Prison officers back on payroll despite killing

Prison officers Manuilani Tielu and William Tupou were sacked following an investigation into the death of an inmate at Auckland Prison. Photo / Glenn Jeffrey

Two prison officers have been granted interim reinstatement on full pay, despite an inmate being killed in an organised "hit" during one of their shifts earlier this year.

The pair's lawyer claimed the Corrections Department knew about the planned attack on the inmate, 23-year-old Tue Faavae.

The Employment Relations Authority heard officers Manuilani Tielu and William Tupou were sacked following an investigation into the death, at Auckland Prison's B Block on March 1.

Corrections argued Ms Tielu, a senior Corrections officer, and Mr Tupou were responsible for location checks that "appeared not to have been done correctly".

It said a prisoner-location check was recorded as conducted at 10am and that all inmates were sighted.

But CCTV footage showed Faavae leaving the showers just after 10am, so he could not have been at the muster.

His body was found about an hour later after officers noticed he was missing during the next check at 11am.

Investigators found Mr Tupou breached the code of conduct by acting negligently and affecting security. They also found that Ms Tielu had acted negligently and had lied, saying she had signed the record showing a face-to-name muster and location checks had been completed on the morning of March 1.

The pair were suspended with pay pending the outcome of the employment investigation in April, but were fired in June after Corrections found they had breached the code of conduct and were guilty of serious misconduct.

But counsel for the pair, M. Ryan, argued that Corrections had failed to act despite knowing a "hit" was being planned by B Block inmates on Faavae, who had previously hidden in the shower block.

Mr Ryan said there were two sets of prison policy documents regarding procedures which were inconsistent with each other "particularly in respect of the breaches Corrections relies on here".

Authority member Rosemary Monaghan said there was no dispute that prisoner checks had been recorded as carried out "when that was not the case".

She said she was unable to assess the strength of the applicants' arguments in the absence of full evidence, although there was room for finding at least "contributory fault" on their part.

"Even if that finding were made in the substantive matter, however, it would not necessarily lead to a finding that reinstatement was not practicable," she said.

Ms Monaghan said the final outcome would probably turn on the extent of the applicants' culpability in respect of their actions and inactions that had effectively been admitted.

She ordered the pair reinstated to the payroll pending the determination in next month's substantive matter.