In February 2017, New Zealand’s prison population hit 10,100 – an all-time high – and an increase of 364% in the last 30 years.  A month later, the NZ Herald reported that 56.3% of that total are Maori – also an all-time high – even though Maori make up only 15% of the population.

Unfortunately, Maori are seven times more likely to be given a custodial sentence than pakeha and eleven times as many Maori are remanded in custody awaiting trial. The corollary is that if Maori were incarcerated at the same rate as non-Maori, there would only be 4,900 Kiwis in prison.  Any attempt to explain New Zealand’s high prison population must therefore begin with an analysis of why Maori are so over-represented in our offending statistics.

The impact of colonialism on Maori imprisonment

New Zealand’s colonial past is populated with social, economic and political policies which subjugated and penalised Maori. Moana Jackson (1988) has described these historical policies as…

“specific acts of institutional racism and social policy that have denied Maori people the economic and emotional resources to retain and transmit their cultural values”.

He argues that as a result,  New Zealand now has a monocultural justice system that entirely ignores the spirit of the Treaty of Waitangi which was supposed to establish a partnership between the British and Maori; in the Māori translation, it also guaranteed the latter unqualified exercise of ‘chieftainship’ over their own lands, villages, property and treasures.

It is self-evident that if Maori ceased to own their own land, the chiefs’ power base would be diminished and their capacity for partnership eliminated. AUT lecturer, Kylee Quince, says that in the 60 years following the signing of the treaty, this is exactly what happened: the settlers and the colonial government went about acquiring Maori land and resources “by way of negotiation, crooked dealings, warfare and confiscation”.

Prof John Pratt, from VUW, cites evidence that from 1840 onwards, Maori cultural values and mechanisms of social control were also suppressed by the magistrates of the time as the British justice system was imposed on the country. During this period, the Maori language was banned and Maori culture and mana were slowly ‘silenced’.

Jackson argues that as a result, New Zealand now has a monocultural justice system, one that ignores Maori culture and values. Quince says that as a result…

“Maori are underrepresented as police, legislators, judges, lawyers and jurors and consequently lack any input into the norms and processes of the system”.

She goes on to say there is a perception among many Maori that the law is a “blunt pakeha tool of coercion against Maori” and points to the on-going fraught relationship between Maori and police.

Perhaps therefore it should be no surprise that from about 1950 onwards, Maori have been prosecuted more frequently than European offenders, held on remand more frequently, and then sent to prison more frequently. Maori defendants are also less likely to have legal representation and more likely to plead guilty. In other words, there is institutional bias by the police who arrest more Maori, by lawyers who represent Maori and by judges who sentence Maori.  Academics ascribe this bias to…

“the formation of unfavourable stereotypes of Maoris in the minds of adjudicating officials”.

This brief introduction to institutional racism goes some way to explaining why 56% of prisoners in New Zealand are Maori.

The introduction of neoliberalism to New Zealand

Things got worse in 1984. Up to that point in our history, New Zealand was a ‘social democratic’ society with a strong focus on full employment, equal opportunities for everyone (except perhaps for Maori) and a supportive welfare state.

But in the latter half of the 20^th century, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher came to power and implemented neoliberal, trickle-down economic policies. In 1984, these feral ideas found fertile soil in New Zealand under the Labour Government of David Lange and Roger Douglas. New Zealand abandoned its long-standing commitment to full employment, sold off state assets, removed subsidies to industry and agriculture, and cut welfare payments. Over the next 30 years, the gap between the rich and the poor grew at an alarming rate, and the compassionate egalitarian society we once perceived ourselves to be, began to dissolve.

Unfortunately, neoliberalism is also associated with punitive penal policies towards those who can’t keep up. Cavadino and Dignan (2006) write:

“The neoliberal society tends to exclude both those who fail on the economic marketplace and those who fail to abide by the law – in the latter case by means of imprisonment… as a general rule, economic inequality is (also) related to penal severity: the greater the inequality in society the higher the overall level of punishment”.

New Zealand commentator Max Rashbrooke says this happens because the income gap causes people to “lose their sense of what life is like for people in the other half”.  Kylee Quince agrees that New Zealand is ‘incredibly harsh on people’ at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder. She points out that:

“About half of people in prison in New Zealand are there for property and drug offending. Very few Western nations send people to prison for those types of offences”.

In general, those treated the harshest are Maori who have been at the bottom ever since their lands were stolen.

