Ombudsman's Special Investigation into management of prisoner Arthur Taylor in Auckland Prison, New...

8/13/2019 Ombudsman's Special Investigation into management of prisoner Arthur Taylor in Auckland Prison, New Zealand

1/34

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 COTAreports 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 directedsegregation 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.


2/34


3/34


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 otherprisoners 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 insection 70:

(b) a bed and bedding, as provided for insection 71:

(c) food and drink, as provided for insection 72:

(d) access to private visitors, as provided for insection 73:

(e) access to statutory visitors and specified visitors:

(f) access to legal advisers, as provided for insection 74:

(g) to receive medical treatment, as provided for insection 75:

(h) to send and receive mail, as provided for insection 76:

(i) to make outgoing telephone calls, as provided for insection 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 insection 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
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM295491http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM295491http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM295491http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM295493http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM295493http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM295493http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM295499http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM295499http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM295499http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM296001http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM296001http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM296001http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM296002http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM296002http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM296002http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM296004http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM296004http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM296004http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM296006http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM296006http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM296006http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM296008http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM296008http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM296008http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM296009http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM296009http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM296009http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM296009http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM296008http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM296006http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM296004http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM296002http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM296001http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM295499http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM295493http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM295491


4/34


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 undersection 62or 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

undersubpart 5of Part 2:

(b) may be denied the minimum entitlement referred to in subsection (1)(k) if a

direction undersection 58or59is 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 insection

43(3)(a)(i),section 133(3)(a),orsection 137(3)(a).

(6) Subsections (2), (3), and (4) overridesections 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.
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM295478http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM295478http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM295478http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM295481http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM295481http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM296501http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM296501http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM296501http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM295473http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM295473http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM295473http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM295474http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM295474http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM295474http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM295451http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM295451http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM295451http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM295451http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM296508http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM296508http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM296508http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM296512http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM296512http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM296512http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM295491http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM295491http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM295491http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM295491http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM296512http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM296508http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM295451http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM295451http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM295474http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM295473http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM296501http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM295481http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0050/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM295478


5/34


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 PlansSegregation 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 Requirementssets 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.08Prison 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.Formthat he requested the decision by reviewed by the Regional Manager or Inspectorate.


6/34


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 procedura

deficiencies:

Supporting documentation used to support the decision to place Mr Taylor on directed segregation notattached 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 andCorrections 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 segregationdoes notappear to have been completed fully. The minimum entitlements box has not been filled in. It appearsthat 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 includeshower, 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 thisInstitution. 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.


7/34


7

Issues identified with the Paperwork:

M.01.03.Form.09 Confirmation of minimum entitlements for a prisoner who is on segregationdoes notappear 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 of3, point 2 [delete one] remains in document.

The Memo prepared to support the extension to the segregation was dated 24 June 2011, and theActing 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 entitlementsfor a prisoner who is on segregation form on 20 June 2011, and the M.01.03.Form.08Prison 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 theinitial 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 streamof 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 2011On 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


8/34


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 withhis 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 startingbehaving 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 wasdue to expire on 14 July 2012.

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

The Memo prepared to support the extension to the segregation was dated 1 August 2011, and theActing 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.08Prison Managers notification to the

prisoner of the prisoners placement on segregation or continuation of segregation form, and themanagement 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.




9/34


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. 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



10/34


10

Reference to the telephone incident on 23 June 2011 which had occurred in a previous segregationperiod 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.01.03Under 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 behaviourand 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. TheAssistant Regional Manager (ARM) approved the extension on 5 September 2011, and the Visiting


11/34


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.08Prison 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 9months 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 todamaging 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. TheActing 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


12/34


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.08Prison Managers notification to the prisoner of the prisoners

placement on segregation or continuation of segregationform, 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.08that 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 acell 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 initia

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 segregationprior 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


13/34


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 onMr 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 hisminimum 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 reflectedthe 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


14/34


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. Themanagement 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 thanrestricted. 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 policynor 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.


15/34


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 planprepared in association with the directed segregation paperwork and signed on 2 December 2011 was stil

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 cel

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 hestated 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


16/34


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 managementplan. 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 wascreated.

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.


17/34


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 variouslocations 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 moldedand 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.


18/34


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.


19/34


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.


20/34


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 theexception 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


21/34


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

29/10/2011 D Block Shower & Clean 25Recreation 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.


22/34


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 thiscalculation 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 groundfloor 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 77 247/11/2011 D Block Legal Calls 93

Landing Time 45

Computer Suite 45 183 90


Legal Calls 60

Computer Suite 36 152 92



10/11/2011 D Block PCO Office 50


23/34


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 35Recreation 65 125 65


Landing 29



Legal Calls 25

Phone Shop 10

Landing 60 109 70

26/11/2011 D Block Cleaning 18

Landing 65 83 65

27/11/2011 D Block Cleaning 106 106


Cleaning 64Computer Suite 40 139 40


Shower & Clean 28

Charges 10

Landing 10



Legal Calls 15

Landing 20

Work Shop 112 162 132


24/34


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, medica

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 61Legal 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


25/34


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 8124/12/2011 High Care Unit Shower 32

Recreation (yard) 127 159 127






Recreation (yard( 70

Phone Calls 20 112 70

28/12/2011 High Care Unit No Records available



31/12/2011 High Care Unit No Records availableTOTALS 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.


26/34


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




Recreation (yard) 95 112 957/1/2012 High Care Unit Shower 20


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

Recreation (yard) 85 129 8512/1/2012 High Care Unit 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



27/34


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


required to provide Mr Taylor with 27 hours of recreation time (1 hour for the 27 days he was located in DBlock 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

Date Location Activity Time Spenton activity

(minutes)

Total out ofCell

(minutes)

RecreationTime

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



28/34


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 timeIncorporating 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


29/34


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

Date Location Activity Time Spenton activity

(minutes)

Total out ofCell

(minutes)

RecreationTime





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 46Recreation 71

Computer Room 19 194 138


Shower & Landing 70

Phone Calls 29 123 24

15/3/2012 D Block Landing & Shower 86

Legal Calls 50



Legal Calls 10

Work Shop 25

Phone Shop 40

Shower & Clean 15 110 8517/3/2012 D Block Landing 69



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


30/34


30

Legal Calls 17

Shower 1 33

Relocated to D Block


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


30/3/2012 D Block Work Shop 45

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 requiredto 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.

Ombudsman's Special Investigation into management of prisoner Arthur Taylor in Auckland Prison, New...

Documents

Transcript of Ombudsman's Special Investigation into management of prisoner Arthur Taylor in Auckland Prison, New...