In my eight years as General Manager of the Public Prisons Service, the affair of the Canterbury Emergency Response Unit (ERU) has been the most difficult.

The key mistake was to treat the original employment investigation as any other. We failed to realise that the issue would become one of public confidence. I’d like to respond to what I understand to be the public’s main concerns about this affair by examining what we see as the key issues. And I’d like to take the most important first.

Myth 1: That ERU staff brutalised inmates, most particularly in December 1999 as they trained on a contingency basis for Y2K.

I will not tolerate mistreatment of inmates. More than that, I take a close personal interest in investigations into allegations of inmate abuse. Proven cases have resulted, and will continue to result, in dismissal. The entire Prisons management team feels exactly the same way.

I would not have conducted every aspect of the Y2K operations in the way they were. Use of a laser pointer was unwise. Arguments can be made that abusive inmates could have been left in their cells till morning. But there has been nothing to substantiate allegations of brutality by unit staff. Consider:

• We have had very few complaints from inmates about that night. At least one inmate commented that they were treated appropriately.
• Police observers present commented that the operation was carried out well, and that there was no brutality.
• The Investigating team recommendation of dismissal flowed from other aspects of their findings, not from what happened in respect of the Y2K exercises. They found procedural irregularity, but not inmate assault.

Myth 2: That the Department is trying to hide what happened or is refusing to accept mistakes were made.

I need to make it clear from the start that significant errors were made, by staff and by Public Prisons management. I can assure readers the Department acknowledges errors and that:

• The way the unit was set up led to inadequate oversight.
• On some key operations, we failed to ensure detailed plans were developed and approved and inadequate guidelines were issued to the team. As a result staff attempted inappropriately to discharge official duties in Dunedin in public.
• The unit operated with an inappropriate culture and behaviour, particularly in respect of performance management and disciplinary arrangements
• The unit failed to comply with Departmental requirements around timesheets, rosters and overtime management, the use of Departmental resources and assets; the searching of visitors and management of confiscated exhibits, documentation of control and restraint processes, and performance management and financial control.
• There were some weaknesses in Canterbury’s financial management systems.

In July 2002 Corrections’ Prisons Inspectorate carried out a review of all available ERU material to ascertain whether all specific allegations of abuse had been properly identified, thoroughly investigated and addressed. They found this had been done. (The Inspectorate has a direct reporting line to Corrections’ chief executive and an Assurance Board with external membership; its report was completely independent of the Public Prisons Service.)

Myth 3: That the department has made many secret payouts to staff and inmates.

There have been two payouts: one to a staff member following a very public Employment Court case, and one small payment to an inmate who was strip-searched when a female officer was present.

At present there is one other active inmate claim; the department will be defending it vigorously. One staff claim is currently in mediation. Given these are both in formal process, I cannot give details at this point.

Myth 4: That the unit was set up on a permanent basis and was only disbanded as a result of allegations of misconduct.

Neither is true. The ERU arose in a unique set of circumstances. It was established in 1999 as an interim arrangement for Canterbury prisons, following the introduction of Christchurch Prison’s new remand centre. It was modelled on a similar unit operating at the main Sydney remand prison, and was planned to remain in place until a national framework for prison staffing levels, then in development, was implemented.

The unit was disestablished, as always intended, when the national staffing framework was implemented in Canterbury prisons on 1 July 2000. At that time, no significant complaints about the unit’s performance had been received.

Myth 5: That no-one was disciplined as a result of the allegations of misconduct.

Misconducts were proven, and formal disciplinary action was taken against three staff members. The action was the most serious possible, short of dismissal; the individuals’ good track records over a long period were a mitigating factor. Sometimes, fine judgements are required about the appropriate penalty.

More than 2,700 staff work for the Public Prisons Service (PPS). While most do an exceptional job, the sad truth is that we conduct many disciplinary investigations and that 53 staff have been dismissed, and many more otherwise disciplined, over the past five years.

Myth 6: That the unit was responsible for the death of inmate Haimona.

The Coroner found the inmate died of a sudden cardiac event, consequent upon a pre-existing heart condition, in the context of a violent struggle in a confined area (his cell) in hot temperatures.

The ERU was called to assist staff because this inmate was exhibiting violent and dangerous behaviour. The Coroner believed the inmate could have earlier been managed differently. Whether that is true or not, those decisions were not made by the ERU. I should add that the Police investigate deaths reported to the Coroner, and therefore it was the Police who took Corrections’ staff statements following this inmate’s death.

Myth 7: That the ERU will be (or has been) reincarnated in some form or other.

I have said there will be no more units like the Canterbury ERU, with staff assigned full-time. However we must retain the capability to respond effectively to emergencies. This requires staff to operate in a team and sometimes wear protective clothing and helmets, and is standard practice in corrections jurisdictions internationally.

The response of northern prisons staff to a 1998 riot at Auckland Prison demonstrates the value of staff with these capabilities. More than 60 rioting inmates were quelled with no significant injuries to staff or inmates. That sort of result does not happen without commitment and training.

The Public Prisons Service is striving for a culture that models effective inter-personal interaction for and with inmates and supports our systematic efforts to reduce re-offending. Most officers, day in and day out, perform a significant public service, unseen and unrecognised by the public they serve.

The ERU episode has been a low point in the life of the Service. Organisations like ours are rightly exposed to public scrutiny and must command public confidence. In respect of the failures that did happen, actions have been taken and lessons have been learned.

It has been some three and a half years since the ERU was disbanded. Huge improvements to systems and performance in Canterbury prisons have been made since that time. New Zealand’s prison service is increasingly recognised as among the best in the world, and we are working hard to keep it that way.

Previous Next Show Contents