Ombudsman's Special Investigation Into Management of Prisoner Arthur Taylor in Auckland Prison, New Zealand

Special Investigation: Mr A Taylor 2013
1

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION:
A review of the management of prisoner Arthur Taylor at
Auckland Prison 15 June 2011 to 30 April 2012
_____________________________________________________________

Investigation Summary

Arthur Taylor is a prisoner at Auckland Prison. As a result of a number of complaints from Mr Taylor regarding
the prisons management of him, and his placement in various locations within East Division at Auckland
Prison, a decision was made to undertake a special investigation into his overall management for a specified
period of time, focusing on the areas of concern raised by Mr Taylor.

Further supporting the decision to manage Mr Taylors concerns in this manner were the findings in the COTA
reports for Auckland Prison completed after an Inspection in September 2011, in which concerns parallel to
Mr Taylors were identified and noted to the Department. One of the primary concerns identified in the COTA
report was the incomplete directed segregation paperwork and recommendations were made accordingly in
this area.

With regard to this special investigation into Mr Taylors management it was decided that the matter would
not be notified, but that a letter outlining the findings would be sent to the Department for comment, if
appropriate, at the completion of the investigation.

The investigation looked primarily at prisons initial decision to place Mr Taylor on directed segregation on 15
June 2011, to extend that segregation order up to and including March 2012, the imposition and restrictions
of the management plan in conjunction with the directed segregation order, and the placement of Mr Taylor
into the High Care Unit for a period of time. The investigation also reviewed the provision of minimum
entitlements to Mr Taylor during this period.

The purpose of directed segregation is to manage a prisoner who is non-compliant and creating disruption
within a unit, or who is at risk to the security of the prison or other people. Directed segregation allows a
prison to restrict or deny a prisoner the opportunity to associate with other prisoners thus reducing any
influence or risk that they may present.

In conjunction with a management plan which further restricts prisoners entitlements, a period of directed
segregation under section 58(1)(a) of the Corrections Act 2004 (the Act) should only be imposed when
absolutely necessary to protect the security, good order and safety of the prison, and should only be imposed
for the period that such a risk exists. Further, while an oral directive can be made to place a prisoner on
directed segregation, the required paperwork (including the management plan) must be given to the prisoner
no later than the next working day with the time and date of the oral direction noted on the documents.


2

I am satisfied that the initial decision to place Mr Taylor on directed segregation under section 58(1) of the Act
was reasonable given the discovery of a cell phone, and cell phone related items in Mr Taylors possession
during a cell search.

However, as a result of this investigation I am not satisfied that the following decisions and actions made by
the Auckland Prison were in accordance with prison policy or practice:

The provision of directed segregation paperwork to Mr Taylor prior to approval for the extension to
that segregation being granted
The number and type of restrictions to Mr Taylors minimum entitlements through the imposition of a
number management plans;
the decision to house him in the High Care Unit cells which, at that time, were not suitable for housing
prisoners; and
the length of time in which Mr Taylors opportunity to associate with other prisoners was denied.

With regard to the provision of minimum entitlement provided to Mr Taylor between October 2011 and May
2012, the investigation focused solely on the provision of recreation time. Section 70 of the Act provides that a
prisoner may take at least one hour of exercise time per day, and that weather permitting this exercise may be
taken outside in open air.

Mr Taylor complained that he was not provided with his minimum one hour of exercise each day, and that
most of the exercise time offered was in internal rooms with little to no natural light. Mr Taylor was located in
a number of different units during the 8 months that were reviewed. This presented some issues with locating
different unit logbooks and working out the various regimes in each unit. To simplify matters it was assumed
that each unit had 6.5 hours per day for prisoners to be unlocked and that every unit locked early on a Friday
for staff meeting and training. This approached also provided consistency across the months when
determining the amount of recreation hours.

The investigation found that over the 8 month period Mr Taylor was not provided with 42.8 hours worth of
recreation time that he was entitled to receive under the Act. While Mr Taylor received more that his
entitlement on some days, there were a number of days in succession where he was not provided with an
hour of recreation. In March and April 2012, he was entitled 28 and 30 hours each monthly respectively for
recreation. In fact he received on 15.3 and 24.5 hours respectively.

In conclusion, this investigation has found that the Prison did not follow policy or procedure in relation to the
continued Directed Segregation of Mr Taylor, and the Prison did not provide to Mr Taylor his minimum
recreation entitlement between October 2011 and May 2012.


3

Relevant Legislation
Corrections Act 2004
Section 58 - Segregation for purpose of security, good order, or safety
(1) The prison manager may direct that the opportunity of a prisoner to associate with other
prisoners be restricted or denied if, in the opinion of the manager
(a) the security or good order of the prison would otherwise be endangered or prejudiced;
or
(b) the safety of another prisoner or another person would otherwise be endangered.
(2) If a direction is given under subsection (1),
(a) the prisoner concerned must promptly be given the reasons in writing for the direction
and any subsequent direction under subsection (3)(c):
(b) the chief executive must promptly be informed of the direction and the reasons for it.
(3) A direction under subsection (1)
(a) must be revoked by the prison manager if there ceases to be any justification, under
subsection (1), for continuing to restrict or deny the opportunity of the prisoner to
associate with other prisoners:
(b) may be revoked at any time by the chief executive or a Visiting Justice:
(c) expires after 14 days unless, before it expires, the chief executive directs that it
continue in force:
(d) if it continues in force because of a direction under paragraph (c), must
(i) be reviewed by the chief executive at intervals of not more than 1 month:
(ii) expire after 3 months unless a Visiting Justice directs that it continue in force:
(e) if it continues in force because of a direction under paragraph (d)(ii), must be reviewed
by a Visiting Justice at intervals of not more than 3 months.
69 Minimum entitlements
(1) Every prisoner has the following minimum entitlements:
(a) physical exercise, as provided for in section 70:
(b) a bed and bedding, as provided for in section 71:
(c) food and drink, as provided for in section 72:
(d) access to private visitors, as provided for in section 73:
(e) access to statutory visitors and specified visitors:
(f) access to legal advisers, as provided for in section 74:
(g) to receive medical treatment, as provided for in section 75:
(h) to send and receive mail, as provided for in section 76:
(i) to make outgoing telephone calls, as provided for in section 77(3):
(j) to exercise any right conferred on prisoners by regulations made under this Act to
communicate using any specified device or medium of communication:
(k) access to information and education, as provided for in section 78.
(2) A prisoner may be denied, for a period of time that is reasonable in the circumstances, 1 or
more of the minimum entitlements set out in subsection (1) if
(a) there is an emergency in the prison; or

4

(b) the security of the prison is threatened; or
(c) the health or safety of any person is threatened.
(3) A prisoner detained in a Police jail may be denied 1 or more of the minimum entitlements set
out in subsection (1) (other than the entitlements referred to in subsection (1)(b), (c), (f), and (g),
and the entitlement under subsection (1)(e) of access to statutory visitors) if, in the opinion of the
prison manager or other person in charge, it is not practicable to provide those entitlements,
having regard to the facilities available at the Police jail and the resources available.
(4) A prisoner
(aa) may be denied, for not more than 2 consecutive days at a time, the minimum
entitlement referred to in subsection (1)(a) if
(i) the prisoner has been temporarily released from custody or temporarily
removed from prison under section 62 or removed for judicial purposes under
section 65; and
(ii) in the opinion of the prison manager, it is not practicable to provide the
entitlement during the times the prisoner is in the prison:
(a) may be denied the minimum entitlements referred to in subsection (1)(d), (i),
(j), and (k) if the prisoner is undergoing a penalty of cell confinement imposed
under subpart 5 of Part 2:
(b) may be denied the minimum entitlement referred to in subsection (1)(k) if a
direction under section 58 or 59 is in force and the prison manager considers that
the prisoner is likely to damage prison property.
(5) The minimum entitlements conferred by subsection (1) are not privileges referred to in section
43(3)(a)(i), section 133(3)(a), or section 137(3)(a).
(6) Subsections (2), (3), and (4) override sections 70 to 78.
70 Exercise
(1) Every prisoner (other than a prisoner who is engaged in outdoor work) may, on a daily basis,
take at least 1 hour of physical exercise.
(2) The physical exercise referred to in subsection (1) may be taken by the prisoner in the open air
if the weather permits.


