Resources and publications

Ngā rauemi me ngā tānga

Search guidescase notesopinionsreports and other information. Resources and publications can also be searched by date and other options. 

Use the search bar to make your search. Then use the filters to narrow down the results by resource type or topic. 

  • Report on an unannounced follow-up inspection of Arohata Prison

    OPCAT reports
    In 2007, the Ombudsmen were designated one of the National Preventive Mechanisms (NPMs) under the Crimes of Torture Act (COTA), with responsibility for examining and monitoring the general conditions and treatment of detainees in New Zealand prisons.
  • Report on an unannounced follow-up inspection of Manawatu Prison

    OPCAT reports
    In 2007, the Ombudsmen were designated one of the National Preventive Mechanisms (NPMs) under the Crimes of Torture Act (COTA), with responsibility for examining and monitoring the general conditions and treatment of detainees in New Zealand prisons.
  • Report on an unannounced follow-up inspection of Rolleston Prison

    OPCAT reports
    In 2007, the Ombudsmen were designated one of the National Preventive Mechanisms (NPMs) under the Crimes of Torture Act (COTA), with responsibility for examining and monitoring the general conditions and treatment of detainees in New Zealand prisons.
  • Report on an unannounced inspection of Christchurch Men's Prison

    OPCAT reports
    Christchurch Prison is one of New Zealand’s larger prisons, and the largest in the South Island.
  • Report on an unannounced inspection of Spring Hill Corrections Facility

    OPCAT reports
    Spring Hill Corrections Facility (the Prison) opened in 2007. The Prison accommodates male prisoners with security classifications ranging from minimum to high, as well as a growing remand population. Currently, it has an operating capacity of 1038.
  • Report on an unannounced inspection of Hawke's Bay Regional Prison

    OPCAT reports
    Hawke’s Bay Regional Prison was opened in 1989. The Prison accommodates male prisoners with security classifications ranging from minimum to high, as well as a growing remand population.
  • Department of Corrections unreasonably declines computer access to inmate

    Case notes
    Access to computer suite in prison denied—Ombudsman found this unreasonable—Corrections agreed to reconsider the inmate’s request and to review criteria for use—also that computer facilities at prison be reviewed to ensure availability to prisoners who meet criteria for assistance with litigation
  • Department of Corrections not unreasonable to decline face to face interview between prisoner and journalist in particular case

    Case notes
    Prisoner requested face to face interview with journalist—request declined—Ombudsman noted journalist had offered to conduct interview by AVL, notwithstanding preference for face to face—Ombudsman concluded that on this basis Department had not acted unreasonably in this instance
  • Charge for supply of information relating to cycling fatalities

    Case notes
    Provision of readily retrievable information—no remission of charge for supplying the remaining information in the public interest—some information was available pursuant to a charging regime set by statute and the OIA could not override this
  • Charge for supply of information about a hospice

    Case notes
    Unreasonable to refuse request after earlier deciding to supply information subject to a charge
  • Charge for supply of building information

    Case notes
    $0.45 per page photocopying charge unreasonable
  • Investigation of the Department of Corrections in relation to the provision, access and availability of prisoner health services

    Systemic investigations
    This own motion report, unlike others we have undertaken, did not arise from specific incidents within the prison system, nor from the number of complaints we receive from prisoners.  Our investigation has identified that prisoners have reasonable access to Health Services and generally they receive healthcare equivalent to members of the wider community. However, the service is not without its problems and in the future, it may not be able to meet the healthcare needs of such a diverse population effectively.
  • Charge for supply of correspondence regarding proposals to lower the drink-drive limit

    Case notes
    Example of how to calculate a reasonable charge—no remission of charge in the public interest
  • Submission of the Ombudsmen - Corrections Amendment Bill

    Submissions
    We had a limited opportunity to comment on the draft Corrections Amendment Bill (the Bill) and some amendments were made as a consequence of our submissions.  However, there remain other matters which concern us.
  • Investigation of the Department of Corrections in relation to the detention and treatment of prisoners

    Systemic investigations
    Under the Ombudsmen Act 1975, it is a function of the Ombudsmen to investigate complaints relating to matters of administration affecting persons in their personal capacity against various bodies, including the Department of Corrections (the Department). Pursuant to this Act, the Ombudsmen have power to investigate complaints by prisoners about all aspects of their detention by the Department. At the end of 2004 serious issues related to the treatment of prisoners came to public attention.
  • Charge for supply of information about community grants

    Case notes
    Cannot charge for time required due to administrative inefficiencies or poor record-keeping—public interest in MPs having access to official information to assist in the reasonable exercise of their democratic responsibilities warranted 10 per cent remission.
  • Landcorp fails to monitor survey of land for sale

    Case notes
    Lessee of Crown land given opportunity to purchase it freehold in 1996 from Landcorp—a review of title revealed land had been surveyed to exclude all internal waterways used by lessee for his salmon and trout farms and problem discovered too late for exemptions under Conservation Act—the consequences of survey effectively confiscated farms and lessee complained to Ombudsman that Landcorp’s failure to monitor survey allowed issuance of title for an unviable property—Ombudsman reviewed circumstances and agreed Landcorp should have ensured it was informed of survey progress—its failure to monitor meant Landcorp could not take more effective measures to overcome title issues and land subsequently not fit for sale—view formed that Landcorp’s sale was unreasonable—Landcorp disagreed with view but agreed to make ex-gratia payment to complainant
  • Charge for extracting information from Housing New Zealand’s database

    Case notes
    Estimate of charges to extract specific information from database—reasonableness of charge—absence of appropriately qualified staff—need to contract systems analyst—revised estimate provided—charge not unreasonable
  • New Zealand Customs Service questioned over acceptance of deposit pursuant to legislation

    Case notes
    Refusal to pay interest following resolution of dispute over Customs value of goods—whether relevant documentation provided at the time of importation—whether s 140 of the Customs Act 1966 (repealed) conferred authority on Department to take deposit—investigation discontinued following discovery that company did not exist as legal entity at the time complaint was made
  • Department of Corrections should explain reasons for declining application to be excused from PD reporting

    Case notes
    Refusal of application to be excused from reporting for periodic detention—incomplete explanation given at the time—reasons and apology provided—Criminal Justice Act 1985, s 41(3)
  • Department of Corrections required to advise decision on day parole application

    Case notes
    Failure to advise inmate of decision on application for day parole—prison administration expected inmate to ask Case officer for outcome—responsibility for advising the outcome of a request/application normally rests with decision-maker—internal procedures changed to reflect normal practice
  • Complainant must have sufficient personal interest in complaint for Ombudsman to investigate

    Case notes
    Ombudsman has discretion to decline to investigate where a complainant has insufficient personal interest in subject matter of complaint—no evidence to show the complainant had been given authority to complain on prisoner’s behalf about decisions taken in a prison—Ombudsman must be satisfied that the person concerned is aware of and consented to the complaint being investigated—under s 17(2)(c) of the Ombudsmen Act 1975, no investigation was undertaken
  • Department of Corrections reasonably held inmate in segregation

    Case notes
    Unreasonable placement of inmate on precautionary segregation—written material found in his cell which reflected on the safety of prison staff—placement not deemed unreasonable