Explaining the relationship between neoliberalism and our high rate of imprisonment

John Pratt believes that ‘penal populism’ is the mechanism by which neoliberalism exacerbated our exploding prison population. He says the social and economic changes introduced in the 1980s created a sense of existential angst; job security disappeared, the influence of trade unions declined, finance companies collapsed and inflation went up. The rising crime rate (prior to 1990) also contributed to these anxieties.

Prof Pratt believes there was a perception that governments were no longer in control (of crime in particular), and that politicians and political processes no longer responded to the needs of ‘ordinary people’.

In 1996, this dissatisfaction with the political process led to the abolition of ‘first past the post’ and the introduction of MMP. This facilitated the rise of the Act party which was subsequently responsible for the introduction of a ‘three strikes’ laws in New Zealand. This adds to the prison population by reducing the availability of parole.

In the latter half of the 20^th century, there were also significant changes in the structure of the media. Public service television virtually disappeared while social media and talkback radio enabled ordinary citizens, as opposed to experts, to express their point of view. Emotion rather than reason became a legitimate and significant portion of the political narrative.  Governments stopped listening to what judicial experts had to say about the ineffectiveness of prison as a deterrent and passed more ‘tough on crime’ laws.  In response, between 1985 and 1999, the prison population doubled.

From 2001, the so-called Sensible Sentencing Trust played a major role as journalists increasingly turned to Garth McVicar for ‘expert’ analysis. Because of the extraordinary exposure McVicar was granted by the media, ‘law and order’ became the dominant discussion of the decade. As a result, even though crime began dropping in the 1990s, the public were led to believe it was still going up.  Between 2000 and 2008, the Labour Government had to build four new prisons to keep up with the consequences of their punitive policies.

The National Party also played its part. In 2011, in response to the murder of 18-year-old Christie Marceau who was stabbed to death by a young man on remand, Garth McVicar began yet another law and order campaign.  National then introduced the Bail Amendment Act (2013) making it substantially harder for offenders awaiting trial to get bail.

The number of prisoners on remand sky-rocketed and in 2015, the prison population hit 9,000. In a propaganda piece in the NZ Herald, Justice Minister, Judith Collins attempted to blame the growing prison population on an increase in violent offenders. But even she had to acknowledge that most of the increase over the previous 12 months was due to the growing number of inmates on remand. In her superficial explanation, Ms Collins omitted to mention that the vast majority of these remand prisoners are Maori. In fact, she made no mention of the over-representation of Maori in prison at all. Nor did she mention poverty or the increase in inequality in New Zealand as contributing factors to the burgeoning prison population.

Conclusion

Another year has gone by and now over 10,000 Kiwis are in prison.  It is not possible to explain New Zealand’s record high rate of imprisonment without reference to New Zealand’s colonial past. There is no doubt that this pushed Maori to the bottom of the socio-economic ladder. The introduction of neoliberal policies in the 1980s increased economic disparity pushing Maori (and everyone else near the bottom rung) down even further. For the homeless, it pushed them off the ladder altogether – often into prison.

By highlighting violent crime, the Sensible Sentencing Trust, with the willing help of the media, then united the National and Labour Parties in a seemingly endless competition to be tough on crime.  ‘Criminals’ have become an easy target, scapegoated by politicians of every persuasion for practically every problem in society.  In this punitive environment, passing tough on crime laws is easy.  No wonder our prison population is at an all-time high.

This week the Dunedin coroner, David Crerar, has been holding an inquest into the death of Jai Davis at Otago prison in February 2011 from a suspected drug overdose. It’s taken over three years for the the inquest to start – mainly because for 12 months after Davis died, the police did virtually nothing about it. It looked like a suicide, so they just weren’t interested.

When I heard what had actually happened, I made a complaint to the IPCA about the inadequate police investigation. As a result, Detective Senior Sergeant Colin Blackie was eventually appointed to conduct a more thorough investigation. He did an excellent job. Over 60 Corrections staff were interviewed – including the managers, officers and nurses who were at Otago prison at the time. That took another year.

How Davis died

The circumstances contributing to Davis’ death are complex. But in a nutshell, he was admitted to the prison on Friday, 11 February 2011 when the health centre manager, Jill Thompson, was mysteriously absent from her post. There was no doctor on duty either; there hardly ever is – see Prison deaths linked to Corrections refusal to employ sufficient doctors.

