Prison book ban gets jailhouse lawyer gearing up for battle

Jailhouse lawyer Arthur Taylor is preparing to take Corrections to court — again — over a decision to ban the book

Gangland from prisons.

Taylor is gearing up to fight the decision to ban Herald journalist Jared Savage’s bestselling book, saying if the case goes to court, Corrections will lose.

The decision to bar prisoners from having the book has been labelled “silly” and “absolutely ridiculous”.

While Taylor was an inmate at Otago Corrections Facility in Dunedin last year, he was sent a copy of the book but it was confiscated before he could get his hands on it.

He was initially told it was because the book — which delves into a collection of police investigations around drug crime and violence in New Zealand — contained “gang regalia”, he said.

After laying a complaint and asking for the decision to be reviewed, he received a further response from Corrections, with a different reason for the confiscation.

Corrections’ response, which has been viewed by the

Herald, quoted the blurb for the book and said it could promote violence and drug use in prison.

“Management believes that this publication promotes violence and drug use and is a negative influence within a prison and reserves the right not to issue this book, ”it said.

Savage was “not surprised” by the ban, but said it was “kind of silly”.

He did not think the book glorified gang crime — it clearly showed the consequences for perpetrators of such offending.

“I basically stitched together lots of things that were publicly available through the court trials.

“It’s not like I’m revealing some deep, dark secrets that no one’s ever heard about,” Savage said.

“It’s a very straight accounting of those court cases and the history of organised crime in the last 10 years.”

He thought the second part of Corrections’ response — that the book could have a negative influence — might hold slightly more weight.

“I guess I can see the potential for problems to arrive, in terms of most of the people mentioned in the book are still in prison so maybe they would take exception to how some cases have been portrayed.”

But the book would be more likely to act as a deterrent because the cases ended in successful prosecutions and jail time for offenders.

He questioned whether whoever had made the call to ban the book had actually read it, given they had only quoted the blurb in their decision.

Taylor said the decision was “absolutely ridiculous” and he was prepared to take the matter to court if need be.

“As far as I’m concerned, it breaches freedom of expression.”

He has laid a formal complaint over the confiscation but has not yet received a response.

“I won’t be letting it go. There’s an important principle at stake here.

“If there was any legitimate reason for banning that book, all power to them . . . [but] it’s just simply a recording of what’s already public knowledge,” he said.

“There’s a hell of a lot worse books than that in prison libraries.”

Corrections, in a statement, said authorities did not allow a publication in jail if there were concerns it “may compromise the effective management, security and good order of the prison or constitutes a risk to prisoner rehabilitation by promoting pro-criminal beliefs or activities.”

I won’t be letting it go. There’s an important principle at stake here. Arthur Taylor