Submission on the Corrections

Amendment Bill

Contact Person:

Anneliese Boston
Legal Officer
New Zealand Human Rights Commission
AnnelieseB@hrc.co.nz

1
Submission of the Human Rights Commission on the Corrections Amendment Bill
To: Justice Committee
Introduction
1. The Human Rights Commission (the Commission) welcomes the opportunity to
provide the Justice Committee with this submission on the Corrections Amendment
Bill (the Bill).
2. The Commission is an independent Crown Entity pursuant to the Crown Entities
Act 2004 and derives its statutory mandate from the Human Rights Act 1993 (HRA).
The long title to the HRA states it is intended to provide better protection of human
rights in New Zealand in general accordance with United Nations Human Rights
Covenants and Conventions.
3. The explanatory note states the Bill aims to:

• improve the ability of the Department of Corrections (the Department) to safely

and humanely manage prisoners
• improve prisoner discipline and safety, and
• ensure the fair treatment of prisoners.
4. The Commission agrees with the aims of the Bill and has suggestions for further
promoting these objectives and upholding international human rights standards,
particularly the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of
Prisoners (known as the Nelson Mandela Rules). This submission will focus on:

• segregation of prisoners at risk of self-harm

• reviews of mother and baby placement decisions
• use of Police jails
• using imaging technology searches to detect contraband on prisoners, staff, and
visitors
• use of mechanical restraints on prisoners being treated in hospital
• prisoner communication
• prisoners’ knowledge of disciplinary offences
• cell sharing
• prisoner’s management plan, and
• use of chains and irons in prisons.
5. A full summary of recommendations is included at the end of this submission.
6. Please read this submission in conjunction with the joint submission from the
National Preventive Mechanisms.

2
Segregation of prisoners at risk of self-harm

7. In her report Thinking Outside the Box? A review of seclusion and restraint
practices in New Zealand1 Dr Shalev recommended that “Individual prisons and
the Department more widely need to ensure that At Risk units are not merely
another form of segregation. Prisoners in these units should be offered some form
of a daily regime, and health staff should be more involved with prisoners in the
units, and work with them to address the issues which resulted in their placement
at the unit.” We are pleased to see the Bill has taken on board this recommendation
and would introduce a regime separate from the segregation regime. We have
some comments to improve the proposed new regime.
8. Clause 61D requires an at-risk management plan to be established. This is a
positive step, and ensures a prisoner has a roadmap for their treatment and how
to leave the At Risk Unit. We suggest this plan is made available to the prisoner.
The Bill provides for the prisoner to be informed of the restrictions on them, which
form part of the management plan. Access to the management plan itself will also
provide them information on the steps that they can take, and information about
what the Department will take to address their risk of self-harm.
Recommendation one: add a subsection to new section 61D, being “(3) Each at-risk
management plan must be readily available to the prisoner to whom it applies”.
9. Clause 61E states what the at-risk management plan must contain. It provides that
“the restrictions (if any) on the opportunity of the prisoner to associate with other
prisoners” must be specified and “The plan may specify restrictions on the
opportunity of the prisoner to associate with other prisoners only to the extent that
those restrictions are necessary for the safety of the prisoner or the safety of other
prisoners.” International human rights standards, for example the Nelson Mandela
Rules and the Istanbul Statement on the Use and Effects of Solitary Confinement,
prohibit the use of solitary confinement on prisoners with mental health needs.
Research shows the profound effects of solitary confinement on those with mental
health issues and that it leads to worsening of their condition.2 Segregation is a
known risk factor for self-harm. A prisoner at risk of self-harm should never be
restricted from association with others.
Recommendation two: remove sections 1(a) and (2) from new section 61E in clause 14.
10. The advice of the health centre manager must be obtained within 24 hours after
the prisoner’s at-risk assessment, and the prisoner must be visited at least twice
a day by a health professional. This is positive. The at-risk assessment must be
revoked if the prison manager is satisfied, after obtaining the advice of the health
centre manager, that the prisoner is no longer at risk of self-harm.

