Corrections needs a correction
He’s done his time. That’s a phrase many New Zealanders will be familiar with. We may all differ in our level of sympathy about what goes on behind doors slammed shut on those people in society deemed unworthy of its basic freedoms. That much is clear from just a passing interest in the myriad opinions expressed on talkback radio and in social media.
We may rail against those claims by prisoners that appear to demean our sense of fairness and undermine the institutions we deem important.
Those pillars are rocked when the likes of killer Phillip Smith is paid compensation for being denied access to his toupee; they are shaken when another inmate sues Corrections for falling out of their bunk.
But the idea that a man or woman serves their time in prison and is then free to go, free to get on with the rest of their lives, is one understood and accepted by many.
It’s a basic right, even for those deemed by some to be unworthy of such things.
Corrections has paid tens of thousands of dollars in compensation to people held in prison beyond their release dates.
In one case former inmate Michael Marino was paid $50,000 after he was kept inside for 127 days too long.
It appears the department may have to pay much more, too, after the Supreme Court concluded that Corrections had applied its own rules incorrectly and left people in prison beyond their release dates.
The court’s ruling, which trumped previous judgements in favour of Corrections in the High Court and Court of Appeal, could impact on thousands of people let out of prison over the past decade.
If this is the case, then compensation is fair and right: if an offender is held beyond their sentence then they are being detained illegally.
The state is breaking its contract with the offender. Corrections appears not to be too concerned at the prospect of being sued and having to pay compensation; it has insurance to cover such things.
But of greater concern is that something so basic, so core to the relationship between offender and state, appears to be so confusing and opaque that it needed the intervention of three of the country’s highest courts, containing this nation’s leading legal minds, and they differed so markedly in their opinions.
Corrections may feel a little aggrieved that its interpretation of the law governing prisoner release was, essentially, given the thumbs up by two courts before being rejected by the third.
But this should give the department little comfort. We feel that rather than putting the onus on its former customers to come forward in future compo claims, if they believe they were detained beyond their legal release date, Corrections should be taking the initiative to clarify its interpretation of the law and make this important part of what it does transparent and easy to understand.
Because it is important that an inmate’s sentence is honoured by both parties, and it is important that justice is seen to be done correctly.
If an offender is held beyond their sentence then they are being detained illegally.