Human Rights and Prisons

3.2 The Institutional Response

As might be expected, these decisions have had a profound effect on the prison system. There have been recent periods in which Corrections have operated under significant stress. Information provided as part of New Zealand’s report to the UN Committee Against Torture (Ministry of Justice, 2009b) illustrates that, in the week ending 1 February 2009:

• 
  Two prisons (Manawatu and New Plymouth) operated at 100% capacity;
  
• 
  Six prisons (Auckland Central Remand, Auckland, Christchurch, Invercargill, Otago and Wanganui) operated at over 90% capacity;
  
• 
  Six prisons (Mt Eden, Northland, Rimutaka, Rolleston, Waikeria and Auckland Women’s) operated at over 80% capacity;
  
• 
  Overall, the prisons across New Zealand were 85% full, and they housed 8,069 prisoners.
  

On current forecasts, the growth in the prison population, together with the need to replace around 1,700 obselete beds, will require an additional 2,500 beds over the next nine years (Collins, 2010). More restrictive approaches to bail or parole, a widening of offences that become liable to imprisonment, or the application of longer sentences, would increase these estimates. Given this potential future, some commentators including Chief Justice Sian Elias have called for the consideration of alternative approaches – including the use of early release amnesties or the relaxation of bail and parole measures (Dye, 2009).

Government however, has pursued a different track and a range of practices have been operationalised to meet demand, such as:

• 
  The development of new prisons and units: Over the last five years, four new prisons (at a cost of around $1bn) have opened to add a further 2,400 beds to the system. Mt Eden prison and the Auckland Central Remand Prison have been substantially extended.. A controversial container unit that accommodates 60 low-security prisoners opened, in June 2010, at Rimutaka Prison. A new prison is to be built in Wiri, South Auckland, and there are also plans to develop further units at existing prisons.
  

• 
  The re-opening of previously mothballed facilities: A number of facilities have also been reopened to cope with growing demand. Wellington Prison re-opened on 6 July 2009, offering 120 beds. Two 60-bed units were re-established at Tongariro/Rangipo Prison in September 2009. There are also plans to re-open units at Waikeria Prison.
  

• 
  The increased use of ‘double-bunking’: This occurs when two prisoners are housed in one cell, often ‘designed for one prisoner’ (Ombudsmen’s Office, 2005:26). Increased double-bunking has been rolled out across numerous prisons (including Auckland Women’s, Spring Hill, Otago, Ngawha and Mt Eden) to create space for 1,000 more prisoners. In 2009, Corrections Minister Judith Collins estimated that double-bunking was already done in a fifth of prison space (Gower, 2009). The Corrections Association unsuccessfully took legal action against the Department in the Employment Court (and to the Court of Appeal) on the basis that double-bunking breached their collective agreement.
  

• 
  The use of police cells (and occasionally court cells) to accommodate prisoners: During the capacity crisis in 2005/06, prisoners spent over 57,000 bed nights in police cells, at a total cost of $15.8 million (Power, 2007). Prisoners were also held in court cells at that time. Since then, the number of nights that prisoners have spent in police cells has fallen, to 17,181 in 2009/10. Many prisoners are now held in police cells for purposes other than managing prison capacities, such as to facilitate court appearances, particularly in courts that are distant from the nearest prison. A Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of Corrections and Police provides that a total of 175 cells are available for holding prisoners. Of these, there are 133 Police cells across 18 sites in which prisoners can be safely and humanely held for more than 24 hours. While police officers are provided with guidance on appropriate practices – such that prisoners are entitled to: appropriate bedding, appropriate food and drink, sanitary facilities, statutory and specified visitors, send and receive mail, and make telephone calls (Ministry of Justice, 2007) – these are not always practically possible.
  

• 
  The use of other unsuitable spaces to accommodate prisoners: With regard to Christchurch Men’s prison, the Ombudsmen’s Office (2005) noted that between 1 January to 14 October 2005, over 100 prisoners had been placed in punishment cells because ordinary cells were not available. These cells have austere and very limited facilities. More recently, in relation to the same prison, the Howard League for Penal Reform (2007) detailed that officials had been forced to open ‘disaster recovery beds’ to cope with numbers.
  

On a financial level, this increasing prisoner population has notable implications. In 2009/10, the cost of imprisoning a person for one day was $249.14 (increased from $155.68 per day in 2003/04); this results in an annual cost of $90,936² (Department of Corrections, 2008b, 2010b). The Treasury (2010) estimated that, during 2010-2011, Corrections would spend over $750mn on the detention of sentenced and remand prisoners. Treasury also warned that the growing prison population could cost up to $1.566bn over the next nine years (Gower, 2009). In 2009, Corrections were provided with $145.8mn to implement further double-bunking; $255.4mn to cover operational costs (such as employing more frontline staff, and providing more programmes, food, bedding, clothing, healthcare and transportation); and $24mn to expand prison capacity (Department of Corrections, 2009a). While these are, undoubtedly, sizeable sums – particularly when compared to community-based sentences – the Department is operating under financial restraint.

The Department of Corrections (2008:22) detail that this expansion is dovetailed with the need to renovate a ‘significant proportion’ of the prison estate as certain ‘facilities can no longer be regarded as fit for purpose, with some being at risk of non-compliance with relevant building standards’. This expansion also impacts on the range of facilities required within the prisons – such as receiving offices, prisoner health units or at-risk units. As the Department (ibid) further noted, ‘At some prisons such facilities are already inadequate, relative to the total number of prisoners on the site’.