Because Corrections had been monitoring prisoner’s phone calls, both the Police and the Corrections Department were aware Davis was likely to be internally concealing drugs when they brought him in. Davis was put into an ‘At Risk’ cell which has a camera on 24/7. Staff were also supposed to physically check on him every 15 minutes. The checks weren’t carried out properly and over the next two days, Davis became visibly unwell. Although he was seen by half a dozen different nurses during the weekend, not one of them bothered to call the doctor.  Davis died at about 10.00pm on Sunday, 13 February, after the nurses had all gone home.

Once Colin Blackie finished his investigation, senior police at head office analysed the information to determine whether anyone should be charged with a criminal offence – such as “failing to provide the necessaries of life”. That took another six months, but at the end of the day, no one was charged with anything. This week, the coroner was finally able to start the inquest into what went wrong.

Colin Blackie (left) partly blamed the slow start to the investigation. His testimony at the inquest was discussed on RNZ’s Checkpoint programme: ‘Delays into Jai Davis’ death impeded investigation’ (3’ 37”). A brief except follows:

Interviewer: “Emotions were running high as Detective Senior Sergeant Colin Blackie of the CIB told coroner David Crearer a tale of woes at the prison.”

Colin Blackie: “My view after what I believe was a thorough investigation is that over those few days (in February 2011 when Davis died), there was dysfunctionality within the prison. (I believe) that the three pillars of structure, communication and leadership were failing. There was a disconnect between the work groups (prison officers and nurses) and individuals (responsible for looking after Davis).”

“I use the analogy of five people trying to tackle Jonah Lomu. Everyone falls off and blames the others – and Jonah scores the try. And that’s how I viewed it at the end of this investigation. There was systemic failure by certain people and certain workgroups and no one standing up to be accountable for the treatment and care of Mr Davis.”

Jonah was a juggernaut

The analogy with Jonah Lomu is valid.  Jonah was a juggernaut – defined as ‘any large, overpowering, destructive force or object’. Once he got going, he was virtually unstoppable. For rugby fans, it was always a joy to see half a dozen guys trying to tackle him at once. He would usually just crash into them, step over the top, and go on to score a try.

The Corrections Department is equally overpowering and destructive – to the extent that in the last 10 years, approximately 90 inmates have died ‘unnatural deaths’ in prison. Most of these deaths are described as suicides. But because prison conditions are so harsh, the suicide rate inside is on average seven times higher than in the suicide rate in the community. In 2011 when 11 prisoners committed suicide – not counting Jai Davis who died after internally concealing drugs – it was 11 times higher.

Despite the fact that most unnatural deaths in prison are ‘suicides’ – neglect or failure to provide medical treatment often contributes to those suicides. See the Southland Times story on the death of Richard Barriball, Prison staff ‘ignored concerns’; or the story about Kerry Joll who had a history of depression but received no treatment in prison and hung himself.

Corrections doesn’t ‘try’ at all

But here’s the real killer. Despite 90 unnatural deaths in our prisons in the last ten years, not one Corrections’ employee has ever been charged with a crime. Why? Because the Department is a juggernaut.  It seems the police haven’t got the guts to tackle a government department that’s bigger than they are – or there’s political interference – and so Corrections gets away with it. But there’s a double standard; police frequently prosecute people in the community who neglect vulnerable family members. See severe neglect leads to prison sentence – except when the victim is a prisoner.

The inquest into the Jai Davis case shows the Corrections Department continues to get away with it – just like Jonah Lomu pushing all opposition aside. The only difference is that Jonah would go on to score a try. When it comes to saving prisoners’ lives, all too often Corrections doesn’t try at all.

When the inquest is finished, the coroner can make all the recommendations he wants. But until the police find the courage to prosecute prison officers and nurses who fail to respond to their duty of care, the Corrections juggernaut will continue steamrolling prisoners into committing suicide.

The Independent Police Conduct Authority (generally known as the IPCA) has just released a comprehensive report on police deaths in custody. There were 27 deaths in the last ten years – ten of which were suicides.  Seven deaths occurred when police were overly vigorous in the use of restraint. Another seven were “caused by the detainees medical condition” (which got dramatically worse in police custody), and three deaths were drug related (because police failed to ascertain the detainees were even on drugs). But of the 27 deaths, the IPCA claims that only four involved serious neglect of duty or breaches of policy by police. Really?

