But in a 14-page judgement released today, Justice Duffy rejected those arguments, as well as assertions by Valent that deprivation of a proper haircut breached the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act due to “degrading treatment” and failure to protect a prisoner’s “inherent dignity”.
“The decision to restrict scissors and other persons cutting Mr Valent’s hair is a necessary consequence of his security conditions and is therefore within Corrections’ scope of power,” the judge wrote. “While proper hair care touches the issue of dignity under [the Bill of Rights], Mr Valent’s circumstances likely do not prevent him from attaining proper hair care.
“While he may not have the skills to achieve his exact pre-prison haircut, it may not be the all-or-nothing scenario Mr Valent paints in his submissions.”
During the hearing nine months ago, Valent presented to the judge a photo of his last haircut, which he said was administered by an inmate at a Rome prison as he awaited extradition to New Zealand. It is how Valent, who has represented himself on the haircut matter, said he wishes to present himself in front of a jury.
He also suggested that is “a fundamental and prevalent custom” of New Zealand European/ English culture “to receive a haircut executed by another competent individual”.
Corrections lawyer Joshua Williams said during the February hearing that Valent is in segregation due to the potential risk he could influence other prisoners, so having another inmate perform a haircut wasn’t allowed. It’s also a security risk to bring in a professional hairdresser of his choosing, who Valent could potentially pass messages to, Williams said.
If an outside professional of the prison’s choosing was allowed to visit the prisoner, Williams said, then all other inmates would “reasonably expect the same”, which could have “a significant impact on prison resources and operation”.
Justice Duffy agreed with the lawyer’s submission that judges should try not to “interfere in matters of safety and good order of prisons”.
“I observe that the pathway to Mr Valent being able to enjoy better access to hair care than he currently enjoys is more likely to lie in him questioning whether his present security status is warranted,” Justice Duffy wrote. “There is no evidence he has been physically violent. In such circumstances, an adjustment of his current status that would enable him to have his hair cut by a third party should solve his present concerns.
“Whether there are grounds for challenging his present security status is not something that I can address in the context of this judicial review.”
The judge also said she wasn’t in a position to judge whether a self-administered “buzz cut” would put him in a poor light before jurors because he has refused to try it.
“Without evidence, the answer to this question is speculative,” she wrote.
Valent’s trial is expected to take place next year.