1 Shalev, S. (2017) Thinking Outside the Box? A review of seclusion and restraint practices in New
Zealand (Available at www.seclusionandrestraint.co.nz)
2 See, for example, the report above

3
11. Rule 46.2 of the Nelson Mandela Rules provides:
Health-care personnel shall report to the prison director, without delay, any
adverse effect of disciplinary sanctions or other restrictive measures on the
physical or mental health of a prisoner subjected to such sanctions or
measures and shall advise the director if they consider it necessary to
terminate or alter them for physical or mental health reasons.
12. We suggest the health centre manager be required to advise the prison manager
if the prisoner is suffering any adverse effects due to their at-risk assessment and/or
other restrictions, and whether they think those restrictions should be changed.
Recommendation three: insert a section in clause 14 stating “The health centre manager
must inform the prison manager if an at-risk prisoner is suffering adverse effects due to
their placement in an at-risk cell or restrictions on them”.
13. Regulations will specify entitlements for at-risk prisoners. Amended Regulation
63(4) states that the health centre manager must recommend to the prison
manager whether or not the prisoner should be denied minimum entitlements.
Minimum entitlements are, as the name suggests, the minimum and should never
be denied. These minimum entitlements include exercise, a bed and bedding, food
and drink, visitors, and telephone calls. These entitlements are important to
maintaining mental health and should not be denied to those experiencing mental
health issues. Minimum entitlements should always be provided.
14. This Regulation also allows a prisoner to be denied other items, such as clothing.
Rule 19.1 of the Nelson Mandela Rules states;
Every prisoner who is not allowed to wear his or her own clothing shall be
provided with an outfit of clothing suitable for the climate and adequate to
keep him or her in good health. Such clothing shall in no manner be degrading
or humiliating.
15. Not being able to wear clothing or being made to wear anti-tear gowns may be
humiliating for the prisoner.
Recommendation four: remove new Regulation 63(4) in clause 34.
16. Amended Regulation 60 refers to Schedule 2 Part C which will specify what items
are required in an at-risk cell. They are:

• A cut down knife located outside the cell but in the vicinity

• A window that allows a complete view of the inside of the cell from a vantage
point outside the cell door

• Artificial lighting that is controlled only from outside the cell

• Furniture and fittings within the cell that are free from features that could
facilitate self-harm (in particular hanging or garrotting)
4
 • Intercom, alarm, or call button, and

• No privacy screening or any other barrier that prevents a full view of the cell
from the door window
17. The draft regulations provide that, if practicable, an at-risk cell is to have: artificial
lighting, an automatic fire detector, fresh or conditioned air, and heating as
appropriate for climatic conditions (listed in Part D of Schedule 2). An at-risk cell
is not proposed to require a bed, toilet, hand washing facilities, running potable
water, or privacy screening.
18. The Nelson Mandela Rules require, at a minimum, a bed, bathing and shower
installations, and adequate sanitary installations to enable every prisoner to comply
with the needs of nature when necessary and in a clean and decent manner. 3 At-
risk cells should contain a bed, toilet, running potable water, and hand washing
facilities.
19. The Ombudsman has continually raised the issue of privacy within at-risk units,
stating in an inspection report that “prison staff (and others) having the ability, either
directly or through camera footage, to observe prisoners undertaking their ablutions
or in various stages of undress amount to degrading treatment or punishment for
the purpose of the Convention Against Torture”.4
Recommendation five: include a bed, toilet, hand washing facilities, running potable
water, and privacy screening in Part C of Schedule 2
20. Dr Shalev5 noted the lack of personal autonomy for some detainees, including
restrictions on the number of toilet flushes or light switches placed outside of
rooms. She recommended implementing measures to allow detainees more
personal autonomy. Lighting should be able to be controlled inside the cell.
Recommendation six: Amend Schedule 2 Part C to state “Artificial lighting that is
controlled from inside and outside the cell”.
Review of mother and baby placement decisions
21. The Bill introduces a statutory process for the reconsideration of a decision about
the placement of prisoners and their babies in the Mothers with Babies Unit. This
process is only a reconsideration by the original decisionmaker. We consider
there should be a statutory review process, that provides for the decision to be
reviewed by an independent person or body, for example the Office of the