5

Management of Mr Taylor

The investigation reviewed the following aspects of Mr Taylors management during the specified period:

Directed Segregation
Management Plan
Placement in High Care Unit
Minimum Entitlements

Directed Segregation and Management Plans
Segregation is the restriction or denial of a prisoners opportunity to associate with other prisoners in
accordance with sections 58 to 60 of the Corrections Act 2004. The Prison Operation Manual (POM) M.01.03
Segregation of Prisoners Standard Requirements sets out the policy and procedure in relation to directed
segregation orders.

Where a prisoner has been placed on directed segregation, a management plan must be completed within
one working day of being placed on segregation. The purpose of the management plan is to assist in managing
the risk posed by the prisoner, and to manage the prisoners return to the general prison population.

Initial Directed Segregation 15 June to 28 June 2011
On 15 June 2011 Mr Taylor was placed on directed segregation for an initial period of 14 days. Mr Taylors
opportunity to associate with other prisoners was denied as a result of this segregation order.

Incident reports attached to the paperwork indicate that the directed segregation was imposed after
contraband, including a cell phone, was located in his cell during a targeted search on 14 June 2011.

A management plan was created to accompany the directed segregation paperwork. The management plan
was signed by Mr Taylor on 15 June 2011. The management plan included 1 hour of exercise which would
include shower and phone call time, 1 five minute phone call per week excluding legal calls, meals in cell and
one 30 minute visit per week in a booth. The Management Plan required that the prisoner and a witnessing
officer sign and date the document, with two officers signing if the prisoner refused to sign. It was noted that
Mr Taylor while signing the Management Plan noted on the paperwork that he, understood but not
agreed.

Mr Taylor wrote on the M.01.03.Form Initial segregation for purpose of security, good order, or safety
paperwork that he had not been provided with the reasons for segregation, copies of misconduct reports or
other relevant documentation, including M.01.03.Form.08 Prison Managers notification to the prisoner of the
prisoners placement on segregation or continuation of segregation, and M.01.03.Form.09 Confirmation of
minimum entitlements for a prisoner who is on segregation as required by POM. However, it was noted that
an officer had noted on the M.01.03.Form that copies given to prisoner Taylor. Mr Taylor also wrote on
M.01.03.Form that he requested the decision by reviewed by the Regional Manager or Inspectorate.


6

While the decision to placement Mr Taylor on directed segregation for the security, good order and safety of
the prison appeared to be reasonable, a review of the paperwork indentified the following procedural
deficiencies:

Supporting documentation used to support the decision to place Mr Taylor on directed segregation not
attached to the paperwork.

It appears that Mr Taylor was not given a copy of the report covering the reasons for the segregation,
Misconduct reports and other relevant documentation, M.01.03.Form.08, or M.01.03.Form.09 as
required by M.01.03.Form.

It appears that Mr Taylor was not given a copy of the extract from Corrections Act 2004 and
Corrections Regulations 2005 covering legal and administrative details of segregation as required by
M.01.03.Form.09.

M.01.03.Form.09 Confirmation of minimum entitlements for a prisoner who is on segregation does not
appear to have been completed fully. The minimum entitlements box has not been filled in. It appears
that information pertaining to minimum entitlements has been detailed in management plan instead.

In the management plan, recreation time was restricted to one hour per day which was to include
shower, cleaning, phone calls and yard time. Recreation time should be separate from time allocated
for cleaning and phone calls.

Segregation beyond 14 Days 28 June to 14 July 2011
On 24 June 2011 approval was given by Acting Assistant Regional Manager to extend the directed segregation
period beyond 14 days up to one month.

A memo, dated 24 June 2011, was prepared by Residential Manager Tony Queree which provided the
supporting reasons for seeking the extension. A review of this memo indicated that the incidents listed in the
memo to support the extension occurred prior to the imposition of the initial segregation, rather than in the
previous two weeks after the initial segregation. It was noted that a hacksaw blade was located in Mr Taylors
office on 22 June 2011.

Mr Taylor had been given extensive assistance with regard to his preparation for Court matters and Mr
Queree noted in his memo that it was clearly evident that prisoner Taylor has taken excessive advantage of
the unit staffs efforts to support him in the preparation of his defence [sic]. No matter where we place him he
has continually shown that he presents a significant ongoing threat to the security and good order of this
Institution. Mr Queree concluded that continued directed segregation was required to minimise the threat
that Mr Taylor posed.

A management plan, with the same restrictions as the initial management plan, was attached to the directed
segregation paperwork. No incident reports, misconduct paperwork, or files notes were attached to support
Mr Querees contention that Mr Taylor remained a threat to the security and good order of the prison.


7

Issues identified with the Paperwork:
M.01.03.Form.09 Confirmation of minimum entitlements for a prisoner who is on segregation does not
appear to have been completed fully. The minimum entitlements box has not been filled in. It appears
that information pertaining to minimum entitlements has been detailed in Management Plan instead.


M.01.03.Form.09 Confirmation of minimum entitlements for a prisoner who is on segregation page 1 of
3, point 2 [delete one] remains in document.

The Memo prepared to support the extension to the segregation was dated 24 June 2011, and the
Acting Assistant Regional Manager (AARM) approved the extension on 24 June 2011. However, Mr
Taylor and the witnessing Officer signed the M.01.03.Form.09 Confirmation of minimum entitlements
for a prisoner who is on segregation form on 20 June 2011, and the M.01.03.Form.08 Prison Managers
notification to the prisoner of the prisoners placement on segregation or continuation of segregation
on 23 June 2011. Both these forms were presented to the prisoner and signed prior to approval for the
extension being provided by the AARM.

The supporting reasons for the extension to the segregation were events that had occurred prior to the
initial segregation order being imposed. The introduction of contraband poses a significant risk to the
good order and security of the prison, and it would be reasonable for the Prison to manage that risk
through the use of a directed segregation order. However, Mr Queree did not provide any information
which showed the risk initially identified remained, and as such, and extension was required. The
reference to the assistance provided to Mr Taylor for his legal matters does not appear to be a valid
supporting reason for seeking an extensions, as approval had been given by the Department for Mr
Taylor to have an office area, and there is a legal obligation for the Department to provide assistance
to prisoners for the preparation of legal proceedings.

Mr Queree noted in his memo that Staff have taken a step back in managing him to avoid the stream
of prolific formal complaints he generates and to avoid accusations of preventing him from making
adequate preparations. Again, this is not a valid reason for seeking an extension to a directed
segregation order.

Segregation beyond 1 Month up to 2 Months 14 July to 14 August 2011
On 12 July 2011 approval was given by the AARM to extend the directed segregation period beyond one
month up to two months.

A memo, dated 11 July 2011, was prepared by Residential Manager Tony Queree which provided the
supporting reasons for seeking the extension. The memo referred to four file notes recorded during the
present segregation period which showed Mr Taylor continued to be a threat to the good order, security and

8

safety of the institution. These included: yelling and screaming; smashing door, yelling at nurse, winding up
another prisoner, flooding his cell; putting ideas in another prisoners head and banging on his grille.

Mr Queree referred to an incident on 11 July 2011 where Mr Taylor had used another prisoners PIN number
to the telephone where his call was redirected to an unapproved person. Mr Queree also referred to an
incident on 23 June 2011 where it was alleged that Mr Taylor duped staff into allowing him a phone call with
his sister using the staff base phone. This was contrary to instructions that only legal calls could be made from
the staff base phone. This event occurred in the previous segregation period.

