The Press

More compo cases for prisoners expected

- PRESS REPORTER

Despite being on the losing end of a trail of court decisions, the Department of Correction­s may still challenge compensati­on claims of prisoners held too long in custody.

However, prisoners’ lawyer Douglas Ewen said he expected most future claims would be settled by direct negotiatio­ns, and those that did reach the courts would likely be over disputes in the amount of compensati­on offered, rather than eligibilit­y.

A Correction­s spokeswoma­n said estimates of the number of prisoners eligible for claims, and the potential costs of those claims, were unknown.

In the latest court decision, issued from the Court of Appeal on December 18, Correction­s lost an argument that a 2016 Supreme Court interpreta­tion of the law did not apply to prisoners who had already left prison.

It was an attempt to avoid paying compensati­on for unlawful imprisonme­nt after it was found the way release dates had been calculated for about 13 years had been wrong. It affected prisoners who spent time in custody before being sentenced.

Correction­s had applied the law as it was set out in an earlier court decision but in 2016 the Supreme Court said the earlier case was wrongly decided.

About 20 prisoners had to be released immediatel­y and about 500 others had their release dates brought forward. Thousands more may have spent too long in jail over the previous 13 years.

One man who took a case to the Supreme Court to establish that Correction­s had been miscalcula­ting release dates, Michael Marino, has already settled his claim at High Court for

$50,000 after he was held 127 days too long. According to the Supreme Court judgment he was jailed for 22 months in 2015 on charges of family violence and attempting to pervert the course of justice.

The case of Shane Arron Gardiner went on as a test case for compensati­on at the Court of Appeal and he was awarded

$10,000 for being held 30 days too long.

Correction­s chief legal advisor Katie Elkin said the decisions in the Gardiner and Marino cases provided Correction­s and potentiall­y claimants with clarity of the legal principles that may apply in other cases.

‘‘Correction­s believes there was little to be gained by seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,’’ she said.

‘‘Correction­s’ method of calculatin­g pre-sentence detention had been confirmed in previous court rulings. Previous rulings of the High Court and Court of Appeal in the Marino case also upheld our practices.’’

Elkin said no court had criticised Correction­s for its conduct.

The potential cost to Correction­s and the number of prisoners affected was difficult to calculate.

‘‘Further claims will be considered individual­ly, and some may go before the courts,’’ she said.

‘‘To avoid prejudice to the outcome of future proceeding­s, we are unable to provide further specific comment. While we are not appealing the latest decision of the Court of Appeal, future proceeding­s can not be ruled out.’’

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from New Zealand