How big should a prison cell be?
Comment: The day after the 596-bed Waikeria prison expansion opened on June 5, 2025, The Press reported that Invercargill prison had New Zealand's smallest prison cells measuring 6 square metres. Our newest prison was thus juxtaposed with our oldest one, which opened 115 years ago.
Over that period, the Prisons Act became the Penal Institutions Act and then the Corrections Act. Despite this centenary of legislative change, it is still possible to build a prison cell only 6 square metres because we have no legal minimum-cell size in New Zealand.
But it's not just legislation that avoids specifying a minimum standard. Neither the Ombudsman's Expectations document, nor the Prison Inspectorate's Inspection Standards commit to a number. The United Nation's Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners is equally evasive.
But this was not always the case.
The idea of prisons having cells evolved in the 18th century. This had to do with an idea that prisoners should be forced to reflect in solitude on their sins. The space proposed for this borrowed its terminology from the religious monastic cell.
In 1779, the Penitentiary Act specified cells for two national penitentiary houses where prisoners were to be penitent and reform. The cells were to be 'not less than ten feet in length, seven feet in breadth', or a minimum of 6.5 square metres. These 18th century prisons were never built. However, as New Zealand was being colonised in the 1840s, a model prison was constructed in Pentonville, north London. Its cells set a new standard of 8.4 square metres.
Despite this, Invercargill was not the only New Zealand prison built with cells smaller than the Pentonville template. At Waikeria Prison, where poor prison conditions prompted a prison protest in the high security complex in late 2020, the cells central to the problems were only 6 square metres.
Before the riot, the Ombudsman reported that:
'Most cells in the [Waikeria] HSC were double-bunked and conditions were unacceptably cramped for many tāne. […] Cells were in a poor state of repair. They were poorly ventilated and uncomfortably hot. Most cells accommodated two tāne [who …] ate meals on their bunks in close proximity to an uncovered toilet.'
One person living in such a small cell would breach the Council of Europe's minimum standards. These require 6 square metres for a single cell plus any space needed for sanitary facilities, usually meaning 7-8 square metres. When cells are shared, the European minimum is 11-12 square metres.
The lack of a specific minimum cell size in New Zealand can be rationalised because a reasonable cell size depends on how a cell is being used – for example, how many hours a day a prisoner spends in it, the number of prisoners living in it, and other factors, such as the needs of prisoners in wheelchairs. In this way, the qualitative descriptions in the Ombudsman and Inspectorate documents – which use words such as 'comfortable', 'adequate', and 'fit for purpose' – can be justified.
However, the inflexibility of concrete buildings means that cells cannot grow and shrink as circumstances demand. Cells need to operate under conditions they were never built for. In recent years, staff shortages and Covid-19 have meant prisoners have spent more hours locked up in cells designed for sleeping in – not for living in.
Increases in the prison population mean that cells designed for one person are now used to house two prisoners. The justice sector projections, released by the Ministry of Justice, herald a 36 percent increase in the prison population by 2035 because 'new policy settings are expected to see more offenders receive prison sentences and for those sentences to be longer'. This increase will put more pressure on prison accommodation.
Ensuring prisoners spend more time out of their cells should be prioritised, but we also need a legislated minimum cell size because history has taught us that the current silence in this matter can lead to human rights abuses. The minimum size must anticipate the varying circumstances that cells inevitably accommodate.
Work to progress such thinking began 35 years ago when New Zealand and Australia developed Standard Guidelines for Prison Facilities. This world-leading document set a minimum cell size of 8.75 square metres for single cells and 12.75 square metres for double cells.
Building on this is important to achieve the outcomes we all want for prisoners. As former Australian inmate John Killick once observed:
'It's very hard to live with somebody virtually 24 hours a day, day in, day out in a tiny cell which … becomes a bathroom, it becomes a toilet, it becomes a study, it becomes a bedroom, and all in a tiny cell. It's not the way to go if you want to bring people into jail and rehabilitate them.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsroom
2 days ago
- Newsroom
How big should a prison cell be?
