|
''Taunoa v Attorney-General'' was a case in the Supreme Court of New Zealand concerning breaches of prisoners Bill of Rights protected rights by the Department of Corrections in the Behaviour Management Regime programme at Auckland Prison between 1998 and 2004. ==Behaviour Management Regime== In March 1998, 25 prisoners had taken over their cellblock and started fires in protest against new cell search policies at Auckland Prison, known as Paremoremo Prison. In response to the riot the Department of Corrections instituted and operated from 1998 to 2004 a programme at the prison known as the "Behaviour Modification Regime" and later "Behaviour Management Regime" (BMR).〔''Taunoa v Attorney-General'' () NZSC 70 at ().〕 The programme was designed to deter bad behaviour of difficult to control prisoners through principles of behaviour modification and involved a progression through increasingly less restrictive phases.〔''Taunoa v Attorney-General'' () NZSC 70 at ().〕 Around 200 prisoners were subjected to the BMR. BMR involved "cell confinement and the denial of association with other inmates for 22 to 23 hours a day, combined with a significant reduction in the ordinary conditions and privileges of maximum security inmates in the east division. All prisoners began on the most restrictive phase and remained there for at least 14 days. Privileges were gradually restored as prisoners moved to later phases, but misconduct could result in summary regression to a previous phase."〔''Taunoa v Attorney-General'' () NZSC 70 at ().〕 Prison bosses were found to have ignored warning from psychiatric staff that the programme was too harsh and a breach of international guidelines. In 2000 the Office of the Ombudsman had raised questions as to the legality of the programme. Aspects of the treatment of prisoners on BMR included: * Cell conditions "well short of the proper standard of hygiene"; * Poor natural light and a lack of fresh air; * Unacceptable laundry conditions; * An "unnecessarily controlling" rationing of toilet paper;〔''Taunoa v Attorney-General'' () NZSC 70 at ().〕 * Not allowed watches or calendars in early stages;〔 * The prison Superintendent and medical officers failed to monitor individual prisoners regularly; * Inadequate opportunity to exercise; * No effective privacy; * Prisoners were sometimes left in cells naked; * Routine and unlawful strip searches; * No rehabilitation programmes; * No access to books or television; * Prisoners were given unclear and inadequate information about the BMR; * Improper seizure of items, including prisoners' legal papers during cell searches; and * Verbal abuse of prisoners by guards was common.〔 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Taunoa v Attorney-General」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|