RIS: Framework for the management of extreme threat prisoners

Read the complete RIS: Framework for the management of extreme threat prisoner PDF, 4.2 MB

Summary: Problem definition and options

What is the policy problem?

When the Corrections Act (the Act) was enacted in 2004, the prison population looked very different from what it does today.

Our legislation was set up to support us to manage risks from violent prisoners and other risks that exist within a prison. There are now more complex and challenging prisoners in prison than there were 20 years ago and as a result we need to find ways to work within a system that does not necessarily acknowledge the risk posed by some individuals and the level of custodial management required to keep prisoners, staff, and the wider public safe. Prisoners pose risks without being personally violent toward others, but can influence other people to commit violence and criminal activity that occurs both inside and outside prisons. This includes prisoners with a history of serious violence (including against staff and other prisoners), violent extremism, terrorism, and connections to sophisticated transnational and domestic organised criminal networks.

Fifteen of these types of prisoners are currently managed in the Prisoners of Extreme Risk Unit (the PERU), with a higher level of custodial management which is necessary for the safety and security of the prison system and the wider community. This management, however, also needs to change to be more consistent with our domestic and international human right obligations. Prior to the establishment of the PERU men with higher risk profiles would generally be housed in maximum security environments. These types of units have not been enough, nevertheless, to minimise the risks that some prisoners pose in terms of extreme violence and their ability to continue to conduct alleged significant criminal activities from prison.

What is the policy objective?

While each of the four sub-sections in this RIS have their own objectives that are related to a more specific component of the overall problem, the high-level objective of this work is to create a transparent framework for the safe, humane, and lawful management of extreme threat prisoners that minimises the risk these prisoners pose in prison and to the public.

What policy options have been considered, including any alternatives to regulation?

This RIS contains four sections, with three of those having two option sets. The table below on page 15 provides an overview of which prisoners are impacted by which options.

Section A: Identifying and designating extreme threat prisoners

Current processes for deciding which prisoners pose an extreme threat lack transparency for prisoners and the public and require more scrutiny. We propose the introduction of statutory provisions to identify prisoners who pose an extreme threat to prison or public safety. These new powers would require the chief executive to make a decision to designate eligible prisoners as an extreme threat based on a recommendation from an external and independent panel. Eligibility would be determined by reference to broad legislative criteria.

Other options that were not preferred include having the High Court or Attorney-General make decisions to designate prisoners. We also considered whether an exhaustive list of characteristics should be included in legislation.

Section B: Management tools for extreme threat and other prisoners that capture the full spectrum of risk

Corrections cannot effectively manage some prisoners who present subtle, sustained risks or risks that change over time, through existing management tools such as the security classification and segregation frameworks.

We propose an operational change to the security classification framework to amend it to take into account additional risks from prisoners, including non-physical and complex risks such as influence capability. We also propose a legislative change for extreme threat prisoners to be managed in accordance with their designation, rather than their security classification, as the designation best recognises the level of risk that needs to be managed in a prison. We considered other options such as introducing a new security classification for designated extreme threat prisoners.

Regarding segregation, we propose legislative change be made to allow transitions between restricted and denied association within the same segregation direction and to define what constitutes a continuous segregation period. A third change will broaden the segregation criteria to enable Corrections to segregation prisoners where they have the ability to influence others and impact public safety. All these segregation changes will apply to all prisoners and are not intended to just apply to extreme threat prisoners. As part of this, we also considered whether the independent panel is best placed to make segregation decisions for extreme threat prisoners, but have not proposed this change.

Section C: mitigating the impacts of segregation on prisoner wellbeing

Prisoners who are subject to long periods of segregation are at risk of experiencing solitary confinement if they have limited meaningful human contact. We propose defining meaningful human contact for all prisoners in the Act and explicitly prohibiting prolonged solitary confinement and developing supporting practice guidance. We also considered but decided against only defining meaningful human contact in practice guidance.

In order to mitigate the risks to wellbeing that prisoners segregated for long periods face, we propose to increase access to weekly telephone call minimum entitlements from five minutes to two hours for extreme threat prisoners and prisoners segregated for 90 days or more. We also propose that legislation provide for one additional hour out of cell as a minimum entitlement for those same prisoners. We propose specifying additional requirements for cells holding extreme threat prisoners include a yard of a certain size adjacent to their cell and requiring reasonable access to that space.

There is also significant operational change underway to address the experience of prisoners in the PERU.

Section D: The property of terrorist prisoners

Some property linked to terrorist prisoners may cause public harm if released into the community, especially for victims. This RIS proposes the High Court make decisions to destroy the property of some prisoners with terrorism convictions upon the prisoner's death if the release of that property meets a certain threshold of potential harm. We considered whether the chief executive should make this decision, but preferred a court process.