Comment: The day after the 596-bed Waikeria prison expansion opened on June 5, 2025, The Press reported that Invercargill prison had New Zealand's smallest prison cells measuring 6 square metres. Our newest prison was thus juxtaposed with our oldest one, which opened 115 years ago. Over that period, the Prisons Act became the Penal Institutions Act and then the Corrections Act. Despite this centenary of legislative change, it is still possible to build a prison cell only 6 square metres because we have no legal minimum-cell size in New Zealand. But it's not just legislation that avoids specifying a minimum standard. Neither the Ombudsman's Expectations document, nor the Prison Inspectorate's Inspection Standards commit to a number. The United Nation's Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners is equally evasive. But this was not always the case. The idea of prisons having cells evolved in the 18th century. This had to do with an idea that prisoners should be forced to reflect in solitude on their sins. The space proposed for this borrowed its terminology from the religious monastic cell. In 1779, the Penitentiary Act specified cells for two national penitentiary houses where prisoners were to be penitent and reform. The cells were to be 'not less than ten feet in length, seven feet in breadth', or a minimum of 6.5 square metres. These 18th century prisons were never built. However, as New Zealand was being colonised in the 1840s, a model prison was constructed in Pentonville, north London. Its cells set a new standard of 8.4 square metres. Despite this, Invercargill was not the only New Zealand prison built with cells smaller than the Pentonville template. At Waikeria Prison, where poor prison conditions prompted a prison protest in the high security complex in late 2020, the cells central to the problems were only 6 square metres. Before the riot, the Ombudsman reported that: 'Most cells in the [Waikeria] HSC were double-bunked and conditions were unacceptably cramped for many tāne. […] Cells were in a poor state of repair. They were poorly ventilated and uncomfortably hot. Most cells accommodated two tāne [who …] ate meals on their bunks in close proximity to an uncovered toilet.' One person living in such a small cell would breach the Council of Europe's minimum standards. These require 6 square metres for a single cell plus any space needed for sanitary facilities, usually meaning 7-8 square metres. When cells are shared, the European minimum is 11-12 square metres. The lack of a specific minimum cell size in New Zealand can be rationalised because a reasonable cell size depends on how a cell is being used – for example, how many hours a day a prisoner spends in it, the number of prisoners living in it, and other factors, such as the needs of prisoners in wheelchairs. In this way, the qualitative descriptions in the Ombudsman and Inspectorate documents – which use words such as 'comfortable', 'adequate', and 'fit for purpose' – can be justified. However, the inflexibility of concrete buildings means that cells cannot grow and shrink as circumstances demand. Cells need to operate under conditions they were never built for. In recent years, staff shortages and Covid-19 have meant prisoners have spent more hours locked up in cells designed for sleeping in – not for living in. Increases in the prison population mean that cells designed for one person are now used to house two prisoners. The justice sector projections, released by the Ministry of Justice, herald a 36 percent increase in the prison population by 2035 because 'new policy settings are expected to see more offenders receive prison sentences and for those sentences to be longer'. This increase will put more pressure on prison accommodation. Ensuring prisoners spend more time out of their cells should be prioritised, but we also need a legislated minimum cell size because history has taught us that the current silence in this matter can lead to human rights abuses. The minimum size must anticipate the varying circumstances that cells inevitably accommodate. Work to progress such thinking began 35 years ago when New Zealand and Australia developed Standard Guidelines for Prison Facilities. This world-leading document set a minimum cell size of 8.75 square metres for single cells and 12.75 square metres for double cells. Building on this is important to achieve the outcomes we all want for prisoners. As former Australian inmate John Killick once observed: 'It's very hard to live with somebody virtually 24 hours a day, day in, day out in a tiny cell which … becomes a bathroom, it becomes a toilet, it becomes a study, it becomes a bedroom, and all in a tiny cell. It's not the way to go if you want to bring people into jail and rehabilitate them.'
