Paedophile village may be illegal
Rimutaka Prison’s paedophile village could be deemed illegal if a challenge set to go through the High Court over a violent convicted paedophile’s claim of wrongful detention at Waikato’s Springhill Prison succeeds.
Corrections says it is ‘‘confident’’ the Rimutaka unit is legal but a prisoner advocate disputes this, saying the Upper Hutt facility outside the wire is illegal and infringing on the paroled civilians’ human rights.
Susan Moselen has been fighting for a child-sex offender, who is also on an extended supervision order (ESO) for being a highrisk, violent offender.
He was taken from the community and housed on prison grounds at Springhill Prison after political, community and media backlash nearly two years ago.
‘‘The truth is accommodation is available but Corrections sabotage it. I believe this is because the cost to house people on ESOs in the community is extremely high. It’s cheaper to house them all in units on prison land,’’ Moselen said.
The man – who has name suppression – will challenge the legality of his detention in the High Court at Auckland later this year, claiming Springhill is an illegal detention centre, as it is unregulated under any act.
‘‘If Springhill is declared illegal . . . then any area of a prison, including the unit outside the wire at Rimutaka, will also be deemed illegal,’’ Moselen said.
Corrections operations director Matire Kupenga-Wanoa said due diligence was carried out before the Rimutaka unit – a former staff training facility – was set up, and the department was ‘‘confident that the activity is permitted and lawful’’.
Similar accommodation is available at Whanganui, Waikeria and Christchurch Men’s prisons.
There are already two men in the Rimutaka facility and the plan is to host up to 11 paedophiles within the grounds, which has drawn ire from the local community who became aware of the situation last week.
Human rights lawyer Tony Ellis said he would be surprised if the Rimutaka unit was lawful and the matter needed careful judicial consideration.
The unit appeared to be another form of ‘‘prison environment’’ that existed arguably without statutory authority.
It was easy to imagine the argument could go as high as the Supreme Court given the emotionally charged nature of the subject matter – the demonisation and detention of paedophiles – Ellis said.