January 2023 – so it was not a situation of ignorance at the highest level. Is it that we can no longer afford to imprison the number of people we currently do and also ensure their human rights, rehabilitation and reintegration?
This is a critical question as the Government asks prisons to provide more rehabilitation while requiring the Department of Corrections to cut its budget by $100 million. Are we imprisoning some people who are no risk to society and undermining the ability of others to function successfully on release? Is it time for a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of how and why we use prisons?
