Thinking outside the box? seclusion and restraint practices in New Zealand

My report on the use of seclusion (solitary confinement) and restraints in New Zealand's prisons, health and disability units, police custody suites and children and young people's residences was published late last week. The report, 'Thinking outside the box?' was commissioned by New Zealand's Human Rights Commission with funding from the UN Special Fund of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT).

Some key findings included:

• A high use of seclusion and restraint in New Zealand overall, and an overrepresentation of ethnic minority groups, in particular M?ori, in seclusion and in prison segregation units. In prisons, women were also much more likely than men to be segregated, and for longer periods.
• Some of the forms of mechanical restraint used were inherently degrading to the individual. Of particular concern was the use of restraint or 'tie-down' beds in prisons and the use of restraint chairs in police custody.
• Stark physical environments and impoverished regimes in seclusion, secure care and segregation units, and in a number of cases no access to basic fixtures such as a call-bell to alert staff, a toilet or fresh running drinking water.
• Access to basic entitlements including daily access to a shower and an hour long exercise in the fresh air were not always guaranteed.
• Children and young people in Care and Protection residences could be held in separation from their peers in ‘Secure Care’ units which were identical to prison segregation units. These were inappropriate.
• The deprivation of social interaction which is inherent in all solitary confinement practices was often made worse by the deprivation of other provisions which could have helped to mitigate the harmful effects of seclusion. These included restrictions on family visits and in-room provisions such as books, hobby and craft materials or a TV set.
• A small but persistent number of people in health and disability facilities were subjected to very long-term restrictive measures, and discussion of future plans for these individuals appeared to be focused on variants of seclusion and restraint. For the individuals concerned, prolonged seclusion and /or restraint (and often both) had thus become a chronic state rather than an emergency short term response to an acute situation.
• ‘At Risk units’ in prisons, where vulnerable prisoners were housed, were mostly identical to those in other solitary confinement units. These units may be contrary to international standards which prohibit the placement of prisoners with physical or mental disabilities in solitary confinement.
• Review processes were not always robust, and some stays in restrictive conditions were far too long.

The report also identifies pockets of good practice and makes a series of recommendations. 

Copies of the report can be downloaded at: www.solitaryconfinement.org/new-zealand