On top of deaths in custody, the police shot and killed seven people in the last ten years.  One was an innocent bystander, another two were not even carrying firearms. It seems they were killed for acts of vandalism and behaving in a threatening manner. The police were exonerated in all seven cases. Really!

Then there are the people who die in the course of police car chases.  During the five years starting in December 2003, 24 people died and 91 received serious injuries in police pursuits.  Over this period, the IPCA made numerous recommendations to change police protocols which made no difference at all – the death rate shot up even higher. In 2010, 18 drivers  fleeing police were killed.  In 2011, 15 drivers died in the course of police pursuits.

These figures don’t seem to take into account innocent bystanders or other drivers killed by these drivers which makes it hard to get accurate figures of the total numbers killed. But it seems to average out at about seven or eight deaths a year, although the numbers have escalated dramatically in the last two years.

Total number of police related deaths

This would suggest that altogether police have been involved in the deaths of about 100 people in the last ten years – 70 of them on the road.  The number of injuries appears to be ten times that figure.  A few police were told off, but apparently not one was charged with a criminal offence.  Yes – really! Imagine would happen if the shoe was on the other foot. What if the police investigated 100 deaths but failed to prosecute even one offender? There would be a commission of inquiry and heads would roll.

Many would argue that the police are just doing their job. Even the IPCA believes these deaths are justified. For instance, in its report into the deaths of Norman Fitt and Deidre Jordan following a police pursuit, the IPCA found:  “The Police pursuit of a driver who killed two other motorists in Christchurch in August 2010 was justified and was conducted according to law and policy.”  What that seems to mean is that when the police do their job, 100 dead bodies is just collateral damage.

The police certainly seem to think so. Police Association president Greg O’Connor even says police should be exempt from laws which apply to everyone else. Senior police management seem to agree. In an internal review of police pursuits in 2010, the police concluded:  “There is insufficient evidence to support the banning of pursuits. (Banning pursuits) is not likely to improve or guarantee public safety.” This shows a truly remarkable lack of insight. If police did not pursue these alleged offenders, approximately 70 people killed on the road in the last ten years would still be alive. That would be a huge contribution to public safety.

Which crimes justify dying? 

This begs the question: what criminal offences committed by these drivers actually justify police action which leads to someone’s death – especially the deaths of innocent bystanders? Afterall, many if not most, police pursuits begin over fairly trivial offences – or simply when police try to pull someone over to ascertain if an offence has even occurred.  Psychologist, Peter Coleman, an expert in youth offending, says teenage drivers who refuse to stop for police are often just addicted to the adrenaline rush. But if the offender flees, the police then pursue them out some macho need to be in control of the situation – all justified in the name of law and order.

IPCA inquiries which legitimise the policy of pursuit over minor infractions of the law simply add to the number of New Zealanders who get killed. In other words, the principle of law and order has become more important than life itself and agencies of the state actively sanction this slaughter.  What the IPCA should be doing is questioning the entire policy of pursuit and holding the police accountable. Now let’s get back to their report on deaths in police custody.

Failure of police to assess risk

The report is highly critical of the way police assess the detainees’ risk of suicide or risk of death – from medical complications exacerbated by alcohol and drugs or from overly vigorous restraint by police.   It says 55% of those who died were assessed by police as being at ‘no risk’. Another 30% were ‘not formally assessed’ at all. In other words, when it comes to assessing medical and suicide risk of vulnerable detainees, the police haven’t got a clue.  But that’s not surprising; they’re not health professionals. But nurses are – and the IPCA recommends that the Police work with the Ministry of Health “towards extending the watchhouse nurse programme so that custody staff nationwide have better access to medical advice for detainees.”   What the IPCA is suggesting is that we need to put nurses into every police station in the country.

Unfortunately, there are 19 other recommendations in the report and the IPCA has not prioritised any one recommendation over another.  And the recommendation for more nurses is contradicted by another recommendation which says that “detainees who are unconscious or semi-conscious, unable to answer the risk assessment questions, and/or physically unable to look after themselves, must be taken to hospital.”  The problem is the police don’t seem to know which detainees need to go to hospital.

The watchdog is a puppy

Let’s not forget that prisoners managed by the Corrections Department also have limited access to health care.  Despite years of inquiries and recommendations by the coroner into (Corrections) prison deaths, the suicide rate is still going up. In 2011, the suicide rate in Corrections prisons was eleven times higher than the rate in the community.  Prisoners keep dying no matter what coronial inquiries or the IPCA recommend.  Perhaps that’s because they have the power to recommend – but not the power to prosecute.  The IPCA is supposed to be a watchdog. Turns out to be more of a puppy – and very eager to please.

