Mapp Wayne: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21012] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 The Minister has made much play of the fact indeed it is part of the Government’s rationale for this bill that the Government believes that the  
Baigent 
 case— 
Simpson 
 v  
Attorney-General 
 [1994] 3 NZLR 667—requires monetary compensation for prisoners. That is the essence of the Government’s argument. It even stated it in the commentary on the bill: “New Zealand jurisprudence supports the view that the availability of compensation for breaches of domestic human rights law is part of compliance with the covenant.” 
Let us look at the facts of the  
Baigent 
 case because it is radically different from the circumstances we are faced with in this bill. The only commonality is that the case refers to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and proceedings therein. In  
Baigent’s 
 case what actually happened was that police officers obtained a warrant for search. There was some confusion as to the appropriate street address on that warrant and they went to a person’s place to search for drugs as the warrant authorised. They found out at the premises they had gone to the wrong premises. That is the bizarre thing but the officer in charge said to the occupant of the house Mrs Baigent: “We often get it wrong but whilst we’re here we’ll have a look around anyway.” Bear in mind that she was a completely innocent citizen living at home minding her own business when the police arrived and said they had a warrant. The police more or less said: “We’ve got a warrant it doesn’t actually talk about you but nevertheless we’re here so we may as well search anyway.” It is hardly surprising in that particular set of circumstances that the court would find that a perfectly innocent citizen had had her rights violated and given the only conceivable remedy in that case was damages that damages would be awarded. 
The Minister in the chair the Hon Rick Barker has made much play that National did not pass special legislation to reverse that decision. Why would we? Why would anyone take a right away from a perfectly innocent citizen sitting at home minding her own business being subject to a search that had no legal authorisation? In fact one would expect there to be a remedy in such a circumstance. What I would like to know from the Government is how it draws from that case the right for a prisoner a person convicted of an offence in a prison and subject to the behaviour management regime to receive compensation. One might ask what is meant by “subject to the behaviour management regime”. It means a regime for the worst prisoners in our jail system. It is the category of prisoners who taunt the guards get into fights cause trouble attack guards burn materials in their cells. It is the really difficult prisoners. In fact one of the people involved in the case before the courts at the moment is noted to be literally the worst prisoner in the country. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: The worst? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: He is the worst in terms of his behaviour in the cells. That is why he was subject to the behaviour management regime. It largely keeps such a person in solitary confinement for the protection of other prisoners the protection of prison guards and to try to change the person’s behaviour. As has been said today in the Court of Appeal the regime is quite reasonable. Those prisoners have proper meals proper exercise a decent-sized cell. As the Solicitor-General said it may not be the Hilton but it is after all a prison. 
Now finally the Crown is defending the behaviour management regime but it is passing a statutory code for that kind of person. I say to the Minister let us be honest and call it a prisoner compensation code; a code that will allow such a person to continue to sue for damages.