Initial segregation was ordered due to concerns about good order, among others
The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by a transgender prisoner challenging her segregation while in custody at Auckland South Corrections Facility.
The prisoner, Maxien Stevens, had previously sought judicial review of decisions related to her segregation, claiming improper use of directed segregation and insufficient oversight by the Department of Corrections. Both the High Court and Court of Appeal had upheld the segregation orders, leading Stevens to apply for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Stevens' time in segregation began in May 2021 when several segregation orders were issued under the Corrections Act 2004. The first order, made on May 12, 2021, was based on concerns that the "security or good order of the prison would otherwise be endangered." This order was revoked six days later. A second order, issued on May 18, was intended to protect Stevens from potential harm by others and was also revoked shortly thereafter.
Subsequent orders were made in June 2021, primarily focusing on Stevens' health and safety. The longest-lasting order, issued on June 9, 2021, was extended multiple times until September. Stevens contested these orders, arguing that they reflected a failure to properly exercise discretion under the relevant sections of the Corrections Act.
Stevens' appeal centred on three primary issues. First, she argued that the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners or the Mandela Rules should have influenced decisions made under the Corrections Act. The High Court and Court of Appeal rejected this claim, noting that while the Mandela Rules provide important international guidelines, they are not directly incorporated into New Zealand law.
The second issue involved the prison's exercise of power under s. 58 and 59 of the Corrections Act, which allow for segregation for security reasons or the prisoner's safety. Stevens argued that the reviews of her segregation orders were flawed because they relied too heavily on information from prison management without independent investigation. The Court of Appeal found that while independent evaluation is necessary, it was not practical to conduct separate fact-finding for each segregation decision.
Finally, Stevens challenged the terms of the segregation order issued on May 12, 2021, claiming it unlawfully denied her any association with other prisoners. Both the High Court and Court of Appeal ruled that the prison director acted lawfully, considering the practical constraints within the facility.
The Supreme Court acknowledged that the impact of the Mandela Rules on segregation decisions could raise questions of public importance. However, in this case, the court found no basis for further consideration, noting that Stevens' arguments had shifted significantly since the lower court hearings. The court also determined that there were no significant errors in how segregation decisions were made or reviewed and found no miscarriage of justice. As a result, the Supreme Court dismissed Stevens' application for leave to appeal.