Mr Queree concluded that Mr Taylor has shown that he will go to great lengths to circumvent the system and
to bypass our security measures for all forms of communication including the mail system hence the strict
measures in place to monitor his telephone calls and mail..While he behaves in this manner he will continue
to present a very high risk to the good order, security and safety of the institution.

File notes and relevant incident reports for the period 5 June 2011 to 7 July 2011 were attached to the
segregation paperwork. These show that Mr Taylor was reasonably settled in the first week, but starting
behaving inappropriately in the second week. It appears that Mr Taylor was unhappy about only being allowed
out of his cell for one hour per day. Incident reports were also attached regarding the flooding of his cell on 2
July 2011. There was however, no documentation attached which showed Mr Taylor had misused the mail or
telephone system, which was one of the primary reasons Mr Queree used for seeking the extension to the
segregation.

A management plan, with the same restrictions as the initial plan, was attached to the directed segregation
paperwork.

Point 2 of Memo refers to segregation expiring on 27 July 2012. This is incorrect as the segregation was
due to expire on 14 July 2012.

M.01.03.Form.09 Confirmation of minimum entitlements for a prisoner who is on segregation refers Mr
Taylor to the management plan for Statutory Minimum entitlements.

The Memo prepared to support the extension to the segregation was dated 1 August 2011, and the
Acting Assistant Regional Manager (AARM) approved the extension on 3 August 2011. However, it
appears that Mr Taylor was provided with the M.01.03.Form.09 Confirmation of minimum entitlements
for a prisoner who is on segregation form, the M.01.03.Form.08 Prison Managers notification to the
prisoner of the prisoners placement on segregation or continuation of segregation form, and the
management plan, prior to the approval for the extension being provided by the AARM. Mr Taylor
refused to sign these forms but two officers signed and them dated 1 August 2011.



9

The management plan imposed a restriction to Mr Taylors outgoing mail which required all his mail,
both into and out of the prison, would be examined by the Residential Manager. The management plan
noted that this would include legal mail. The legal mail was qualified by reference to PSOM C.01.03.
Under this section legal mail may only be examined if it appears to contain an unauthorized item, not
as a matter of course.

Segregation beyond 2 Months up to 3 Months 14 August to 14 September 2011
In early August approval was given by the AARM to extend the directed segregation period beyond two
months up to three months.

A memo, dated 1 August 2011, was prepared by Residential Manager Tony Queree which provided the
supporting reasons for seeking the extension. The memo listed four incident reports that had been generated
in relation to Mr Taylor during the previous segregation period. Two reports related to behaving in an
aggressive manner, one in relation to a cell search where contraband was located, and the fourth in relation to
Mr Taylor activating his sprinkler.

Mr Queree also referred again to an incident on 23 June 2011 (well outside the segregation period under
review) when Mr Taylor allegedly duped unit staff into allowing him to use the staff base phone to call his
sister. The four incident reports were attached to the segregation paperwork. Mr Queree concluded that it
clear that Taylors behaviour continues to be a risk to the security good order or safety of the institution.

File notes for the period 16 July 2011 to 26 July were also attached to the segregation paperwork. The file
notes generally record Mr Taylors behaviour as poor but there did not appear to be any substantive reasons
provided as to why his behavior was poor without any substantive reasons documented as to why the
behaviour was poor. A file note recorded that Mr Taylor was relocated to the pound on 12 July 2012 after he
activated his sprinkler of which he was very unhappy.

It appears that towards the end of this segregation period Mr Taylors behaviour became more aggressive and
challenging for staff as he became frustrated with the continuing restrictions being placed on him.

There did not appear to be any issues recorded with misusing the telephone system during this segregation
period. However, it was noted that a suspicious incoming phone call was received from a person claiming to
be Carolyn Taylor.

A management plan, with the same restrictions as the initial plan, was attached to the Directed Segregation
paperwork.

Prisoner did not sign paperwork, but two officers signed as required.



10

Reference to the telephone incident on 23 June 2011 which had occurred in a previous segregation
period being used to support the extension to the segregation order.

noted that this would include legal mail. The legal mail was qualified by reference to PSOM C.01.03.
Under this section legal mail may only be examined if it appears to contain an unauthorized item, not
as a matter of course.

Segregation beyond 3 Months up to 6 Months 15 September to 13 December 2011
On 14 September 2011 approval was given to extend the directed segregation order beyond 3 months up to 6
months by the Visiting Justice. The Visiting Justice approved an extension up to 13 December 2011.

The Visiting Justice made the following comment in approving the extension on 14 September 2011:

Since order was last extended on 14/8/11 Mr Taylor has continued to display unacceptable behaviour
and in so doing has endangered the security & good order of the prison. He is alleged to have flooded
his cell & landing a number of times since 14/8/11. He is also alleged to have threatened staff.

A memo, dated 1 September 2011, was prepared by Principal Corrections Officer Uila Ellis-Kirifi, which
provided the supporting reasons for seeking the extension. The memo listed five incident reports that had
been generated in relation to Mr Taylor during the period 24 August 2011 and 1 September 2011.

Two of these incident reports record Mr Taylor as the perpetrator for flooding of the top west landing, two
related to manipulating or threatening staff and one of refusing a lawful order. Mr Ellis-Kirifi concluded that as
a result of the incident reports there had been no improvement in Mr Taylors behaviour, and he continued to
remain a risk to the security, good order and safety of the prison.

File notes for the period 7 August 2011 to 4 September 2011 were also attached to the segregation
paperwork. The file notes generally record Mr Taylors behaviour as poor or average but without any
substantive reasons documented as to why the behaviour was poor. It is noted that on 7 August 2011 Mr
Taylor smashed the Unit shovel and assaulted staff but there does not appear to be a corresponding incident
report to this alleged assault.

In addition to the information contained in the memo, the Custodial Systems Manager noted that Mr Taylor
had incurred 4 misconduct charges during the period 2 September to 11 September 2011 inclusive.

A management plan was attached to the directed segregation paperwork. It is noted that this management
plan had been amended to reflect that the one hour recreation time was to exclude shower, phone calls and
cleaning of cell.

The Memo prepared to support the extension to the segregation was dated 1 September 2011. The
Assistant Regional Manager (ARM) approved the extension on 5 September 2011, and the Visiting

11

Justice approved the extension on 14 September 2011. However, it appears that Mr Taylor was
provided with, and refused to sign the M.01.03.Form.08 Prison Managers notification to the prisoner
of the prisoners placement on segregation or continuation of segregation form and the
M.01.03.Form.09 Confirmation of minimum entitlements for a prisoner who is on segregation form on
1 September 2011, as this is date Mr Ellis-Kirifi and a second officer signed the documents. The
management plan was signed by Mr Taylor on 14 September 2011.

noted that this would include legal mail. However, the legal mail restriction was qualified by reference
to PSOM C.01 Prisoner Mail. Under this section outgoing legal mail may only be examined if it appears
to contain an unauthorised item and incoming mail if it is not accompanied by a covering letter from
the legal advisor.

Segregation beyond 6 Months up to 9 Months 14 December 2011 to 13 March 2012
On 13 December 2011 approval was given to extend the directed segregation order beyond 6 months up to 9
months by the Visiting Justice. The Visiting Justice approved an extension to 13 March 2011.

The Visiting Justice made the following comment in approving the extension on 13 December 2011:

I have read the documents filed in support of the application. There are numerous incidents (14) and
10 misconducts reports to be dealt with. The order is requested for the security and good order of the
prison.