NZ Herald
29-04-2025
- NZ Herald
Trade Me auction for Corrections uniform prompts police investigation
The department was still trying to establish the identity of the seller, and had referred the matter to police. 'Under Department of Corrections Policy, staff members must return all uniform items when they leave the department for safety and security reasons,' Marsh said. 'They must also return any unusable items at any stage during their employment. Unusable items will have all branding removed and destroyed.' Uniforms could not be passed to other staff members. If uniforms were stolen or lost, staff were expected to immediately report this to their manager. And if items were suspected to have been stolen, it was reported to police. 'All staff are expected to follow our policies and if we receive any information suggesting staff are not meeting the standard required of them, we investigate and take the appropriate action,' Marsh said. A screengrab of the Trade Me listing showed that it was being sold without a reserve and had attracted 11 bids. The pick-up address was listed on Auckland's North Shore. Another screengrab showed the seller congratulating a buyer on April 14 and arranging pick-up details. Trade Me said it could not discuss any member's account activity for privacy reasons. But policy and compliance manager James Ryan said that it was against Trade Me's rules to sell emergency services uniforms, including Corrections uniforms. Only items which could be legally sold were able to be listed on Trade Me, he said. 'We have a dedicated team who monitor the site constantly for things that shouldn't be there. However, with eight million listings onsite right now, we cannot vet every listing.' Under the Corrections Act, it is an offence to pretend to be a security officer or Corrections employee. In 2022, a notorious escape artist used a Corrections uniform to escape Rimutaka Prison. Damon Exley, who stole the uniform off a guard, went on to rape a woman who picked him up while hitchhiking, leading to a major investigation and an apology from Corrections.
NZ Herald
26-04-2025
- NZ Herald
Tauranga Boys' College historical sexual abuse: Ombudsman finds board ‘acted unreasonably'
The board reinvestigated and found the 1988 board took 'reasonable steps' to deal with Green's 'misconduct'. Marshall was advised the board did not support a public apology. He complained to other authorities and, following inquiries by Open Justice, the school apologised in March 2022 for historical sexual harassment and 'to all former students who suffered abuse while in our care'. At least five other complainants have come forward. Marshall, now living in Napier, complained to the Ombudsman about the board's investigation and response. He said the board acknowledged investigative shortcomings - including not interviewing victims - but took 'no steps' to remedy this. The Ombudsman has previously ruled on another of Marshall's complaints, finding in December 2023 that the college was 'not entitled' to partially refuse Marshall's Official Information Act request. The Ombudsman also ruled in May last year it was 'unreasonable' for the college to charge Marshall $1094 for official information. The board apologised to Marshall and refunded him with interest. The board's evidence In the new decision, released last month, Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier said his office notified the board of his investigation in May 2022. He would consider the 'appropriateness' of the response to the 2021 complaint and the adequacy of the board's actions to address acknowledged shortcomings in its review. The board provided Boshier's office with evidence and said it was satisfied 'appropriate processes' were in place to respond to historic abuse claims. The board considered the investigation consistent with the scope set in November 2021. Asked why Marshall was not interviewed, the board said the investigator, a lawyer not named in the decision, 'did not view this as part of his brief or adding value to the review of the board's 1988 processes'. Advertisement Advertise with NZME. A subcommittee consisting of the board chairperson and college principal 'formed organically' to decide who did the review. The investigator advised the chair and principal not to engage with the 1988 chair and principal 'to maintain the integrity of his proposed independent investigation'. The board did not say when that advice was given. The Ombudsman's opinion Boshier found the board 'acted unreasonably' in handling Marshall's 2021 complaint. In February 2022, the investigator provided the principal and board chair with two reports - one on the investigation and another with additional sections on the board's legal liability and 'general comments on tactics and what should happen next'. 'It is problematic when a lawyer undertakes all those roles at the same time, when the independence and fairness of the inquiry into the facts is critical — as it was in this case.' Advertise with NZME. Boshier said the board's failure to separate the legal functions 'undermines' the investigation report. There also appeared to be 'very little involvement' by the board when overseeing Marshall's claim, including the board not meeting to consider the complaint. He found the board did not decide, by resolution, to delegate the matter to an appropriately appointed subcommittee. Without that, the board did not have 'sufficient oversight' of its handling and response to the complaint. This included the board not clearly defining the scope of the investigation and 'little attempt' being made to obtain information from sources external to the college. The board also failed to consider whether further action was needed relating to Marshall to address the deficiencies of its review, once these were acknowledged. No recommendation by Ombudsman Boshier made no recommendation as there was none he could identify that would 'resolve the underlying issues and bring finality to this matter'. He 'strongly' encouraged the board and Marshall 'to reflect on how they can engage going forward' to achieve a resolution. Boshier said Marshall and the board had continued to correspond, each disputing the other's position as to whether Marshall's complaint could be considered resolved, and about the adequacy of the board's actions. 'It is up to the board and Mr Marshall to consider alternative ways of establishing a more constructive relationship. 'In the event that this does not occur, the current situation would seem likely to continue - to the benefit of neither party.'
