Prisoners, Crown appeal over compo case

Four prisoners awarded tens of thousands of dollars' compensation after being held illegally in solitary confinement have had their appeal heard in the Supreme Court.

The Government is also appealing against the Court of Appeal's December decision which upheld an earlier High Court order to pay five prisoners a total of $130,000.

The inmates' appeal is to examine whether the Corrections Department breached the Bill of Rights Act 1990 by treating the men in a cruel, degrading or disproportionately severe manner in the now defunct Behaviour Management Regime at Paremoremo Prison, Auckland.

It also examines whether the prisoners were denied the right to natural justice after complaining about their treatment.

One of the lawyers for the inmates, Tony Ellis, explained the delays to date. After an initial complaint in 2001, the matter had been directed to the prison, then to a judge, then to the Ombudsman then back to the courts.

Mr Ellis said it was not all about compensation, although "the battleground seems to have become compensation: Compensation is only one aspect, and it is not enough".

He argued there had never been a proper investigation into the treatment of the prisoners, despite repeated requests.

He provided Chief Justice Sian Elias and the four other justices with examples of "proper" investigations overseas.

One, from Hong Kong, had results the next day, not six years later, he said.

Mr Ellis said there has been no apology about what had happened in this case.

One of the four prisoners is Christopher Taunoa, serving a life sentence for the murder of Sanson publican Hugh Lynch in 1996.

Mr Ellis cited Taunoa's case and that of another inmate.

One man had been granted 29 hours of outside exercise in a year, the other 21 hours in two years.

This was a fundamental denial of human rights, Mr Ellis said.

There were about 200 other prisoners who also suffered the same type of treatment, 40 of whom were awaiting High Court hearings.

Rather than clog up the court system, there should be an investigation, he said.

Failing to have an investigation was a breach of New Zealand's commitment to compliance against torture, he said.

Another lawyer for the inmates, Dale La Hood, said the behaviour regime was a penalty regime, breaching section 27 of the Bill of Rights.

"The Crown is confusing the motive for the regime with the effect of the regime."

Mr La Hood said that in behaviour regime, punishment was imposed without due process.

Prisoners were told as part of their induction: "You coming here is the price you pay for stuffing up in prison."

Motive was irrelevant and ignorance of the law was no defence for the scheme, Mr La Hood said.

Staff filed incident reports and there were no mechanisms for the prisoners to challenge what happened to them.

The Crown is to present its argument today.

- NZPA