3 Rule 15
4 Office of the Ombudsman (2018) Report on an unannounced follow-up inspection of Christchurch
Women's Prison (Available at http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/resources-and-publications/opcat-
reports)
5
Shalev, S. (2017) Thinking Outside the Box? A review of seclusion and restraint practices in New
Zealand (Available at www.seclusionandrestraint.co.nz)
5
 Inspectorate. The placement decision is a crucial decision for the mother and her
child. A review process functions as a process to fix errors and clarify the rules.
Recommendation seven: Add a section 81AC to clause 18 to provide an appeal process.
Use of Police jails
22. The Bill continues the practice of enabling the Corrections Minister to declare a
Police jail as a corrections facility and for prisoners in Police cells to be denied
access to minimum entitlements.
23. Police cells should never be used as an alternative to a corrections facility. They
do not provide the resources, support, and minimum requirements needed by
prisoners. This is acknowledged by the Department, as the Bill continues the denial
of minimum entitlements. Further work should be done examining alternatives to
holding prisoners in Police cells, decreasing the prison population, and seeking to
uphold the human rights of the members of our society most vulnerable to the
exercise of state power.
24. The Bill continues to allow the denial of entitlements to physical exercise, visitors
(including specified visitors such as someone providing religious guidance),
sending and receiving mail, making phone calls, and accessing education and
news. This is in breach of the Nelson Mandela Rules. Rules include:

• Rule 23.1 Every prisoner who is not employed in outdoor work shall have at
least one hour of suitable exercise in the open air daily if the weather permits.

• Rule 58.1 Prisoners shall be allowed, under necessary supervision, to

communicate with their family and friends at regular intervals: (a) By
corresponding in writing and using, where available, telecommunication,
electronic, digital and other means; and (b) By receiving visits.

• Rule 63 Prisoners shall be kept informed regularly of the more important items
of news by the reading of newspapers, periodicals or special institutional
publications, by hearing wireless transmissions, by lectures or by any similar
means as authorized or controlled by the prison administration.

• Rule 65.3 Access to a qualified representative of any religion shall not be

refused to any prisoner.
25. If the Bill is enacted, New Zealand may continue to breach these rules. If minimum
entitlements cannot be provided in police cells, prisoners should not be held in
police cells.
Recommendation eight: delete clause 15 and the current section 69(3).

6
Using imaging technology searches to detect contraband on prisoners, staff, and
visitors
26. We support the use of imaging technology, particularly when used instead of strip
searches. Strip searches are demeaning, humiliating, and negatively impact
relationships between prisoners and corrections officers.6
27. Strip searches can be used in numerous situations. Section 98(3) provides strip
searches may be used where there are reasonable grounds for believing the
prisoner has possession of an unauthorised item. Section 98(6) lists common
situations where strip searches may be used, including when prisoners return from
temporary release, prisoners returning from work, during the transfer to another
prison, before going to see a Visiting Justice, the Parole Board, or hearing
adjudicator, and before and after visits. Due to the demeaning nature of strip
searches and the availability of other technology, we suggest a preference in
legislation for the use of imaging technology in these common situations.
Recommendation nine: A paragraph is added to section 98(6) stating “If a prisoner is
required to undergo a strip search under this section and imaging technology is available
as an alternative, imaging technology is to be used.”
28. We have some suggestions to improve the legislation relating to the use of imaging
technology on trans persons. Clause 21 as currently drafted would add new
subsection 92B, which would provide:
(2) However, an image that is produced using imaging technology—
(a) may be viewed only by an officer or a constable of the same sex as the
person who is searched; and
(b) may not be viewed by another prisoner.
29. This is similar to clause 22, which would replace section 94 with “The following
searches may be carried out only by a person of the same sex as the person to
be searched.”
30. These sections do not specifically account for trans persons. The Department of
Corrections’ Prison Operations Manual states “If the prisoner identifies as trans,
discuss what gender of officer they prefer to conduct rub down and strip
searches”. We suggest this is incorporated into the legislation.
Recommendation ten: Amend clauses 21 and 22 by adding “or if the person to be
searched identifies as trans by a person or persons of the gender elected by the person
to be searched”.