A couple of prisoners at Paremoremo have just come down from a tower in the yard after a ‘peaceful protest against the Department’ – according to the message they apparently wrote with toothpaste on a black board.  One of them was well known, Aaron Forden, aka ‘Houdini’ for his previous escapes. According to Peter Williams QC, who the prisoners wanted to contact, they were complaining about inhumane conditions and inadequate food.

This doesn’t make any sense.  Prisoners live a life of luxury, don’t they, with underfloor heating, flatscreen TV, and three square meals a day. They don’t have to work or attend rehabilitation programmes – just sit around chatting with their mates planning what crimes to commit when they get out.  Well that’s the stereotype.

The reality is something else entirely.  In 2009 a report  on Paremoremo described conditions at the prison as ‘putrid’ and found shortages of guards, lax security, and poor hygiene.  The Ombudsman has also documented inadequate health and dental treatment of prisoners, including the denial of pain medication and pointed to breaches of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.

UN Minimum Standards for food

But let’s talk about the food. Article 20 of the UN Minimum Rules says “every prisoner shall be provided … with food of nutritional value adequate for health and strength, of wholesome quality… and drinking water shall be available to every prisoner whenever he needs it.”

The notion that prisoners get three square meals a day is a myth. Most inmates seem to think the food is barely fit for pigs – which is not surprising considering the Department spends only $4.50 a day on food for each prisoner.   That’s $31.50 a week. That might have been a realistic figure 30 years ago but today it would barely buy bread for a week let alone three square meals a day.

Prisoner complaints about food

Prisoners frequently complain about the quality of the food. Last year one prisoner wrote to chief executive Ray Smith claiming that that prison food was ”high-salt, high-fat, high-sugar rubbish” and the meals were often inedible. The Ombudsman reported recently that “Prisoners continue to complain that the national menus implemented by the Department do not consider the specific health needs of prisoners, especially diabetics.”

Former Corrections Minister Judith Collins responded to these concerns with this churlish comment: “Stay out of jail if you don’t like the food.” The police seem equally uninterested in providing a healthy diet for prisoners.  The Wairarapa Times recently reported that a young man who spent a weekend in the police cells was given nothing but noodles and cold water.

The link between diet and violence

Prisoners tend to have poor health and nutritious food is important. Recent research in the US suggests that the modern diet may be a factor contributing to violent behaviour in Western society.    The study investigated the effects of omega-3 fatty acid supplements and hypothesises that modern industrialised diets may be changing the very architecture and functioning of the brain. It suggests the influence of poor diet is such that individuals may not always be responsible for their aggression – bringing into question the very foundations of criminal justice and the notion of culpability

Another study at Aylesbury prison in the UK raised prisoners’ intake of nutrients up to the level recommended by government guidelines.  It was a placebo-controlled double blind randomised trial. The researchers found 231 volunteer prisoners and assigned half to a regime of supplements and half to placebos. It showed that when young men there were fed multivitamins, minerals and essential fatty acids, the number of violent offences they committed in prison fell by 37%.  The prisoners taking the placebos showed no change in their behaviour.

A Dutch research team repeated the experiment and released this report “Effects of Nutritional Supplementation on Aggression, Rule-Breaking, and Psychopathology among Young Adult Prisoners.” The researchers urged caution in interpreting the results but said: “The prospect of influencing aggression and rule-breaking behaviour with nutrients in moderate doses is important enough to warrant further research. This is particularly true as adequate supplementation may also have beneficial effects on mental health and cognitive functioning.”

Although these studies do not suggest that poor diet alone can account for complex social problems, the former chief inspector of prisons Lord Ramsbotham says that he is now “absolutely convinced that there is a direct link between diet and antisocial behaviour, both that bad diet causes bad behaviour and that good diet prevents it.”

Violence in New Zealand prisons

It’s not entirely clear if the two prisoners who protested at Paremoremo were complaining about the food.  But one thing is certain – violence in New Zealand prisons is on the rise.  In 2011, 241 prison staff were assaulted and 862 prisoners were assaulted by other inmates. In May 2010,  Jason Palmer, became the first officer to be killed in a New Zealand prison after he was punched by an inmate. Surely it wouldn’t do any harm to give prisoners decent food with adequate vitamins and minerals. It might even help reduce the number of assaults. It would certainly add to our reputation as a civilised country – instead of one that breaches basic human rights.

