The CERU was established in July 1999 as a temporary resource following discussions with the Public Service Association (PSA) and the Corrections Association of New Zealand (CANZ).
It was established during a period of significant change for the Public Prisons Service (PPS). The 280 bed Paparua Remand Centre was commissioned in 1999, and was the first major prison development the Department had undertaken since the late 1980s. The Department's limited experience in projects of that scope resulted in regional staff taking responsibility for developing project and commissioning plans from scratch, on top of their normal day-to-day activities. At the same time, regional staff were managing the decommissioning of Addington Prison and the relocation of its 132 inmates to the new facility, and in 1999 also took on responsibility for managing Dunedin and Invercargill prisons.
The CERU was intended as a temporary resource while PPS completed work on its national staffing project - called the Workplace Development Project - that would determine the level of staffing for the new Remand Centre.
During the 12 months the CERU was operational, it was responsible for responding to incidents involving inmates and site-wide crime prevention activities such as drug testing and vehicle checkpoints. These activities are routinely conducted in all New Zealand prisons and in similar jurisdictions worldwide. The key difference is the CERU was a full-time, dedicated resource.
After its establishment, the CERU also took on responsibility for developing Canterbury's Y2K plans.
The CERU was disbanded after 12 months in June 2000, following completion of the Workplace Development Project.
Five complaints against the CERU were made by inmates relating to conduct during Operation Build-Up. Four of the complaints were made directly to the Ombudsman. This compares with a total of 350 (mostly unsubstantiated) complaints from Christchurch Prison to the Ombudsman that year, plus a further 147 complaints made to the Prison Inspectorate. At the time it was not thought the complaints against the CERU represented systemic problems or abuse of inmates.
After the CERU was disbanded in June 2000, serious allegations were made about the CERU and the work performance of three of its staff.
The allegations related to Departmental policies and procedures, and fell into several broad areas:
The Department immediately launched an employment investigation into the allegations against the three staff members. An employment investigation is the standard approach to allegations of non-compliance, and as a matter of course would include interviews with all staff involved, collection and review of documentary evidence, and the opportunity for the staff who are the subjects of the allegations to provide feedback on the initial findings.
Based on the knowledge held at the time, the Department thought an employment investigation was the most appropriate action to take. The Department now accepts that the employment investigation could have been set up and managed better than it was and that, with hindsight, a simultaneous employment investigation and management system review could have been an alternative approach.
Findings of the employment investigation
The investigation confirmed incidents of non-compliance with the Department’s procedures and policies in several key areas:
Disciplinary action against CERU staff
Based on the employment investigation findings, PPS determined that disciplinary action against the three staff was warranted. The action was the most serious possible, short of dismissal. When deciding what disciplinary action should be taken, the Department took into account how similar breaches had been treated previously and the employment records of the individuals concerned.
A number of allegations made during the course of the investigation couldn't be substantiated or were considered by PPS as not warranting disciplinary action.
During the employment investigation, the investigation team identified a number of issues relating to wider management or systems that clearly sat outside the scope of the employment investigation. The team documented these issues in a separate report known as the 'Management Issues Report', which was received by the Department in late December 2001, 10 months after completion of the employment investigation and after disciplinary action had been taken against the three CERU staff members.
Findings of the Management Issues Report
The findings of the Management Issues Report fell into several broad areas:
Many of the issues documented in the report had already been addressed by PPS, or were in the process of being addressed, at the time the report was received. PPS accepted all but two of the report’s findings.
In addition to the employment investigation and the Management Issues Report, PPS also asked the Internal Audit group to alter its work programme for 2001/02 to include a financial audit of the Canterbury region. The audit, dated December 2001, found room for improvement in a number of aspects of financial management and compliance. A follow-up audit in November 2002 confirmed each of the December 2001 recommendations had been implemented.
The allegations made against the CERU staff members in 2000 centred on administrative issues and compliance with policies and procedures. As a result, when the initial allegations were made, an employment investigation seemed the most appropriate response.
Between 1999 and 2002 the Department dealt with inmate complaints made to the Ombudsman and Inspectorate including systemic issues associated with strip searching, and the use of handcuffs in Canterbury.
Further allegations of abuse of inmates by CERU staff were made in 2002 following reports in the media and information that came to light during the Employment Court proceedings brought against the Department by Nigel French.
The Department’s response
The Department takes allegations of abuse of inmates extremely seriously. Proven cases of abuse have resulted in dismissal. The allegations against CERU staff prompted a request by the acting Chief Executive for the Department’s independent Prison Inspectorate to review all allegations of mistreatment and determine whether they had been properly identified, investigated and resolved.
There was no request made to reinvestigate the CERU or any allegations, rather the aim was to ensure no allegations of abuse of inmates had been overlooked.
The Prison Inspectorate reports directly to the Chief Executive on matters that affect the fair, safe, secure and humane treatment of offenders and maintenance of the integrity of sentences imposed by the courts.
Findings of the Inspectorate’s review
The review found that specific allegations made to local prison management, the Inspectorate or the Ombudsman had been or were under action. The vast majority of the allegations of abuse made through the news media could not substantiated because of their non-specific nature or the anonymity of their source.
The investigations into the CERU identified a number of areas where improvements in systems and processes were required. In particular:
There was also a need to clarify the requirements relating to strip searching and use of handcuffs.
A number changes to management systems and processes have been made within PPS - both as a direct result of the investigations into the CERU and as part of its ongoing quality improvement programme.
The Department has made changes to address inmate management issues arising from the CERU, including issuing new instructions for activities such as strip searching, use of handcuffs, and better monitoring of compliance with standards. A complete review has been undertaken of use of force (control and restraint) policies and procedures, and a revised system is being implemented.
Other changes include:
PPS has introduced a new rule-based approach to offender management that requires staff to take responsibility for the active management of offenders to achieve the objectives set in their sentence plan. This includes requirements for staff to exert a positive influence on inmates. Professional ethics and training are the mechanisms to equip staff to do so.
PPS also initiated the Professional Ethics project, designed to support the behaviours required by the new approach to offender management. The project aims to build a culture that reinforces the positive behaviours staff are required to exhibit, is intolerant of negative behaviours, and takes account of public expectations of PPS staff. The project won an inaugural State Services Commission award in 2003 and in October 2004 won an award from the International Corrections and Prisons Association.
|
1999 |
|
| July |
The Emergency Response Unit (CERU) begins training. |
|
2000 |
|
| June |
The CERU is disbanded following implementation in Canterbury of the Workplace Development Project. |
| 21 July |
The complaints that gave rise to an employment investigation into the CERU are received. |
| 11 August |
The employment investigation begins. |
|
2001 |
|
| 10 May |
The Public Prisons Service takes disciplinary action against three members of the CERU. |
| December |
The Department receives the 'Management Issues Report'. A financial audit of the Public Prison Service’s Canterbury region concludes that improvements are required. |
|
2002 |
|
| July |
The Prison Inspectorate is asked to carry out a review into allegations of abuse of inmates. |
| November |
The Department’s Assurance Board receives the Inspectorate’s report. |
|
2003 |
|
| September |
Investigate magazine prints allegations that senior managers' handling of dynamite found at Christchurch prison in 1997 compromised their handling of the CERU. The Prison Inspectorate is asked to review the allegations. |
| November |
The Inspectorate's review is completed. The State Services Commissioner announces his inquiry into the Department’s handling of the CERU. |
|
2004 |
|
| December |
The final report of the inquiry is released to the public. |