6Anti-Discrimination Commission, Queensland, (2006) Women in Prison report (Available at

https://www.adcq.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/5148/WIP_report.pdf)
7
Use of mechanical restraints on prisoners being treated in hospital
31. The Commission does not support authorising the use of mechanical restraints
on a prisoner for more than 24 hours if they are in hospital, without safeguards.
The use of restraints has significant adverse physiological effects. Those who
have been restrained report feeling a loss of dignity and sense of autonomy.7
32. Rule 48.1 of the Nelson Mandela Rules provides:
When the imposition of instruments of restraint is authorized in accordance
with paragraph 2 of rule 47, the following principles shall apply:
(a) Instruments of restraint are to be imposed only when no lesser form of
control would be effective to address the risks posed by unrestricted
movement;
(b) The method of restraint shall be the least intrusive method that is
necessary and reasonably available to control the prisoner’s movement,
based on the level and nature of the risks posed;
(c) Instruments of restraint shall be imposed only for the time period required,
and they are to be removed as soon as possible after the risks posed by
unrestricted movement are no longer present.
33. These rules are not currently in legislation. The Corrections Act allows mechanical
restraints to be used on a prisoner for more than 24 hours if authorised by the
prison manager and if in the opinion of a medical officer continued restraint is
necessary to protect the prisoner from self-harm. These safeguards of being
authorised by the prison manager and being necessary to protect the prisoner from
self-harm do not apply to a prisoner in hospital. The explanatory note states
mechanical restraints are needed on prisoners in hospital to “prevent escapes and
maintain public safety.” We suggest safeguards, being authorised by the prison
manager and being necessary to prevent the prisoner from escaping and to
maintain public safety, are added.
Recommendation eleven: Clause 20, which amends section 87, is amended to state “is
authorised by the prison manager and is necessary, to maintain public safety and to
prevent the escape of a prisoner who has been temporarily removed to a hospital outside
the prison for treatment.”
Prisoner communication
34. We agree with the Department that charging for phone calls can be
administratively complex and costly, and can affect a prisoner’s ability to maintain

7Barnett, R., Stirling, C., Pandyan, A.D. (2012) A review of the scientific literature related to the adverse
impact of physical restraint: gaining a clearer understanding of the physiological factors involved in
cases of restraint-related death in Med Sci Law. 2012:52(3):137-42.
8
 family and social relationships. We support changes that enable prisoners to
contact their family and friends.
35. The Corrections Act states prisoners must meet the cost of the call. The Bill
provides the prisoner may either meet the cost of the call or pay a fee.
36. There is no further information on the fee. We suggest the prisoner be charged
whichever is the lower cost of a fee or cost of the call.
37. While not in legislation, we suggest if the fee is a flat payment the Department
provide options for payment over a time period, and provide information about the
cost of calling on kiosks and in the Prison Operations Manual.
Recommendation twelve: Add to clause 17 “(c) whichever is the lowest price to the
prisoner”.
Prisoners’ knowledge of disciplinary offences
38. The Corrections Act specifies what information must be given to recently received
prisoners, including the operations and rules of the prison, and entitlements of
prisoners.8 The Bill adds information about disciplinary offences.
39. Rule 54 of the Nelson Mandela Rules states what information should be given to a
prisoner upon admission, being:
(a) The prison law and applicable prison regulations;
(b) His or her rights, including authorized methods of seeking information,
access to legal advice, including through legal aid schemes, and procedures
for making requests or complaints;
(c) His or her obligations, including applicable disciplinary sanctions; and
(d) All other matters necessary to enable the prisoner to adapt himself or
herself to the life of the prison.
40. Most of these are covered in the Corrections Act or Bill. Information about access
to legal advice and procedures for making requests or complaints is not. Dr Shalev9
noted a lack of access to written complaint mechanisms. We suggest information
about complaints procedures and legal advice is provided to recently received
prisoners.
Recommendation thirteen: Add another paragraph (f) to the amended section 42(1) in
clause 16 “about access to legal advice, and procedures for making requests or
complaints”.