A memo, dated 28 November 2011, was prepared by Principal Corrections Officer Uila Ellis-Kirifi, which
provided the supporting reasons for seeking the extension. The memo made reference to the incident reports
and listed misconduct charges incurred during the segregation period. The incident reports related to
damaging prison property, flooding the landing, behaving in a threatening manner, setting off smoke alarms,
and going on a hunger strike. The memo also referred to the file notes and concluded that the file notes and
incidents showed that Mr Taylor had no desire to improve his behaviour and was still considered a risk to the
good order and security of the prison. The incident reports were attached to the segregation documentation
but the misconduct reports and file notes were not.

A management plan was attached to the directed segregation paperwork. As with the previous management
plan, this plan was amended to reflect that the one hour recreation time was to exclude shower, phone calls
and cleaning of cell.

In contrast to the previous segregation periods, Mr Taylor signed documentation for this period of extension
to the directed segregation.

The Memo prepared to support the extension to the segregation was dated 28 November 2011. The
Acting Assistant Regional Manager (AARM) approved the extension on 5 December 2011, and the
Visiting Justice approved the extension on 13 December 2011. However, it appears that Mr Taylor was

12

provided with the M.01.03.Form.09 Confirmation of minimum entitlements for a prisoner who is on
segregation form, the M.01.03.Form.08 Prison Managers notification to the prisoner of the prisoners
placement on segregation or continuation of segregation form, and the management plan, prior to the
approval for the extension being provided by both the AARM and the Visiting Justice. Mr Taylor signed
these forms, with the witnessing officer dating his signature as 2 December 2011. Mr Taylor also noted
on the M.01.03.Form.08 that he received the document on 2 December 2011.

noted that this would include legal mail. However, the legal mail restriction was again qualified by
reference to PSOM C.01 Prisoner Mail. Under this section outgoing legal mail may only be examined if
it appears to contain an unauthorised item and incoming mail if it is not accompanied by a covering
letter from the legal advisor.

Summary of Directed Segregation and Management Plans
Mr Taylor was initially placed on Directed Segregation on 15 June 2011 as a result of contraband, including a
cell phone and cell phone accessories, being found in his cell during a search. While it appears that there were
reasonable grounds to place Mr Taylor on directed segregation, the investigation has found that there were
several discrepancies with the required paperwork for such segregation orders.

Mr Taylor complained that he was never provided with the reasons for his placement on directed segregation.
The investigation has not been able to prove the validity of this complaint, however, it is noted that there is no
provision on the directed segregation paperwork for reasons to be included. With the exception of the initial
segregation period a memo was prepared for the Prison Manager which set out the reasons why the order
should be extended. However, it is not known whether a copy of this memo was provided to Mr Taylor each
time the segregation was extended so that he was fully informed as to why he was continuing to remain on
directed segregation.

Where prisoners rights are being restricted, it is important that the prisoner is informed of the reasons why
such restrictions are being imposed. The decision makers must be able to justify their decision to restrict
prisoners rights, and must be accountable for the decisions that they make. Further, it is difficult, if not
impossible, to challenge the imposition of segregation orders if you are not aware of the reasons for that
decision.

Before a segregation order is extended approval must first be obtained by the Assistant Regional Manager, or
in extensions beyond three months, a Visiting Justice. The investigation found that on several occasions Mr
Taylor was presented with the necessary paperwork pertaining to the extension to his directed segregation
prior to the necessary approval being obtained. This is a significant breach of process, and despite any valid
reason which may have existed for extending the order, the investigation considers that this breach rendered
the segregation which followed unreasonable and wrong.

The management plan, which pursuant to PSOM was required to accompany a directed segregation order,
listed the restrictions that would apply to Mr Taylor during the segregation period. These restrictions included:
3 to 1 movement ratio

13

Meals to be eaten in cell
30 minute booth visit
Minimum one hour recreation which included shower, cleaning and phone calls
1 five minute phone call per week

These restrictions were the very minimum entitlements for a prisoner. There were no restrictions placed on
Mr Taylors mail in the initial management plan. The management plan identified target behaviours as
aggressive, abusive and threatening behaviour towards staff. The key risk area was identified as being a
weapon, with security issues being identified as risk of escape, drugs and contraband.

The investigation found that the primary issue with the initial management plan was the restriction placed on
Mr Taylors recreation time. The management plan provided that Mr Taylors recreation time was to include
his shower, phone call and cleaning of his cell. The investigation was advised that due to the number of
regimes operating in D Block most prisoners on directed segregation were provided with little more than 1
hour out of their cell each day. The management plan, as it was presented to Mr Taylor on 15 June 2011,
including showering, cleaning and phone calls within the one hour recreation time was a breach of his
minimum entitlements.

This issue was raised with the Auckland Prison Manager by COTA Chief Inspector Greg Price in September
2011. From September 2011 onwards, this aspect of Mr Taylors Management Plan was amended to reflect
that shower, cleaning and phone calls were to be over and above the 1 hour minimum recreation time
entitlement. The incident reports and files notes indicate that by this stage Mr Taylors behaviour had
deteriorated significantly. A question to ask here is whether the unreasonable restriction to Mr Taylors
recreation time was a factor in his worsening behaviour but for this restriction would Mr Taylors behaviour
have been the same? It is not an easy question to answer, however, the file notes indicate that Mr Taylors
frustrations and issues with officers were mainly in relation to his recreation time, and access to the
telephone.

Mr Taylor was initially placed on directed segregation and subject to a management plan due to the discovery
of contraband in his cell. This contraband consisted of a cell phone and cell phone accessories. These items
presented a risk to the prison, and to mitigate this risk Mr Taylor was placed on directed segregation for a
period of 14 days.

The management plan is a tool used by a prison to address, and modify behaviours which are not considered
appropriate, or which present a risk to the prison or any person. It can be used on its own and does not
require a directed segregation order to be imposed. In this case the management plan was imposed by virtue
of the segregation order. In any event the behaviours targeted in the management plan should have reflected
the behaviours which lead to the imposition of the directed segregation.

The investigation has found that in many cases most, if not all, Mr Taylors rights and entitlements listed on
the management plan were restricted despite no risk being identified in relation to those areas. A prisoner
placed on a management plan for fighting with another prisoner should not necessarily have his access to the
phone restricted positive contact with family can have a positive impact on a prisoner and their behaviour.
Similarly, a prisoner placed on a management plan for misusing the phone system should not necessarily have

14

his recreation time restricted to the minimum entitlement of one hour only. The restrictions imposed by a
management plan should directly relate to the behaviour that the prison is attempting to modify.

A further consideration is that the prison has the ability, and the discretion, to charge a prisoner who had
committed an offence. It seems that prisons are starting to move away from charging prisoners, and rather
imposing punishment like restrictions on prisoners through the imposition of management plans. The
management plan should identify and address behaviours, to assist in managing a prisoner back into the
general prison population, not be used as a punishment tool.

With regard to Mr Taylor, he was charged with many of the misconducts that occurred during the period of
directed segregation. As a result he was required to serve periods of cell confinement and loss of privileges.
These sentences were the punishment for his behaviour and actions that led to the misconducts. Despite this,
Mr Taylor was still subject to a directed segregation order and his minimum entitlements were restricted
through the imposition of the management plan.

Mr Taylors ability to interact with other prisoners during the period of segregation was denied, rather than
restricted. Denying a prisoner the ability to associate with other prisoners is a significant restriction to
prisoners rights, and can have a significant impact on a prisoners well-being and mental state of mind if the
denial of association is for extended periods of time. If a Prison makes the decision to deny, rather than
restrict, a prisoners ability to associate with other prisoners, it would be expected that the reasons for this
decision would be clearly documented, and the prisoner informed. It would also be expected that a prisoner
would also be advised on what was expected of them for that the denial of association to be removed, or
amended to a restriction. In the case of Mr Taylor there are no documented reasons for the decision to deny
him the ability to associate with other prisoners, and for continuing this denial as the directed segregation was
extended.

