The so-called inadequate daylight for prisoners on the behaviour management regime is more than many Wellington homes receive, the Crown says.
In the Court of Appeal at Wellington yesterday, lawyer David Boldt defended the austere regime that operated at Auckland Prison's Paremoremo site and led to $130,000 compensation being awardedto five men.
The much criticised regime was suspended indefinitely after High Court findings that conditions breached Bill of Rights requirements for humane treatment. The Crown has appealed against the ruling and compensation awarded.
Solicitor-General Terence Arnold, QC, said a court declaration, not compensation, was the proper response if the breach was upheld.
If compensation was thought necessary it should have been at a much lower level, with at most $10,000 going to a man whom the Crown agreed should not have been put in the regime because it made a known mental condition worse.
Convicted murderer Christopher Taunoa, who received $55,000 for 26 months spent in the regime, would receive up to $6000 if the Crown's fallback position was accepted.
Taunoa's lawyers are asking for more compensation because the High Court award did not include the first nine-month spell he spent on the regime.
Rationed toilet paper, shared clothing - including underwear - irregular visits to an exercise yard, and other restrictions did not result in the prisoners being treated with the dignity they were entitled to, the High Court judge had said.
Mr Boldt said conditions were not that bad.
One of five judges hearing the appeal, Justice Susan Glazebrook, said it was not expected cells would have huge bay windows, but what might be acceptable in some circumstances would not be for people locked in a small cell for 23 hours a day.
Mr Boldt said the corridor wall facing the cells had windows with a view of hills and sky. It was not a penthouse suite at the Hilton, but Prisoners did not have a right to a nice outlook. The cells received direct light for three months a year, more than many Wellington houses got.
Some criticisms were valid, including irregular access to exercise yards. But others, such as an unhygienic cell cleaning routine, often using shared water and cloth, were challenged.