8Section 42 Corrections Act 2004

9Shalev, S. (2017) Thinking Outside the Box? A review of seclusion and restraint practices in New
Zealand (Available at www.seclusionandrestraint.co.nz)

9
Cell sharing
41. The Bill removes the preference for single-cell accommodation. The explanatory
note to the Bill understates the international research and human rights consensus
that single-cell accommodation is preferable.10
42. Nelson Mandela Rule 12.1 provides for single-cell accommodation:
Where sleeping accommodation is in individual cells or rooms, each prisoner
shall occupy by night a cell or room by himself or herself. If for special reasons,
such as temporary overcrowding, it becomes necessary for the central prison
administration to make an exception to this rule, it is not desirable to have two
prisoners in a cell or room.
43. Prisoners experience greater negative effects when sharing a cell. Milhaud and
Moran interviewed prisoners for their research on penal space and privacy. 11 A
prisoner commented:
When there are two of you [in the same cell], it is overcrowding. There is
always someone with you. Whenever you eat, wash yourself, go to the toilet,
cry, there are always two of you. There is no privacy. It is difficult…12
44. A critical review of research on jail environments and of specific issues critical to
the way they are experienced13 includes research on the sharing of cells, stating:
When several inmates share a cell, the problems go beyond physical
closeness. Sharing toilet facilities within a cell violates basic privacy norms
regarding sight, sound, and odor (sic). It is stressful to most inmates even
though they have no choice but to adjust and accommodate.14
45. The same review cites five studies which “have supported the conclusion that
increased density has significant negative effects. The most consistent result has
been that the number of inmates per cell has been the best predictor of negative
responses”.15
46. In the mid-1980s in Ireland, the multiple prisoner per cell regime was sanctioned
by the government due to an increasing prison population. The Irish Penal Reform
Trust has said this change in law resulted in an increase in prisoners while capacity
for services, education, and training did not increase.16 During Ireland’s review by

10 The explanatory note states that, “Although it is recognised that single-cell accommodation can be
preferable research has shown that cell sharing is acceptable if properly managed.”
11 Milhaud, O, and Moran, D (2013) Penal Space and Privacy in French and Russian Prisons in Carceral

Spaces: Mobility and Agency in Imprisonment and Migrant Detention (2013) eds Moran, D., Gill, N.,
Conlon, D., Ashgate Publishing Limited, Farnham, United Kingdom
12 Ibid at page 172
13 Wener, R (2012) The Environmental Psychology of Prisons and Jails Creating Humane Spaces in

Secure Settings, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom

14 Ibid at page 121
15 Ibid at page 147
16 TheJournal.ie (2013) Number of prisoners sharing cells in Irish jails is 'worrying'