A Bill has just passed its first reading in the New Zealand Parliament which will enable prisoners to be charged with an offence for drinking too much water.  Corrections Minister Anne Tolley said:  “The Bill will make it an offence for a prisoner to ‘waterload’ prior to a drug test. This means that a prisoner can be disciplined if they are found to be attempting to dilute their urine sample by intentionally drinking large amounts of water prior to being tested.”

This is nonsense – prisoners don’t know when they’ll be tested. The drug tests are generally random so it’s virtually impossible to ‘intentionally’ drink large amounts of water prior to being tested.  If a prisoner is thirsty and drinks a lot of water, and if a random drug test is done soon afterwards, this will now constitute ‘misconduct’.

Double jeopardy -‘bashful bladder’

When prisoners are made to do a drug test, there are usually two or three prison officers watching. Some people find this so off-putting they can’t pee. The inability to pee in front of others is a well-known psychological condition called paruresis – sometimes referred to as ‘bashful bladder’. The condition affects around 7% of the population.  Those with mild paruresis are able to urinate in certain circumstances but incapable in others. In British prisons, paruresis is considered a valid reason for a prisoner’s inability to produce a sample and is not to be construed as an offence. However, in New Zealand, failing to supply a sample in prison is classified as ‘misconduct’ – and is automatically assumed to indicate a positive result.

If a prisoner has any misconduct offences on their file in the six months before appearing at the Parole Board, their chances of being released are substantially diminished. In prison you have to keep your nose clean (and now your bladder empty) to have any chance of release. One female prisoner I worked with developed paruresis after being sexually abused. She was charged with misconduct when she failed to produce a sample in front of three officers.  She appealed to a visiting Justice of the Peace to have the ‘misconduct’ removed from her file but the process took so long she ended up serving her whole sentence.

Another case involved a young female prisoner who has been in prison for seven years without using drugs. She was doing well and had been given privileges such as a minimum security classification, living in a self-care unit within the prison and for the last two years working outside the wire on day-release.  She was almost ready to be released. When asked to provide a random urine sample, she was watched by an officer for 5 hours. She couldn’t provide enough urine for the test and was deemed to have refused. She was charged with misconduct and punished. Her security classification was raised to medium-high; she lost her job; she was taken out of self care and put back into a mainstream unit. Now she is so depressed she feels like giving up.

A male prisoner diagnosed with prostate cancer was also affected by paruresis and told me can’t pee when officers are watching.  The prison medical staff know he has had cancer but won’t accept that he has paruresis. They told him he would have to pay for a private psychiatrist to come into the prison to make a diagnosis – at a cost of about $5,000.

Denial of rehabilitation

This Bill provides one more mechanism for punishing rather than rehabilitating prisoners.  Any ‘misconduct’ in prison (such as a positive drug test or failing to provide a urine sample) leads to a denial of privileges – including attendance at rehabilitation programmes.  Prisoners with drug problems have to give up drugs first and have a record of good behaviour before being allowed to attend drug treatment.  Now it seems they have to stay thirsty as well. If they drink too much water and have diluted urine – that’s misconduct – meaning no rehabilitation.

There is no need for this punitive piece of legislation.  The number of prisoners caught smoking cannabis is on the decline. In the last few years, Corrections has tightened up security and fewer drugs are smuggled in. In 2010, only 10.5% of prisoners tested positive on random drug tests – the lowest result since drug tests began in 1998.   In contrast to this, in 2011, only 1,255 prisoners attended rehabilitation programmes targeting their offending. That’s about 5% of the 20,000 people who end up in prison each year. The Department doesn’t need to be more rigorous about drug testing.  It needs to stop putting up barriers and put more prisoners into rehabilitation.

Roger Brooking: Author of Flying Blind – How the justice system perpetuates crime and the Corrections Department fails to correct

In  May 2006, National Finance went into receivership owing more than 2000 investors about $21 million. In October, 2011 one of the former directors, Trevor Ludlow, was sentenced to five years and seven months in jail. He was found guilty of charges laid by the Serious Fraud Office relating to theft as a person in a special relationship.  He was  found to have breached the terms of the trust deed under which National Finance operated, personally defrauding investors of an estimated $3.5 million.