In light of the above, the investigation found that the management plans were not imposed in line with policy,
nor in the context in which they were intended which was to manage a prisoners risk and assist in improving a
prisoners behaviour so that they could return to general population. The initial management plans also led to
a breach of Mr Taylors minimum entitlement of one hour recreation. It is for these reasons that this
investigation considers that the restrictions imposed by the management plan were unreasonable.


15

Relocation to High Care Unit

This section of the report looks at the placement of Mr Taylor in the High Care Unit at Auckland Prison. Mr
Taylor was subject to a separate management plan for the period of time he was located in the High Care Unit.
It appears that there was no legal requirement for this second management plan, but it would assist officers in
managing Mr Taylor in a consistent manner while he was located in the High Care Unit. The management plan
prepared in association with the directed segregation paperwork and signed on 2 December 2011 was still
operational during Mr Taylors placement in the High Care Unit.

21 December 2011 to 10 January 2012
On 21 December 2011 Mr Taylor was relocated from the Detention Centre where he was serving cell
confinement to the High Care Unit (HCU). A management plan was created specifically for the period of time
Mr Taylor would spend in the High Care Unit. It was recorded in the management plan that this management
plan was additional to the directed segregation management plan pursuant to section 58(1)(a).

The purpose for the Management Plan was to mitigate the specific risk that Mr Taylor had created when he
stated to an Officer that Christmas week was going to be a shit week for the officers and that he was going to
create lots of incidents for the officers.

It appears that the prison determined that Mr Taylor posed a risk to the security, good order and safety of the
prison due to the threats that he made, and due to the fact that it was the Christmas period and the prison
would be operating with limited staffing numbers. The HCU was decided upon as the most appropriate place
to house Mr Taylor. Consideration was given to placing Mr Taylor in the At Risk Unit, but the management
plan recorded that this was not considered an appropriate option as the unit was at full capacity, and there
was concern with regard to the impact of Mr Taylors behaviour on the prisoners in At Risk.

The HCU specific management plan documented specified non-complaint behaviours which were to be
focused on by the officers. Mitigation measures were provided for each of the listed behaviours. With regards
to the minimum entitlements Mr Taylors phone calls were restricted to 2 five minute phone calls per week,
and his recreation time was restricted to one hour per day. Mr Taylor was allowed a 30 minute booth visit per
week. The management plan provided that Body Orifice Search Scanner (BOSS) chair would be used when Mr
Taylor was moved between units.

With the exception of the BOSS chair, the two management plans provided for the same restrictions to his
entitlements. However, it is not clear whether Mr Taylor was provided with a copy of the HCU specific
management plan.

Undated Management Plan given to Mr Taylor 12 January 2012
The HCU specific management plan expired on 10 January 2012. It appears from the documentation that Mr
Taylor remained in the HCU and a new management plan was imposed on 12 January 2012.

The management plan noted that the document was to cover the period until Friday to await the outcome of
the review by the Regional Manager and Senior Management team. The restrictions to Mr Taylors minimum
entitlements remained the same as the previous management plan. There was an addition which provided

16

that Mr Taylor would have access to his legal papers in D Block for a period of 10 minutes. It further provided
that while he was in D Block accessing his legal papers he would be given the opportunity to make his two five
minute phone calls. There was no timeframe provided in the management plan for recreation and shower
time, other than to note that it would be carried out daily in the Detention Centre.

The investigation found that a modification was made in terms of the staffing of the unit in this management
plan. It was changed so that one staff member was required to be located in the HCU from 0800 1700 hours
as per normal working hours. Night time checks would be completed by RMM staff.

The file copy of the management plan was not signed by Mr Taylor or the Prison Manager or delegate.
However, the D Block PCO noted on the document that a copy was provided to Mr Taylor on 12 January 2012.

18 February 2012 to 23 February 2012
It appears that Mr Taylor returned to D Block and then was relocated to the Detention Centre to serve a
punishment of 10 days cell confinement. The Prison decided to return Mr Taylor to the HCU after the
completion of his cell confinement on 18 February 2012, and a new HCU specific management plan was
created.

The purpose of placing Mr Taylor in the High Care Unit was recorded on the management plan as Prisoner
Taylor is considered to be an ongoing risk to the staff and other prisoners in a normal block. Taylors on going
[sic] un-cooperative, demanding, disruptive and aggressive behaviour is believed the cause of security, health
and safety issues in the daily management of other prisoners in the Block. The restrictions to Mr Taylors
minimum entitlements were the same as the previous High Care Unit placement management plans. It was
noted on the management plan document that it was to be reviewed weekly.

The Management Plan was signed by PCO Ellis-Kirifi and Mr Taylor. However, Mr Taylor made the following on
the Management Plan:

I do not agree that the contents of these instructions are lawful I request that they be reviewed by
the Inspectorate and Ombudsmen and that I be assess by a psychologist for any psychological damage
occasioned me by the decision.

24 February 2012 to 1 March 2012
It appears that this document was a cut and paste version of the previous management plan as it referred to
Mr Taylor currently being housed in the Detention Centre serving a period of 10 days cell confinement. This
was not in fact the case Mr Taylor was at that time located in the HCU.

The management plan recorded that Mr Taylor would be placed into the HCU on 24 February 2012 to 1 March
2012, with the Auckland Prison Management team being able to extend that timeframe if and why they saw it
necessary to do so. It was noted on the management plan document that it was to be reviewed weekly.

The purpose for the continuing to place Mr Taylor in the HCU was the same as documented in the previous
management plan. The restrictions to Mr Taylors minimum entitlements, and staffing instructions remained
the same and both the Acting Prison Manager and Mr Taylor signed the document.

17

2 March 2012 to 8 March 2012
The purpose for the management plan was the same as the previous management plans. It recorded that Mr
Taylor would remain in the HCU for another week, and would not return to D Block until Prison Management
determined that he was no longer a risk to the safety and security of staff and prisoners in the Block.

The restrictions to Mr Taylors minimum entitlements, and staffing instructions remained the same as the
previous management plan. The management plan was signed by the Acting Prison Manager and Mr Taylor.
Mr Taylor recorded on the Management Plan that while he understood the plan he did not agree with it.

26 March 2012 until further notice
The investigation was able to determine where Mr Taylor was located between the expiry of the previous
management plan (8 March 2012) and the commencement of this management plan (26 March 2012).

This management plan was slightly different to the previous HCU specific management plans as it was
appeared to be a blanket management plan which would enable the Prison to move Mr Taylor to various
locations throughout the Prison to assist with managing his non-complaint behaviours.

The purpose of this management plan was recorded as:

Prisoner Taylor is assessed as presenting an ongoing risk to the good order and security of the
institution. His continually un-cooperative, demanding, disruptive and aggressive behaviour causes
disturbance and interruptions to the daily management of the unit he is in and has an undue influence
on other prisoners in the Block. The risk to the safety and security of the institution is heightened by his
regular abuse of external communications which includes unauthorised telephone calls to members of
the public and some media organizations.

Summary of Relocation to High Care Unit
An area of concern with regard to Mr Taylors placement in the HCU was the suitability of the cells. The HCU
was previously the At Risk Unit but had been decommissioned several years ago. The area was currently being
used to carrying out the drug testing for prisoners in East Division at Auckland Prison. Amongst others, there
were two large cells which Prison Management determined could be used to house difficult to manage
prisoners on a short term basis such as Mr Taylor.

It appears that approval was sought from National Office to re-commission these cells for use and that
approval was provided by the Chief Executive. The cells at that time contained a bed which was form molded,
and a toilet. There was no power or running water in the cells. Due to the cells being part of the old at risk
unit, they contained cameras which were operational. The cells had windows on one wall which allowed for
natural light and a view out to an unused internal courtyard area. However, at night the lights in the courtyard
area were turned on, and this affected a prisoners ability to sleep at night. To resolve this issue paper was
used to cover the windows.


