Xavier Valent, awaiting trial on drug trafficking charges, loses bid for hairdresser visits

An image of a clean-cut Xavier Valent was attached to his application seeking a haircut. Photo / Supplied

A man who is in custody awaiting trial for allegations he operated an international drug syndicate has lost a long-running battle to arrange regular visits from a hairdresser so that he doesn’t look like a “barbarian”.

Xavier Valent, who is also known as Harry Whitehead, told Justice Ailsa Duffy during a hearing in the High Court in Auckland in February that his hair hadn’t been cut since he was extradited from Italy in 2020. Authorities at the high-security unit where he is being held as he awaits trial offered him clippers but said he would have to cut his own hair.

Authorities later relented somewhat, saying he could also use scissors, but he argued that what is really needed is a second person who knows how to use the clippers and scissors.

“It’s absolutely impossible,” he said of cutting his own hair. “I don’t know how I’m expected to do that - with two mirrors at the back of my head or something?”

Valent said it wouldn’t matter if the person cutting his hair would be a professional or a skilled fellow inmate. He’d be willing to pay for the haircuts himself and would consent to being handcuffed to a chair to appease safety concerns, he said, adding that a visit from a professional barber wouldn’t be much different than inmates’ already-allowed interactions with physicians and physios.

But in a 14-page judgement released today, Justice Duffy rejected those arguments, as well as assertions by Valent that deprivation of a proper haircut breached the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act due to “degrading treatment” and failure to protect a prisoner’s “inherent dignity”.

“The decision to restrict scissors and other persons cutting Mr Valent’s hair is a necessary consequence of his security conditions and is therefore within Corrections’ scope of power,” the judge wrote. “While proper hair care touches the issue of dignity under [the Bill of Rights], Mr Valent’s circumstances likely do not prevent him from attaining proper hair care.

“While he may not have the skills to achieve his exact pre-prison haircut, it may not be the all-or-nothing scenario Mr Valent paints in his submissions.”

During the hearing nine months ago, Valent presented to the judge a photo of his last haircut, which he said was administered by an inmate at a Rome prison as he awaited extradition to New Zealand. It is how Valent, who has represented himself on the haircut matter, said he wishes to present himself in front of a jury.

He also suggested that is “a fundamental and prevalent custom” of New Zealand European/ English culture “to receive a haircut executed by another competent individual”.

Corrections lawyer Joshua Williams said during the February hearing that Valent is in segregation due to the potential risk he could influence other prisoners, so having another inmate perform a haircut wasn’t allowed. It’s also a security risk to bring in a professional hairdresser of his choosing, who Valent could potentially pass messages to, Williams said.

If an outside professional of the prison’s choosing was allowed to visit the prisoner, Williams said, then all other inmates would “reasonably expect the same”, which could have “a significant impact on prison resources and operation”.

Justice Duffy agreed with the lawyer’s submission that judges should try not to “interfere in matters of safety and good order of prisons”.

“I observe that the pathway to Mr Valent being able to enjoy better access to hair care than he currently enjoys is more likely to lie in him questioning whether his present security status is warranted,” Justice Duffy wrote. “There is no evidence he has been physically violent. In such circumstances, an adjustment of his current status that would enable him to have his hair cut by a third party should solve his present concerns.

“Whether there are grounds for challenging his present security status is not something that I can address in the context of this judicial review.”

The judge also said she wasn’t in a position to judge whether a self-administered “buzz cut” would put him in a poor light before jurors because he has refused to try it.

“Without evidence, the answer to this question is speculative,” she wrote.

Valent’s trial is expected to take place next year.