Since he was sentenced, Mr Ludlow has been held in Mt Eden, at the brand new purpose built prison for inmates on remand.  Ludlow is not on remand but has been kept in Mt Eden because it’s close to court and he was still facing eight additional charges of misleading investors and making false financial statements.

“Nothing to do” in prison

Mr Ludlow pleaded guilty to those charges on December 13.  During court proceedings, he broke down in tears complaining: “There is nothing to do in Mt Eden … it’s a horrible environment. It was awful to sit around all day with nothing to do. It’s terribly frustrating.”  Ludlow said he had enrolled in a correspondence class but was not being allowed to do it in Mt Eden prison.  He asked the judge to sentence him within the week because once sentencing takes place he will be moved to another prison.

Not surprisingly, there has been little sympathy for Mr Ludlow. The judge said: “I can’t help you. You’ve been found guilty and sentenced to jail.”  Callers to talkback radio commentators were even more scathing and thought that Mr Ludlow was getting his just deserts.

Fair enough. Ludlow deserves to be in prison. But his comment  that there is ‘nothing to do’ in Mt Eden prison contradicts earlier claims by Garth McVicar that the new Mt Eden prison is a  ‘better environment’ and run like ‘Club Med’.  Prisons are soul destroying environments with very little rehabilitation or work opportunities and Mt Eden is no different.

Bear in mind that Mt Eden prison is run by Serco – a private company in a private-public partnership with Government.  When the contract was awarded in 2010, former Corrections Minister Judith Collins (now Minister of Justice), said Serco had a “strong track record in running jails, and would bring fresh ideas to the prison’s management.  I’m confident that the company will bring the high standards of professionalism, safety, rehabilitation and security expected by the Government to Mt Eden/ACRP.”

Forced to sleep in toilets

Judith Collins failed to do her homework.   Serco is not the squeaky clean company she claims it to be. At a Serco run prison in Britain, prisoners have been forced to sleep in toilets because of overcrowding.  Prison inspectors uncovered the practice during an unannounced visit to Doncaster prison in 2008. The chief inspector of prisons, Anne Owers, said: “We were disappointed to find that two-person cells had been turned into three-person cells by placing a bed in the shared toilet.”

Two years earlier, the inspectorate criticised the company for “institutional meanness“ after finding there were inadequate mattresses, and many prisoners had no pillows, no toilet seats and nowhere to store belongings.  The chief inspector branded conditions at Doncaster as “squalid and deteriorating”.  Serco now runs four prisons in the UK.  If the Wiri prison goes ahead and Serco gets that contract as well, it will operate two prisons in New Zealand.

Conditions in New Zealand are not much better; our prisons have become so overcrowded that Judith Collins decided to put inmates into shipping containers.  These containers are quite small and some have two beds – and every cell has a toilet next to the bed. New Zealand prisoners are also ‘sleeping in the toilet.’

No rehab on remand

But let’s get back to Mr Ludlow who’s dying of boredom in Mt Eden. The Serco run Mt Eden prison was purpose built to hold prisoners on remand – those who have not yet been sentenced.  Approximately 14,000 New Zealanders spend time on remand every year.  The point is remand prisoners are not eligible to attend rehabilitation programmes because they have not yet been convicted of anything.

So it seems that Trevor Ludlow is being held in a remand prison even though he has already been convicted – but Serco is applying its (remand) rules which appear to prevent him from even starting a correspondence course – which Serco doesn’t even have to pay for because Ludlow’s  organising it himself.  Is this just another example of ‘institutional meanness’?  Ludlow needs to keep himself occupied as he almost certainly won’t be eligible to attend rehabilitation programmes in prison.  This is because he’s in his 50s and (presumably) has no previous convictions – so will be classified at low-risk of re-offending. Only medium and high risk prisoners are allowed to attend rehabilitation.

So while Trevor Ludlow does not deserve much sympathy for the fact that he is in prison, his tearful comments to the judge about prison conditions in New Zealand should not be ignored.  Mr Ludlow is currently in a prison run by a private company with a documented history of poor care and ‘institutional meanness’. Once he is sentenced on his current charges, he will be moved to a prison run by the Corrections Department – where he will also not be eligible to attend rehabilitation programmes. If he’s lucky, he just might get to do his correspondence course.  But he’ll still be sleeping in the toilet.