Ruling reserved in 'goon' case

Christchurch District Court Judge David Saunders yesterday reserved his decision in a case where a convicted murderer sued his jailers, claiming abuse by the so-called notorious "goon" squad.

Convicted murderer Ra Albert O'Dowd alleges he was dragged from his Paparua Prison, Christchurch, cell, restrained and stripped naked in front of other prisoners during a training session by the prison's Emergency Response Unit, also known as the goon squad.

The Crown argues that O'Dowd refused to obey a legitimate order to leave his cell, so authorised force was applied.

O'Dowd is suing the Department of Corrections and the Attorney General for $150,000 in exemplary damages for alleged mistreatment by the unit.

The controversial unit was disbanded in June 2000.

O'Dowd's lawyer John McDowell said the unit's entry to cells on the night of December 19, 1999 seemed premeditated, with inmates singled out and a medical officer purposely kept back for the night.

It appeared part of a series of planned events, within a deliberate and apparently managed exercise by the officers.

O'Dowd was taken from his cell by force, handcuffed and stripped naked in front of a group that included a female officer. There was an obligation that prisoners should be treated with humanity and respect for the dignity of the person, Mr McDowell said.

Their actions in handcuffing and strip-searching O'Dowd were unlawful. It was either deliberately provocative or they did not care.

O'Dowd had effectively lost his human rights.

"He was already in prison, and you don't further assault and humiliate just because you can," Mr McDowell said.

The officers, who had a duty of care, appeared to be under no scrutiny or have any accountability, Mr McDowell said.

Crown counsel Austin Powell argued exemplary damages for negligence were available only in very rare circumstances, and the argument for a breach of statutory duty was legally unsound and ought to be dismissed. Another issue was whether there had been lawful justification for the force used, and there was no denial by the Crown that force was applied.

Prisoners were expected to obey orders of a prison officer, and it was also common sense they should obey, Mr Powell said.

They could not refuse to obey an order and, in that event, force was authorised to compel them to obey. O'Dowd left no doubt he did not intend to comply with the order, and also refused a second request, Mr Powell said.

Also, the officer had been commanded to move O'Dowd in what he thought was a brewing volatile situation, in circumstances when three other inmates had already been removed from their cells and others were becoming agitated.

As for the use of handcuffs, their use was authorised in circumstances when it was thought justified by the officer.

Mr McDowell said prison officers generally thought it safer for both officers and prisoners to use handcuffs rather than manual restraint.

- NZPA