10
 the UN Committee Against Torture, the Committee noted their concern that “1,539
prisoners are required to use toilet facilities in the presence of another inmate, in
cells where prisoners also have to take their meals”. The Committee recommended
Ireland “reduce overcrowding with a view to bringing conditions of detention into
line with the international standards enshrined in the United Nations Standard
Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules)”.17
47. The decline in conditions that Ireland experienced may be occurring already in New
Zealand. The Upper Prison of Rimutaka was reopened in February 2017 due to the
significant increase in numbers of women prisoners. In February 2018 the
Department decided to double-bunk some of the cells at this prison. An inspection
by the Office of the Ombudsman in May 2017 found this prison was facing
considerable challenges.18 Communal space was limited, cells were small, there
was no structured analysis of health needs, there was a lack of constructive and
meaningful activities, a lack of programmes that was resulting in detrimental effects
on prisoners, and women classified as low security risk were being subjected to a
regime more suited to managing high-security prisoners.
48. We recognise special reasons, such as temporary overcrowding, mean single-cell
accommodation is not always available. This is also accepted in the Nelson
Mandela Rules. However, this should be a temporary measure and not an ongoing
standard. We do not agree with amending the law to remove the preference for
individual cells.
Recommendation fourteen: Delete clause 35, which changes the preference of
accommodation in individual cells to stating a prisoner may be accommodated in a
shared cell.
49. The Ombudsman has expressed concern that the size of cells in New Zealand
prisons is not compliant with international standards.19 The European Committee
for the Prevention of Torture’s basic guidance requires 6m² of living space for a
single-occupancy cell, and 4m² of living space per prisoner in a multiple-occupancy
cell.20 This excludes the space for sanitary facilities. A single-occupancy cell should
measure 6m² plus the space required for a sanitary annexe (usually 1m² to 2m²).
In any cell accommodating more than one prisoner, the sanitary annexe should be
fully partitioned.

(Available at http://www.thejournal.ie/prison-cells-doubling-up-1233518-Dec2013/)
17 Committee Against Torture (2017), Concluding observations on the second periodic report of Ireland,

(Available at
http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CAT/C/IRL/CO/2&Lan
g=En)
18 Office of the Ombudsman (2018) Report on an unannounced inspection of Arohata Upper Prison

(Available at http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/resources-and-publications/opcat-reports)
19 Ibid
20 European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or

Punishment (CPT) (2015) Living space per prisoner in prison establishments: CPT standards (Available
at https://rm.coe.int/16806cc449)

11
50. The current regulations21 state “Subclause (1) does not prohibit 2 or more prisoners
from being accommodated in one cell if that cell is designed and equipped to
accommodate the number of prisoners to be accommodated in it.”
51. Our preference is for clause 35 to be deleted, however if it remains we suggest
amendments to ensure New Zealand is compliant with international standards on
cell size. We suggest including a subclause similar to Corrections Regulation 66(3).
Recommendation fifteen: If clause 35 is retained, add a subclause to Regulation 66
stating “(4) A shared cell will be designed and equipped and of the appropriate size to
accommodate the number of prisoners to be accommodated in it”.
52. We are concerned the Bill does not exclude the possibility of more than two people
in a cell and dormitory style cells where many prisoners must live. The European
Committee for the Prevention of Torture considers dormitories to be
unsatisfactory.22
Recommendation sixteen: If clause 35 is retained, add a subclause to Regulation 66
stating “(5) A shared cell will accommodate two prisoners”.
Prisoner’s management plan
53. This Bill allows for a management plan to be comprised of more than one
document. We understand practically a management plan may need to be
comprised of more than one document, and in paper or electronic records.
Management plans also need to be easily accessible for prisoners, so the prisoner
knows how their rehabilitative and reintegrative needs will be met and what they
themselves can do to further these goals. Dr Shalev noted, “In prisons, the
prisoner’s signature was missing on several of the management plans examined,
and prisoners did not always get a copy of their management plan, which seemed
to defeat the point of having one.”23 We suggest a requirement for management
plans to be available to prisoners.
Recommendation seventeen: add a subsection to section 51, being 3B “Each plan must
be readily available to the prisoner to whom it applies”.
Use of chains and irons in prisons
54. We fully support clarifying in law that the use of chains and irons in prisons is
prohibited to align with the Nelson Mandela Rules.
55. Dr Shalev recommended restraint beds be immediately removed from prisons. 24
Restraint beds are no longer used in England and Wales. Dr Shalev stated, “In my

21 Regulation 66(3), Corrections Regulations 2005

22 United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (2005) Human Rights and Prisons: Manual on
Human Rights Training for Prison Officials, United Nations, New York and Geneva
23 Shalev, S. (2017) Thinking Outside the Box? A review of seclusion and restraint practices in New

Zealand (Available at www.seclusionandrestraint.co.nz)

