Corrections needs correcting

This should not be allowed to happen. That was Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s reaction — and, probably, most of us — to the revelation that alleged mosque gunman Brenton Tarrant had successfully mailed out and received correspondence while in solitary confinement.

This man sent two letters to his mother and five to others. Corrections Minister Kelvin Davis said he didn’t know who received five of the letters, although he believed the accused had received a “couple of dozen” letters from around the world.

Davis said Corrections had made a mistake and a letter sent to an admirer, subsequently posted online, should have been withheld. “I’ve expressed my disappointment to them. They have apologised to me but more importantly for the distress it’s caused to a large sector of our community. “They need to make sure it doesn’t happen again.” The accused gunman has now been blocked from sending or receiving mail, pending a review by Corrections — but that would seem too late.

This is not a unique situation. In the Australian state of Victoria, authorities are investigating whether a letter circulating online, apparently written by disgraced Cardinal George Pell to supporters, breaks prison rules there. The letter was posted on Twitter by an account called “Cardinal George Pell Supporters”. A Victorian Department of Justice spokeswoman said prisoners are not allowed to post on social media or use the internet. They are also not allowed to ask others to post on their behalf.

Davis said New Zealand has never managed a prisoner such as this one before and he’s now asking whether our laws are still fit for purpose. But New Zealand law is there and is perfectly adequate, if applied by anyone with a modicum of common sense. The Corrections Act 2004 provides this guidance under Section 108. “A prison manager may withhold mail between a prisoner and another person if . . . it is correspondence that the manager believes on reasonable grounds is likely to . . . endanger the safety or welfare of any person.”

How anyone in the employ, let alone the management, of the prison did not see how such dissemination could endanger the welfare of the Christchurch mosque victims seems beyond the pale.

Those wretchedly harmed by the events during Friday prayers on March 15 were certainly never going to feel better after finding out this prisoner was continuing to share views with the wider community. It certainly hasn’t improved the case for prisoners’ voting rights to be restored either.

Section 141 of the act makes it an offence for any person to hold any communication with a prisoner, if that communication may prejudice the wellbeing of any victim of an offence committed by that prisoner. It could be argued that no person willingly corresponding with a prisoner such as this would be likely to consider the Corrections Act before posting it online. But the same could not be said, surely, of our public servants. After all, who are they serving?