Human Rights and Prisons

4.5 Food and Water

Law and policy framework

Provided food and water is based on the nutritional, and drinking water, standards issued by the Ministry of Health. Prisoners will all receive the same meals. Exceptions to this can be made on the basis of religious, spiritual, cultural and medical needs. Minimum entitlement provisions detail that breakfasts must be served ‘no more than 14 hours from the previous evening meal, unless food for supper has been provided with the evening meal’ (PSOM, F.01.01). One meal a day must be hot and drinking water should be available ‘at convenient locations throughout the prison’ (ibid).

Issues

Food plays an important part in any culture. In prisons, where prisoners have limited access to material resources and money, food has immense value. The type and amount of food can be important – particularly when this departs from what prisoners have previously experienced in the community. Food has value in terms of building healthy bodies but it can also be used as a tool of exchange, and it can also be a source of conflict.
Levy (2009) highlights that prisons, in England and Wales, tend to have menus that are high in fat (particularly saturated fat), salt and sugars. Inspectorate reports in England and Wales continually detail concerns about prison food, for instance with regards to: (i) food being of highly variable quality; (ii) the dominance of processed and stodgy food; (iii) food being served cold; (iv) food not meeting religious or cultural requirements; (v) the lack of diversity of food on offer; (vi) food-servers not dressed to appropriate hygiene standards; (vii) unclean kitchens; (viii) transferred prisoners having to wait long periods without food or water; (ix) no policies for prisoners who refused food; and, (x) the budgetary pressures placed on prison caterers to produce healthy, nutritious food (HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, 2010, 2009a, 2009b).
In New Zealand, little has been written about the nature of prison food, or how it is prepared and served. More public information and research would be welcome. The Prisoner Health Survey (Ministry of Health, 2006) noted that two-thirds of prisoners consumed two servings of fruit and three servings of vegetables per day. The Department of Corrections has advised that standard prison menus are prepared by a panel which includes a Ministry of Health dietician who provides input on nutritional value. Menus are planned over four week cycles to reduce repetition.
There do appear, however, to be examples of inconsistent application of prison policies with regards to access to different foods. For instance, while the policies detail that, in providing food and drink, allowance must be made for the various religious and spiritual needs of prisoners, this has not always been consistently observed in practice. Between January 2002 to April 2009, the Human Rights Commission received 17 complaints with regards to religious beliefs, many of which focused on dietary concerns relating to religious observance. Corrections have attempted to address kosher diet requirements, including consultation with a Rabbi on different options. Corrections have also recently confirmed that their food is now 100% halal accredited. Beyond these issues, the Commission has received complaints from prisoners related to their food allergies or intolerances that were not being accommodated.
A further concern has been that prisoners are eating meals in their cells, rather than a communal dining space. As the Ombudsmen’s Office (2005:29) remarked, ‘In our view prisoners are entitled to eat at tables in civilised dining conditions’. Eating food in cells increases the social isolation of prisoners; further, many prisoners have to eat in the same room as they toilet in. Another issue has been the long period that some prisoners may face between their evening meal and breakfast.

4.6 Access to Personal Property

Law and policy framework

Parts P.01-P.10 of the Prison Service Operations Manual relates to property. Schedule One of the Corrections Regulations establishes permissible prisoner property. Prisoners are allowed: eye glasses and contact lenses, a watch, legal papers, a reasonable amount of personal papers and correspondence, approved study material and equipment (such as study guides, textbooks), up to 13 books (including religious texts), up to 10 magazines, up to 12 cassette tapes, up to 12 CDs, religious material (such as Muslim headcover or prayer mat, Jewish headcover, Buddhist prayer beads, crucifix), stationery, posters, normal purchase items, toiletries, approved medication and medical assistance, personal and family photographs, bedding, a mat, a mirror and a reasonable amount of hobby materials.
Prisoners are also permitted electronic items, which may include: one radio/cassette/CD player or similar, one TV set, one radio/clock, one electric razor, one personal computer, one electric fan, one multibox, one hairdryer, one bed lamp and one electric jug. Conditions are placed on the stereosystem (relating to size, form and power) and the personal computer (that it is required for an educational course; that other computers are not available; that loaded material will relate directly to the course; and that the computer will be removed on completion of educational tasks). All electrical equipment must be subject to an electrical check, at the prisoner’s expense.
A prisoner can have these permissions revoked if it is suspected that an item may be used to injure another person or to commit an offence, or to record the security features of the prison, or if the item has been obtained through improper behaviour or coercion, or if the item is objectionable. Authorised property can also be forfeited as a consequence of penalties or mental health decisions. This can also be the case if a prisoner is detained in a police cell.

Issues

The safe storage of their property remains an ongoing worry for prisoners. In 2005, the Ombudsmen’s Office highlighted that there was no standardised system for the storage and transfer of prisoner property, and that many items appeared to go missing. As they (2005:38) remarked, the ‘present record keeping of the Department upon property claims is in a state of disarray’.
Increasing pressures on receiving officers – who have a whole host of processes to be completed in the first hours of a prisoner’s admission and departure – may impact on this requirement to securely hold prisoner property. Moreover, prisoners often receive rejections of their complaints on these matters, and there is no compensation system, so many prisoners do not complain as a result.
It appears that such property concerns remain. For instance, the Ombudsmen’s Office received over nine hundred complaints concerning property during the year to 30 June 2009. This was the most common area of complaint, comprising 19% of all prisoner complaints (Ombudsmen’s Office, 2009). In 2009, the Inspectors of Corrections also noted the long-standing issue and detailed that it required ‘a significant overhaul of the way the Department approaches and manages prisoner property’ (Department of Corrections, 2009c:139). The report states that a review was scheduled for 2009/10. Continued monitoring of this issue, and the outcomes of any property management changes, is necessary.