18

The Corrections Regulations 2005 set out the mandatory, and additional features, for the accommodation for
segregated prisoners. Mandatory features are set out in Part A of Schedule 2, and include artificial lighting,
automatic fire detector, a bed, fresh or conditioned air, and heating as appropriate.

The additional facilities are set out in Part B of Schedule 2. With regard to the additional facilities, these
included the following:
Desk with seating;
General power outlet
Hand washing facilities
Intercom, alarm or call button;
Privacy screening;
Reflective surface for personal grooming;
Running potable water
Shelving
Storage for authorised property; and
A toilet

In accordance with the regulations the Department was only required to provide the additional facilities so far
as practicable in the circumstances, as the HCU were existing cells. However, this must be considered in light
of the fact that the cells had been previously decommissioned.

The Department did provide power to the cell so that Mr Taylor could use his television and radio. As Mr
Taylor was not serving a sentence of cell confinement he was entitled to these items. While the provision of
power was a positive action by the Department the concern was in the how the power was provided to the
cell. An extension cord was run from the HCU corridor into the cell via a window which opened out into the
cell. A multi-box was provided to allow Mr Taylor to use more than one electrical item at a time.

Given the age of the unit, and the fact that these cells up until this time had been decommissioned, this
process of delivering power to the cell was extremely risky and could possibly have had Health and Safety
implications. A further risk was the fact that Mr Taylor regularly flooded his cell this could have presented
significant risk of harm to Mr Taylor and officers in the unit. It does not appear that this risk was considered by
the Department when the decision was made to use the HCU cells.

As an aside, a general power outlet is considered an additional facility in an existing cell and only needs to be
provided in so far as practicable under the circumstances. However, this seems to be in conflict with the
requirement for Mr Taylor to have access to his television and radio which require power to operate.

In terms of staffing, the management plan provided that one staff member would be based in the unit at all
times. It was further noted that RMM staff would carry out all the movements of Mr Taylor between units.

Mr Taylor was not serving a punishment of cell confinement, and was not subject to any other form of
punishment when he was relocated into the High Care Unit cells. He was a directed segregated prisoner, and
had two management plans in place designed to target and modify his non-complaint behaviour.


19

The investigation found that the placement of Mr Taylor into the HCU, along with the restrictions imposed by
the management plan, while mitigating the risk he may have presented to officers, was more akin to a
punishment regime. Further it appears that his placement into the HCU had the effect of exacerbating his
behaviour rather than improving it.


20

Minimum Entitlements Recreation Time

Mr Taylor has complained that while he was on directed segregation his minimum entitlements were
breached with regard to his recreation time. The investigation reviewed the period from 1 October 2011 to 31
March 2012 to determine whether Mr Taylors minimum entitlement to recreation time had been breached,
and if so, to what extent.

To determine the recreation time provided to Mr Taylor the investigation reviewed various log books
operated by the prison including the D Block movements log book, the directed segregation log book, and the
HCU logbook. In some cases the investigation was not able to determine with any certainty the movements of
Mr Taylor on a given day as the log books did not provide this information, or the log books for a certain
period could not be located. As such, the findings with respect to Mr Taylors minimum entitlement of
recreation time should be considered in that context.

October 2011
During the month of October 2011 the log books record the Mr Taylor was located in D Block with the
exception of 6 October to 12 October where he was located in the Detention Centre. The log book for the
Detention Centre could not be located. Accordingly, only the time spent in D Block was analysed in terms of
recreation time.

Date Location Activity Time Spent
on activity
(minutes)
Total out of
Cell
(minutes)
Recreation
Time
1/10/2011 D Block Shower & Clean 28
Recreation 85 113 85
2/10/2011 D Block Recreation 86
Shower & Clean 47
Visits 67 200 86
3/10/2011 D Block Phone Calls 89
Computer Room 8
Shower & Clean 21 118 8
Computer Room 65
Not stated 50 110
Time in Detention Centre 6 12 October 2011
Phone Shop 32
Phone Shop 37
Shower & Clean 13
Workshop 30 125 67
Recreation 70 95 70
17/10/2011 D Block Workshop 70
Recreation 120

21

Phone Shop 25 215 215
UM Interview 75
Phone Shop 5
Work Shop 50 160 55
Medical 5
Landing Time 20
Legal Calls 75 130 30
Shower & Clean 15
21/10/2011 D Block Workshop 22
25/10/2011 D Block VJ Hearing 45
Shower & Clean 62
Phone Shop 13
26/10/2011 D Block Phone Shop 55
Recreation 100
27/10/2011 D Block Legal Calls 70
Recreation 115
Medical 30
Legal Calls 65 105
Recreation 85
Work Shop 48 158 110
Landing Time 31
Yards 35 86 66
Phone Shop 8
PCO Office 5 73 8
TOTALS 3445 3445 1780

In D Block prisoners have 6.5 hours per day available for recreation time and other activities, with the
exception of Friday where the prisoners have 3 hours available as they are locked down at 11.30 and remain
locked for the remainder of the day. In total this provides 42 available hours per week where prisoners can be
unlocked and engage in constructive activities. In the month of October 2011, there were four Fridays,
equating to a total of 187.50 hours available to prisoners for the month. Mr Taylor was in the Detention
Centre for a period of 7 days leaving 145.5 hours available for recreation and other activities while he was in D
Block.


22

For the month of October 2011, Mr Taylor spent 3445 minutes (57.4 hours) out of his cell, of which 1780
minutes (29.6 hours) were spent on recreation. To meet the recreation minimum entitlements the Prison was
required to provide Mr Taylor with 24 hours of recreation time (1 hour for the 24 days he was located in D
Block). For the purposes of this analysis time recorded in the unit diary as Recreation, Work Shop, Phone
Shop, Landing, and Yards was included in the minimum entitlement calculation. The analysis showed that
Mr Taylor received 5.6 hours more that the minimum entitlement for October 2011. It is noted that this
calculation does not include the 7 days Mr Taylor spent in the Detention Centre as records for this period of
time could not be located.

The workshop is an internal room located in D Block where prisoners can spend their recreation time, there is
little natural light in this area but prisoners are able to move around in the space and table and chairs are
provided also. The Landing area is the area outside the prisoners cells approximately 3 meters wide. Each
landing in D Block has 12 cells which are divided into two lots of 6 cells by a grill door. Each set of six prisoners
can be let out into their landing area and this is considered recreation time. It is noted that the only time Mr
Taylor received recreation time outside was for a 35 minute period on 30 October 2011. The remainder of the
recreation time was indoors, either in the area known as the Workshop, a small internal room in the ground
floor of the block, or on the landing.

November 2011

on activity
(minutes)
Total out of
Cell
(minutes)
Recreation
Time
PCO Office 75
Shower & Clean 10 201
Work Shop 25
Legal Calls 23
Phone Shop 18
PCO Office 62 143 18
Shower & Clean 7
Legal Calls 45
Work Shop 40 94 40
Landing Time 120 146 120
6/11/2011 D Block Landing Time 24
Unknown Activity 53 77 24
Landing Time 45
Computer Suite 45 183 90
Legal Calls 60
10/11/2011 D Block PCO Office 50

23

Cleaning 6
Legal Calls 24
Phone Shop 15
Yards 99 194 114
Legal Calls 87
Visits 65 94
14/11/2011 D Block Cleaning 19
Legal Calls 28
Recreation 50 97 50
Legal Calls 55
16/11/2011 D Block Shower 10
Legal Calls 132
Cleaning 4 146
Phone Shop 40
Legal Calls 60 70
Relocated to Detention Centre after Phone Shop incident
Time in Detention Centre 19-20 November 2011
Legal Calls 55
Legal Calls 35
Landing 29
Legal Calls 25
Phone Shop 10
Landing 60 109 70
Landing 65 83 65
27/11/2011 D Block Cleaning 106 106
Cleaning 64
Shower & Clean 28
Charges 10
Landing 10
Legal Calls 15
Landing 20
Work Shop 112 162 132

24

TOTAL 3468 3468 1203

Not including the 2 days spent in the Detention Centre, Mr Taylor spent 3468 minutes out of his cell, which
was approximately 58 hours. Again this included recreation time, shower and cleaning, phone calls, medical
appointments, and interviews with the PCO.