We also propose an unrelated technical amendment to remove the requirement for prisoner attendance at the disposal or destruction of their property. It is not practical in most cases for this to happen.

What consultation has been undertaken?

Throughout the RIS we draw upon what we heard from public consultation on the discussion document that Cabinet approved for release in February 2025. Consultation took place for six weeks and we received 26 written submissions. All prison libraries were provided a copy of the discussion document, summary of discussion document, and submission form. A notice was placed on all prison kiosks informing prisoners about this public consultation. We met with 14 different individuals and groups, including the Office of the Ombudsman, Human Rights Commission, Law Association, and four prisoners currently accommodated in the PERU. We have adapted proposals in response to feedback where appropriate.

Is the preferred option in the Cabinet paper the same as preferred option in the RIS?

Yes.

Costs (Core information)

In implementing these options, Corrections is likely to incur direct fiscal costs, both one-off and ongoing. The most significant ongoing costs are for increased staffing to support additional entitlements and for the independent panel, with direct operating costs for these three proposals estimated to be $2 million in the first year and thereafter $1.7 million annually. Further one-off costs will be incurred for training and procedural updates.

Fiscal costs to other parties are expected to be minimal, relative to the status quo. However, prisoners given the extreme threat designation will be subject to a higher level of custodial management. While several of the proposals are intended to mitigate the effects of long-term segregation as safeguards to support wellbeing and rehabilitation for these prisoners the higher level of management will continue to impose significant personal costs on extreme threat prisoners.

Benefits (Core information)

The proposals aim to provide Corrections with a clearer statutory framework for managing extreme threat prisoners and those held on some forms of segregation. Benefits for frontline staff include enhanced safety, improved consistency in operational practice, and reduced ambiguity in legal authority. For affected prisoners, key benefits include a fairer, more transparent regime, tailored progression planning, and greater access to entitlements that could improve wellbeing and reduce long-term harm. The greater independence of the designation process introduces a valuable procedural safeguard and more natural justice.

Wider benefits are also anticipated across the system. Improved oversight and legislative clarity may support better legal advocacy and enhance interagency confidence in how high-risk prisoners are managed, as well as offer some reassurance to the public around Corrections' focus on safety and its compliance with human rights. The proposals help reduce hidden harms (such as to prisoners on directed segregation for long periods) and
promote more humane, rights-aligned treatment.

While the benefits have not been quantified monetarily, the gains across safety, fairness and operational clarity are expected to be material.

Balance of benefits and costs (Core information)

Our view is that taken together, the package entails modest fiscal expenditure for a high-need cohort, in exchange for stronger safeguards, safer prison environments, and more proportionate use of restrictive custodial practices.

Implementation

How will the proposal be implemented, who will implement it, and what are the risks?

The proposed legislative amendments are planned to be progressed through a Corrections (Extreme Threat Prisoners} Amendment Bill with some provisions requiring delayed commencement. This will allow time for the effective implementation of the amendments including establishing a panel of independent experts for the designation process, and updating the necessary operational guidance and documentation, and training for staff. Consideration will also be given to how to best communicate these changes with prisoners, their whānau, and the wider community including our monitoring agencies and other stakeholders.

Limitations and Constraints on Analysis

There are some limitations to consultation on some of our proposals, as well as our consultation with prisoners

Proposals relating to Attorney-General involvement in decision-making, the prohibition on prolonged solitary confinement, moving between denied and restricted association, defining a continuous segregation period, and removing prisoner attendance as a requirement for the destruction or disposal of property were not part of public consultation. However, we consider, for the most part, these proposals were developed based on what we heard during consultation.

Engagement undertaken with prisoners included receiving written submissions from tour prisoners and meeting with tour different prisoners who are currently accommodated in the PERU. All prisoners in the PERU received a copy of the discussion document and all prisoners had access to t he proposals on the prison kiosks and through their libraries.

Our analysis of the likely impact of these proposals has been constrained by the absence of, or limited amount of, data and evidence as to the scope of some of the problems

Some proposals rely predominantly on anecdotal evidence rather than verified data - for example, the proposals to increase telephone calls and time out of cell for improved wellbeing. This is based on what prisoners and staff have told us is important.

While we contacted all our iwi partners with whom we have formal relationships, and Māori legal experts, we have received no feedback from them. Previous public consultations have attracted submissions from them, but interest in this topic appears more limited.

I have read the Regulatory Impact Statement and I am satisfied that, given the available evidence, it represents a reasonable view of the likely costs, benefits and impact of the preferred option.

Responsible Manager signature:
Marian Horan
Manager Legislative Policy
17/06/2025