24 Ibid

12
 view, restraint beds are inherently degrading, and there is no justification for their
continued use in prison settings.”
Recommendation eighteen: prohibit the use of restraint beds.
Nelson Mandela Rules
56. The Nelson Mandela Rules provide the authoritative source on the minimum
standards for prisoners. As a country that respects human rights New Zealand
should ensure its policies, legislation, and practices meet or exceed these minimum
standards.
57. As evidenced above, at times we are ensuring we meet these standards, for
example by including in legislation a ban on the use of chains and irons in prisons,
and at other times we are not, for example by having a preference for cell-sharing.
The Departmental Disclosure Statement for the Bill discusses the Nelson Mandela
Rules regarding the use of chains and irons, and cell-sharing, it does not discuss
these rules regarding the imposition of restraints and information provided to
prisoners upon arrival.
58. To ensure minimum standards are upheld in our prisons and that New Zealand
continues to uphold human rights, we suggest the Nelson Mandela Rules are
included as a Schedule to the Corrections Act. Similarly, for example, Schedule 1
to the Crimes of Torture Act is the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Schedule 2 is the Optional
Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment. Putting the Nelson Mandela Rules in legislation would
ensure the minimum standards are at the forefront of the minds of Corrections
Officers, policy advisors, and others when working with the Corrections Act.
Recommendation nineteen: add a Schedule to the Corrections Act containing the Nelson
Mandela Rules.

13
Appendix one: Recommendations

• Recommendation one: add a subsection to new section 61D, being “(3) Each at-
risk management plan must be readily available to the prisoner to whom it
applies”.

• Recommendation two: remove sections 1(a) and (2) from new section 61E in
clause 14.

• Recommendation three: insert a section in clause 14 stating “The health centre

manager must inform the prison manager if an at-risk prisoner is suffering adverse
effects due to their placement in an at-risk cell or restrictions on them”.

• Recommendation four: remove new Regulation 63(4) in clause 34.

• Recommendation five: include a bed, toilet, hand washing facilities, running

potable water, or privacy screening consistent in Part C of Schedule.

• Recommendation six: Amend Schedule 2 Part C to state “Artificial lighting that is

controlled from inside and outside the cell”.

• Recommendation seven: Add a section 81AC to clause 18 to provide for an

appeals process.

• Recommendation eight: delete clause 15 and the current section 69(3).

• Recommendation nine: A paragraph is added to section 98(6) stating “If a prisoner

is required to undergo a strip search under this section and imaging technology
is available as an alternative, imaging technology is to be used.”

• Recommendation ten: Amend clauses 21 and 22 by adding “or if the person to be

searched is transgender by a person of the gender elected by the person to be
searched”.

• Recommendation eleven: Clause 20, which amends section 87, is amended to

state “is authorised by the prison manager and is necessary to prevent the escape
of a prisoner who has been temporarily removed to a hospital outside the prison
for treatment and to maintain public safety.”

• Recommendation twelve: Add to clause 17 “(c) whichever is the lowest price to

the prisoner”.

• Recommendation thirteen: Add another paragraph (f) to the amended section

42(1) in clause 16 “about access to legal advice, and procedures for making
requests or complaints”.

• Recommendation fourteen: Delete clause 35, which changes the preference of

accommodation in individual cells to stating a prisoner may be accommodated in
a shared cell.

• Recommendation fifteen: Add a subclause to Regulation 66 stating “(4) A shared

14
 cell will be designed and equipped and of the appropriate size to accommodate
the number of prisoners to be accommodated in it”.

• Recommendation sixteen: If clause 35 is retained, add a subclause to Regulation

66 stating “(5) A shared cell will accommodate two prisoners”.

• Recommendation seventeen: add a subsection to section 51, being 3B “Each plan

must be readily available to the prisoner to whom it applies”.

• Recommendation eighteen: prohibit the use of restraint beds.

• Recommendation nineteen: add a Schedule to the Corrections Act containing the

Nelson Mandela Rules.

15