Chief Ombudsman Judge Peter Boshier yesterday released his report ''A question of restraint'', which detailed his findings into the treatment of at-risk prisoners following inspections at several prisons by the ombudsman's Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture inspections team.
The report detailed the treatment of five prisoners at New Zealand facilities who were at risk of self-harm and mentally unwell.
The chief ombudsman found the treatment of mentally unwell prisoners lacking in many cases and amounting to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the cases of the five prisoners detailed in the report.
The prisoner at Corrections' Milburn facility, referred to as Prisoner E, was held in waist restraints with his hands cuffed behind his back for 21 hours a day for 10 weeks.
Judge Boshier's report revealed Prisoner E was taking prescribed medication for his mental illness until he entered OCF.
For his medication to continue he would have had to see a psychiatrist, but the waiting list for such assessments could be several weeks, the report said.
''Prisoner E stated that his mental health deteriorated as a result of discontinuing this drug and that his self-harm escalated,'' Judge Boshier said.
Prisoner E was held in waist restraints following nine instances of self-harm.
The ODT understands the man caused serious injuries to himself and attempted to tear out his stitches after being treated in hospital.
''In the case of Prisoner E, the forced, unnatural position in which he was restrained created major strain both physically and mentally,'' Judge Boshier said.
''The length of time in restraints will have caused significant physical and mental distress for the prisoner.
''The continued and prolonged use of handcuffs behind the back to manage an individual's self-harming behaviour is considered disproportionate and unreasonable.''
Judge Boshier said the man's treatment breached the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, as he could have been managed in a way that caused less physical discomfort.
''Prisoner E's mental healthcare was inadequate and exacerbated his mental suffering,'' he said.
''A consultant psychiatrist assessed Prisoner E approximately a month after he was put into the restraints, and recommended a raft of interventions and support including psychotherapy and counselling.
''From reading Prisoner E's file and subsequent discussions with him and staff in the [at risk unit], Prisoner E did not receive any counselling or psychotherapy during his 12-week restraint; or prior to his release to the community under Community Probation Services.''
''We did not observe Corrections staff spending any meaningful time talking and interacting with Prisoner E during the week of our inspection,'' the judge said.
Corrections chief custodial officer Neil Beales said the use of waist restraints was not taken lightly, neither was the use of tie-down beds in the other cases highlighted by the ombudsman.
''If we hadn't done that to these particular individuals at the time we did they might not be here today,'' he said.
He agreed most New Zealanders would expect such individuals to be in the care of the mental health sector rather than Corrections, but the department had to work with what it was offered.
''I can understand that view [such prisoners should be transferred to mental health services]. That is a view most New Zealanders would take,'' he said.
''But, unfortunately, on the occasions we have tried to do that with these individuals, and others, those options just have not been available to us.''
Prisoner E was turned away from the Southern District Health Board's forensic psychiatric services, as he was not deemed to meet the threshold for such services.
Prison staff were left with few other options but to restrain the man, as the law did not allow Corrections to medicate prisoners without their consent.
''Unfortunately, the needs of these prisoners will [bring] an extreme response and sometimes that response will require restraints,'' he said.
''I will never shy away from doing what is necessary to keep people alive and the law allows that.''
The ombudsman's chief Crimes of Torture Act inspector, Jacki Jones, said the ombudsman had no power to enforce the recommendations or findings and the matter would be heard by the United Nations.
''From our point of view we just keep following up with the various sites, but ultimately it will be New Zealand that has to answer those sort of charges the next time they appear in front of the United Nations,'' she said.
If the individuals in the report wanted to raise a criminal complaint about their care they would have to do so themselves, she said.
A police spokeswoman said no such complaints had been received in the Southern district.