In the month of November 2011, there were four Fridays, equating to a total of 144.50 hours available to
prisoners for the month. Mr Taylor was in the Detention Centre for a period of 2 days leaving 131.5 hours
available for recreation and other activities while he was in D Block.

For the month of November 2011, Mr Taylor spent 3468 minutes (57.8 hours) out of his cell, of which 1203
minutes (20 hours) were spent on recreation. To meet the recreation minimum entitlements the Prison was
Block). The analysis showed that there was a deficit of 8 hours over the month of November (excluding the
period of 2 days Mr Taylor spent in the Detention Centre) with regard to the minimum entitlement for
recreation. For the purposes of this analysis time recorded in the unit diary as Recreation, Work Shop,
Phone Shop, and Landing was included in the minimum entitlement calculation.

The review of the log books showed that Mr Taylor received no external recreation time during the month of
November.

December 2011

on activity
(minutes)
Total out of
Cell
(minutes)
Recreation
Time
1/12/2011 D Block Landing & Shower 61
Legal Calls 79
Workshop 103 243 103
2/12/2011 D Block PCO Office 25
Legal Calls 20
Workshop 105
Shower & Clean 13
Cleaning 60 108
5/12/2011 D Block Phone
Calls/Cleaning
24
Work Shop 45
Cleaning & Shower 100
Landing 60 229 105
6/12/2011 D Block Charges 15
Work Shop 61
Phone Shop 26
Shower & Cleaning 17
7/12/2011 D Block Clean 12

25

Work Shop 61
Shower 25
Legal Calls 5
8/12/2011 D Block Cleaning & Shower 27
Work Shop 46
Legal Calls 7
9/12/2011 D Block Work Shop 70
Legal Visit 20
Cleaning & Shower 7 97 70
10/12/2011 D Block Landing 34
Visits 60 94 34
Legal Calls 52
Phone Shop 10
Work Shop 35 106 45
14/12/2011 D Block Relocated to Detention Centre after VJ Hearing
Time in Detention Centre 14 19 December 2011
19/12/2011 D Block Landing 100 100 100
20/12/2011 D Block Relocated to Detention Centre after incident in Block
21/12/2011 Detention Relocated to High Care Unit
22/12/2011 High Care Unit Legal Call 45
Shower 25
Phone Calls 65
Phone Calls 35
Legal Calls 27 197
23/12/2011 High Care Unit Shower 28
Legal Calls 18
Phone Calls 35 81
Recreation (yard) 127 159 127
Recreation (yard( 70
Phone Calls 20 112 70
28/12/2011 High Care Unit No Records available
TOTALS 2969 2969 1661

In the month of December 2011, there were five Fridays, equating to a total of 184 hours available to
prisoners for the month. Mr Taylor was in the Detention Centre for a period of 4 days, and no records were
available for four days (each four day block including a Friday) leaving 139 hours available for recreation and
other activities while he was in D Block and the High Care Unit.


26

For the month of December 2011, Mr Taylor spent 2969 minutes (49 hours) out of his cell, of which 1661
Block and the High Care Unit). The analysis showed that Mr Taylor received 4.7 hours more that the minimum
entitlement for December 2011. For the purposes of this analysis time recorded in the unit diary as
Recreation, Work Shop, Phone Shop, and Landing was included in the minimum entitlement calculation.

The review of the log books showed that Mr Taylor received external recreation time only while he was
located in the High Care Unit during the month of November.

January 2012

on activity
(minutes)
Total out of
Cell
(minutes)
Recreation
Time
Recreation (ARU) 105 130 105
Recreation (yard) 82
Legal Call 5 105 82
Adjudicator 10
Legal Call 12 112 65
8/1/2012 High Care Unit Shower 20 20
Recreation 23
Legal Call 15 133 103
11/1/2012 High Care Unit Phone Call 13
VJ Hearing 11
Shower 20
Relocated to D Block
14/1/2012 D Block Shower & Clean 38 38
15/1/2012 D Block Shower & Clean 44 44 Declined
Recreation 75 95 75

27

Legal Calls 82
Clean 20 232 130
Shower & Clean 35 65 Declined
21/1/2012 D Block No Entries in logbook
Phone Shop 25 70 25
24/1/2012 D Block Recreation 105 105 105
27/1/2012 D Block No Entries in logbook Declined
30/1/2012 D Block Recreation 114 114 114
TOTALS 2637 2637 1627

In the month of January 2012, there were four Fridays, equating to a total of 187.5 hours available to prisoners
for the month. However, there were 4 days were no entries were recorded in the logbooks. The four days
included a Friday, leaving 165 hours available for recreation and other activities while he was in D Block and
the High Care Unit.

For the month of January 2012, Mr Taylor spent 2637 minutes (43.9 hours) out of his cell, of which 1627
Block and the High Care Unit and logbook entries were available). The analysis showed that Mr Taylor received
the minimum entitlement for January 2012. For the purposes of this analysis time recorded in the unit diary as
Recreation, Work Shop, Phone Shop, and Landing was included in the minimum entitlement calculation.

The review of the log books showed that Mr Taylor received external recreation time only while he was
located in the High Care Unit during the month of November.

February 2012

on activity
(minutes)
Total out of
Cell
(minutes)
Recreation
Time
1/2/2012 C Block No Entries in logbook Declined
2/2/2012 C Block No Entries in logbook
4/2/2012 C Block Shower & Clean 20 20
6/2/2012 C Block Recreation 134

28

7/2/2012 C Block Calls & Cleaning 62
Shower 13
Legal Calls 10 85
8/2/2012 C Block Phone Call 32
VJ Hearing 401 433
9/2/2012 Detention Legal Calls 55
Shower 22 77
10/2/2012 Detention Shower 60 60 Declined
11/2/2012 Detention Shower & Clean 19 19
12/2/2012 Detention Shower 35 35 Declined
13/2/2012 Detention Shower & Phone 30 30 Declined
14/2/2012 Detention Shower & Clean 89
Legal Calls 15
Laundry 53 157
17/2/2012 Detention Shower & Clean 100
18/2/2012 Detention No Entries in logbook Declined
19/2/2012 High Care Unit Entry refers only to a shower but no return time
21/2/2012 High Care Unit No Entries in logbook
22/2/2012 High Care Unit Recreation (yard) 16 16 16
29/2/2012 High Care Unit No Entries in logbook
TOTALS 1571 1571 210

In the month of February 2012, there were four Fridays, equating to a total of 174.5 hours available to
prisoners for the month. However, there were seven days were no entries were recorded in the logbooks,
leaving 129 hours available for recreation and other activities while Mr Taylor was in D Block, C Block, and the
High Care Unit.

For the month of February 2012, Mr Taylor spent 1571 minutes (26.1 hours) out of his cell, of which 210
Block and the High Care Unit and logbook entries were available). The analysis showed that there was a
significant deficit of 18.5 hours for this month.

However, it was recorded on four separate days that Mr Taylor declined to take his recreation time.
Incorporating this into the analysis, the deficit was 14.5 hours for the month of February. For the purposes of
this analysis time recorded in the unit diary as Recreation, Work Shop, Phone Shop, and Landing was
included in the minimum entitlement calculation.

At the start of February Mr Taylor, along with other D Block prisoners, was placed into C Block so that
refurbishment work could be undertaken in D Block. During this time records were either not kept in relation

29

to the activities of Mr Taylor, or the entries were minimal and difficult to interpret. It is also noted that Mr
Taylor declined recreation time during this month on several occasions.

March 2012

on activity
(minutes)
Total out of
Cell
(minutes)
Recreation
Time
5/3/2012 Detention No clear entries in logbook Declined
6/3/2012 High Care Unit Shower & Clean 20 20 Declined
Legal Visit 71 171 75
10/3/2012 High Care Unit Cleaning 10
Shower 30
Cleaning & Yard 53 78
Relocated to Detention after cell phone found in cell
12/3/2012 Detention Relocated to D Block
Legal Call 62
Phone Shop 28 90 28
Landing 48
Phone Calls 46
Recreation 71
Computer Room 19 194 138
Shower & Landing 70
15/3/2012 D Block Landing & Shower 86
Legal Calls 50
Legal Calls 10
Work Shop 25
Phone Shop 40
Unlocked 29 77 48
19/3/2012 D Block Relocated to High Care Unit
Relocated to Detention Centre
20/3/2012 Detention No clear entries in logbook
21/3/2012 Detention Legal Calls 85 85
22/3/2012 Detention Phone Calls 15

30

Legal Calls 17
Shower 1 33
Legal Calls 25
Phone Shop 41
Shower 14 105 41
27/3/2012 D Block Charges 30
Shower & Clean 23
Legal Calls 40 93
29/3/2012 D Block Interview 40
Shower & Clean 20
Work Shop 145
Legal Calls 74
Shower 20 139 45
Shower 36 56 20
TOTALS 2338 2338 922

In the month of March 2012, there were five Fridays, equating to a total of 184 hours available to prisoners for
the month. However, there were three days were no entries were recorded in the logbooks, leaving 164.5
hours available for recreation and other activities while Mr Taylor was in D Block, Detention, and the High Care
Unit.

For the month of March 2012, Mr Taylor spent 2338 minutes (38.9 hours) out of his cell, of which 922 minutes
(15.3 hours) were spent on recreation. To meet the recreation minimum entitlements the Prison was required
to provide Mr Taylor with 28 hours of recreation time (1 hour for the 28 days he was located in D Block,
Detention, and the High Care Unit and logbook entries were available). The analysis showed that there was a
significant deficit of 12.7 hours for this month.

However, it was recorded on two separate days that Mr Taylor declined to take his recreation time.
Incorporating this into the analysis, the deficit was 10.7 hours for the month of March. For the purposes of this
analysis time recorded in the unit diary as Recreation, Work Shop, Phone Shop, and Landing was included
in the minimum entitlement calculation.

It is noted that while in the High Care Unit, the majority of the recreation time offered was external.

April 2012

on activity
(minutes)
Total out of
Cell
(minutes)
Recreation
Time
Phone Shop 27 30 27

31

2/4/2012 D Block Clean & Shower 30 30
3/4/2012 D Block Relocated to High Care Unit No clear entries in logbook
4/4/2012 High Care Unit No clear entries in logbook
5/4/2012 High Care Unit Relocated to Detention No clear entries in logbook
6/4/2012 Detention Cleaning 30
Relocated to At Risk Unit
Phone Call 25 55
7/4/2012 At Risk Unit Day Room 30
Shower 5
Phone Calls 4 65 61
Shower 15
10/4/2012 At Risk Unit Charges 10
Legal Calls 10
Shower 20
Phone Calls 15 55
Interviews 38
Shower 12
Phone Call 25 137 62
12/4/2012 At Risk Unit Shower 8
Day Room 84
Charges 10
13/4/2012 D Block Legal Calls 97 97
Phone Calls 5 57
16/4/2012 D Block Shower 45 45
Phone Shop 10
Phone Calls 36 151
Legal Calls 44 54
20/4/2012 D Block No clear entries in logbook
Phone Shop 15 70 70
Phone Shop 31
Charges 44
Phone Shop 20 75 20
Legal Visit 66 96
27/4/2012 D Block No clear entries in logbook
28/4/2012 D Block Shower 60 60

32

Landing 60 143 60
Recreation 50
Legal Calls 75
Shower 10
TOTALS 2128 2128 693

In the month of April 2012, there were four Fridays, equating to a total of 181 hours available to prisoners for
the month. However, there were four days were no entries were recorded in the logbooks, leaving 162 hours
available for recreation and other activities while Mr Taylor was in D Block, Detention, the At Risk Unit and the
High Care Unit.

For the month of April 2012, Mr Taylor spent 2128 minutes (35.4 hours) out of his cell, of which 693 minutes
to provide Mr Taylor with 26 hours of recreation time (1 hour for the 26 days he was located in D Block,
Detention, the At Risk Unit and the High Care Unit and logbook entries were available). The analysis showed
that there was a significant deficit of 14.5 hours for this month.

During this month Mr Taylor was placed into the At Risk Unit due to his deteriorating behaviour in the High
Care Unit and D Block. While in the At Risk Unit he was assessed by a psychologist to ensure that he was not
suffering from any undiagnosed mental illness. Mr Taylor was cleared and then relocated back to D Block
where he remained for the rest of the month.

May 2012

on activity
(minutes)
Total out of
Cell
(minutes)
Recreation
Time
Recreation 25
Landing 45 165 70
Legal Calls 34 174
Legal Calls 70
Recreation 10 90 10
Work Shop 4
Phone Shop 55
Phone Shop 11
Shower 35 80 11
Legal Calls 15
Phone Shop 11 50 11

33

Charges 21
Cleaning 20
Legal Calls 24
Shower 10 94 19
Computer 35
Landing 40 95 75
10/5/2012 D Block Medical 20
Shower & Clean 30
Computer 30
Phone Shop 25
Shower 9 114 55
Legal Calls 55
Phone Shop 20 99 20
Phone Shop 15
Cell Repairs 10 60 15
13/5/2012 D Block Computer 86 86 86
Phone Shop 5
Computer 130 143 130
Cleaning 15 55 40
Unknown Activity 60 150 60
20/5/2012 D Block Cleaning 70 70
Receiving Office 30
Legal Calls 39
Landing 147 231 147
Charges 10
23/5/2012 D Block Clean & Landing 70
Computer 25
Phone Shop 30
Shower 46 119 73
Phone Shop 2
Landing 98
Cleaning 10
Legal Calls 30 135
29/5/2012 D Block Computer 50
Legal Calls 25

34

Shower & Clean 15
Phone Shop 15 95 65
Computer 25 138 25
TOTALS 3281 3281 1474

In the month of May 2012, there were four Fridays, equating to a total of 181 hours available for recreation
and other activities while Mr Taylor was in D Block.

For the month of May 2012, Mr Taylor spent 3281 minutes (54.6 hours) out of his cell, of which 1474 minutes
to provide Mr Taylor with 30 hours of recreation time (1 hour for the 30 days he was located in D Block). The
analysis showed that there was a deficit of 5.5 hours for this month.

SUMMARY OF MINIMUM ENTITLEMENTS (recreation)

MONTH Recreation Hours Minimum
Entitlement
Hours
Deficit/Surplus
October 2011 29.6 24 5.6
November 2011 20 28 -8
December 2011 27.7 23 4.7
January 2012 27.1 27 0.1
February 2012 3.5 22 -14.5
March 2012 15.3 28 -10.7
April 2012 11.5 26 -14.5
May 2012 24.5 30 -5.5
TOTALS 159.2 208 -42.8

Ombudsman's Special Investigation Into Management of Prisoner Arthur Taylor in Auckland Prison, New Zealand

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Ombudsman's Special Investigation Into Management of Prisoner Arthur Taylor in Auckland Prison, New Zealand

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Special Investigation: Mr A Taylor 2013

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi