Prison Fellowship NZ has spent 25 years working with NZ’s prisoners,
prisons and the community by promoting programs, services and policies
which:

* Transform the lives of prisoners, ex-prisoners, and victims
* Restore prisoners and ex-prisoners to their families and the community
* Reconcile offenders and their victims

Prison Fellowship has worked with people like…

*Hone**joined our mentor programme while serving time in the Prison
Fellowship-linked Faith Based Unit in Rimutaka Prison. Recently he was
released into home detention, with the continuing support of the same
mentor and his link with a local church. Within weeks of Hone’s release,
the landlord sold the flat he and his partner were in, leaving them
potentially homeless. But not for long: Hone’s mentor and church family
found a new flat, donating some necessary furnishings.

But if a guy’s to stick to his intended non-offending lifestyle, he
needs a job. So Prison Fellowship worked with Hone on identifying his
passions and his skills. We’re delighted to report that he has obtained
full-time employment truck driving.
Hone is just seven months out of prison, and with the continued support
and encouragement of his mentor and his church, his prospects of staying
‘clean’ will grow dramatically.
————————————————————————
For *Daniel* *(just 19), life was worse than meaningless. His plan was
to die from a police bullet, but instead it was Evan, the innocent
shopkeeper who lay dead, shot by Daniel.
Seven years later, with the help of Prison Fellowship’s Jackie Katounas
(who has herself spent time behind bars), Evan’s only sibling came
face-to-face with Daniel. Fran told him, ‘Through this tragedy you and I
are connected for life, don’t let my brothers life be for nothing. I
want you to get out of here and make something of your life.’ Fran then
hugged the man that murdered her brother and wished him well.

‘Once Fran had left the room’ says Jackie, ‘I was alone with Daniel. I
looked into his eyes and was prompted to go and put my arms around him –
he just sobbed his heart out.
All I could do was hold him; there were no words to say. Yes, I cried too.’
————————————————————————
‘I am really surprised by the difference. I honestly didn’t expect it,’
commented a Corrections psychologist after meeting *Richard**, three
months after his release. At the Faith Based Unit we worked with Richard
to understand his past violent choices. ‘When I was a child my father
regularly beat me. I was afraid he’d kill me,’ he explained.

Richard returned to live with his long term partner, to whom he
displayed violence before his prison sentence. Their relationship is
progressing well –even she is surprised at the change. Richard is also
establishing a small enterprise to financially support his partner and
her children.

While inside, Richard met his mentor (trained by Prison Fellowship) who
is now a key support person to him. They attend a local church where
Richard is surrounded by people who accept him. His love for playing
music has been boosted by the invitation to join the worship team.
————————————————————————

(*Names changed)

‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he has anointed me to preach
good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the
prisoners…..’ (Jesus)

Thank you for your prayers, your gifts, your sacrificial voluntary work
– in whatever way you have supported the ministry of Prison Fellowship,
you have been part of God’s desire to ‘proclaim freedom for the prisoners’.

Back to where I started: the bottom line: quite simply, it’s too close.
We’re grateful to our small band of faithful financial supporters, and
for the opportunities that several government contracts have provided
for in our ministry of transforming, restoring and reconciling. Now
comes the crunch: competing pressures and priorities facing the
Government have meant that the recent Budget provided significantly less
than we had hoped for.

We need $200,000 just to meet our payments over the next two months. And
we need a strong team of regular donors/sponsors to enable us to plan
future ministry with some certainty.

Can you help us? I invite you to consider how you might partner with us
in Prison Fellowship’s financial need.
(If the pressures of mortgage rates, petrol and cheese prices or other
commitments mean your own budget is currently maxed out, we understand!)

You can use the downloadable response form or go online to http://www.pfnz.org.nz to donate now

From the two New Zealand-based leaders of the Anglican Church, Archbishops Brown Turei and David Moxon, and the Anglican Church’s Social Justice Commissioner, The Rev Dr Anthony Dancer.

We want to register our concern at last Sunday’s story ‘Paroled killer’s lavish new life’.

That sensational headline doesn’t, in our view, disguise the fact that this was a thin story (Home-delivered pizza? Sneakers for a birthday present?) .

The State has determined that after having served a lengthy period in detention, the time has come for Bailey Kurariki to begin the long and delicate process of reintegration into society.

It’s in every New Zealander’s interest that he is properly rehabilitated – and that process is made doubly difficult if it has to be conducted in the harsh glare of a media spotlight.

We understand that many Christians have reached out to Bailey Kurariki during his time in prison – and continue to do so.

Prison Fellowship is perhaps the most notable of these Christian groups – and it has the respect and endorsement of many Anglicans, including our prison chaplains, who are interested in the work of restorative justice for both victim and offender.

Prison Fellowship is a Christian ministry, born as a response to Jesus’ command that his followers should visit those in prison.

Further, we believe that Christian conversion does bring saving grace, and it does bring redemption and transformed lives – which is the best, and perhaps only hope for many of those in prison.

Bailey Kurariki is paying, in full, for his crime. But there is no doubt in our mind that New Zealand will be better off if he is ransomed, healed and restored.

Yours sincerely,
BT
DM
AD
Prison Fellowship: Kurariki Media Exposure Criticised

Herald on Sunday: Paroled killer’s lavish new life

Is there a a better way?

Anyone living around Auckland and interested in this area should head along to a public lecture hosted by the Restorative Justice Centre.

Professor Andrew Coyle and Viviene Stern, two very known Prison reform and Policy advisors from the UK will speak on:

“Understanding Prisons - Key Issues in Policy and Practice”

and

“Alternatives to Imprisonment”

Monday 12th May 2008
5 pm - 6.30 pm

Venue:
WE 230 within the WE block
AUT University Wellesley Campus

Please RSVP to Islay Brown by phone or email by 1 May, 2008.
islay.brown@aut.ac.nz
Phone. 921 9999 x 6036

To read the full flyer and see venue map, click here

If your connection is too slow to watch the video, click here for article.

Norway’s Eco Prison - 25 March 2008

It was only a few weeks ago, on 13 September, that the Government’s long-fought “terror” case against Ahmed Zaoui was finally abandoned. For nearly five years, Police and SIS intelligence staff claimed they had decisive proof that Zaoui was a dangerous terrorist. Senior Labour Ministers repeated the terrorist claims and refused to intervene to stop the proceedings. The Solicitor-General and Crown Law Office staff fronted for the government in court case after court case as the claims against Zaoui were discredited.

Yet only a month after the case against Zaoui was dropped, New Zealand’s ‘counter-terrorism’ bureaucrats were breaking down doors and claiming a new security threat, the Urewera “terrorists”. We will see in the coming days if anyone has learned from the Zaoui fiasco.

The man who could set the latest terrorism case going is Solicitor-General David Collins. On Monday 29 October the Police presented him with their case against twelve people arrested in the 15 October police raids. If he gives consent to charge these people under the Terrorism Suppression Act, New Zealand could be locked into another long and damaging terrorism case.

Before explaining how David Collins will go about his decision, it’s important to note what the decision is really about. It is not about whether the accused people were running around with guns in the mountains or even (as unlikely as this seems) whether they were planning to murder people. If they were illegally using guns or conspiring to murder people, they should of course be charged for those offences.

Instead the central question is whether the Police should use terrorism charges. Why, when there are well understood criminal charges that were devised for these crimes, should the Police be permitted to use contentious, untested and politically-charged “terrorism” charges against these New Zealanders?

The Solicitor-General and Crown Law Office make decisions all the time about whether Police prosecutions can proceed. For instance, all serious criminal cases that would go to a jury must first be approved by them. It’s the same for appeal cases. The Terrorism Suppression Act formally gives this decision to the Attorney-General (currently Michael Cullen). But as the Crown Law Office prosecution guidelines explain, Attorneys-General have delegated this power to the Solicitor-General because they have “taken the view that it is inappropriate for them, as Ministers in the Government of the day, to become involved in decision making about the prosecution of individuals.”

The Solicitor-General’s prosecution guidelines, which you can read at http://www.crownlaw.govt.nz/uploads/ProsecutionGuidelines.PDF , explain the basis upon which David Collins should decide whether to allow the terrorism charges. There are two parts to the decision:
- whether the police have sufficient evidence of offences to prosecute;
- and whether the public interest requires the prosecution to proceed.
Both halves of the decision are more complicated than they might first appear.

The first part, about sufficient evidence, begins with a decision by the Solicitor-General whether he is “satisfied that there is admissible and reliable evidence that an offence has been committed” by the particular people being charged. If he is satisfied about this, he still has to decide “whether the evidence is sufficiently strong to establish a prima facie case”. The existence of a prima facie case is defined as: “if that evidence is accepted as credible by a properly directed jury it could find guilt proved beyond reasonable doubt.”

The Crown Law Office is accustomed to assessing evidence for prosecutions under the Arms Act and for crimes like murder. There is a large amount of experience to guide decisions. But not for terrorism charges. The Terrorism Suppression Act was passed in 2002 in the shadow of the September 11 attacks and it primarily had international terrorism in mind. The Act has sections about unmarked plastic explosives, transporting nuclear materials and how New Zealand adopts overseas designations of which groups are terrorist. The people writing the law were primarily importing United Nations resolutions into New Zealand law, not thinking about prosecuting New Zealand political activists using guns in the mountains.

More important, the Terrorism Suppression Act is worryingly vague and, since it has never before been used, there is no experience upon which to sensibly decide where it does and does not apply. The problem is that “terrorism” is not a neutral term. It does not even have a clear and agreed meaning. The Terrorism Suppression Act does contain a (contentious) definition of “terrorism”, but it gives no clarity because so much of the connotation and meaning of terrorism are not addressed.

What, for instance, is the difference between a murder or planned murder that warrants murder charges and a murder or planned murder that warrants terrorism charges? Crimes can cause widespread public fear without being “terrorism” while others are branded “terrorism” without causing public fear. It is all highly subjective.

All the measures introduced in recent years for “fighting terrorism” are trickle-down effects of the US War on Terror, that propagandist slogan of US foreign policy. The very concept of “terrorism” is highly political, rife with double standards and unstated prejudice. Complicating this further, fighting terrorism has been seen in New Zealand as a political necessity for maintaining good relations with the United States since September 11, adding still more politics to the mix.

It is likely the world will look back on the terrorism cases in the first decade of this century the way we view the McCarthyist anti-communist cases of the 1950s - as a phenomenon made up of a small part of real threats and a large part of hysteria and political vested interests.

The result is that all around the world “terrorism” cases have been occurring that are hopelessly contaminated by politics, getting in the way of fair trials and clear thinking. It is as if allegations of terrorism require less substantial evidence than do lesser crimes. Most cases start huge and sensational, cause distress in the communities which with they are associated and then eventually come to nothing. Few convictions result but much harm is done in the process.

Most of the “terror suspects” sent to the special detention centre at Guantanamo Bay, for example, have eventually been released without charges. Last year the New York Timesreported a study by Syracuse University showing that 91% of terrorism cases brought by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that year had been turned down for prosecution. “Among the most frequent explanations cited by prosecutors, the study found, were a lack of evidence of criminal intent by the suspect and ‘weak or insufficient’ evidence.”

In 2005 President Bush said that “federal terrorism investigations have resulted in charges against more than 400 suspects, and more than half of those charged have been convicted.” The Washington Postinvestigated the subject and concluded that “39 people - not 200, as officials have implied - were convicted of crimes related to terrorism or national security. Most of the others were convicted of relatively minor crimes such as making false statements and violating immigration law - and had nothing to do with terrorism.”

**********
The Zaoui case was one of many around the world that governments have got badly wrong. The crown lawyers involved in the Zaoui case seemed blind to the huge problems with terrorist allegations, and the multiple flaws in the crown case, as they doggedly argued the security services’ position. Can they do better this time?

The Police evidence in the current case will have gone first to the Crown Law Office’s Criminal Law Team, who will advise the Solicitor-General on the evidence issues. Then there is still second stage of the Solicitor-General’s decision: “whether, given that an evidential basis for the prosecution exists, the public interest requires the prosecution to proceed” (meaning, at present, a prosecution under the Terrorism Suppression Act).

The Prosecution Guidelines list numerous public interest factors that might influence the decision on whether to prosecute or not. First, section 3.3.4 states:

A decision whether or not to prosecute must clearly not be influenced by:

(a) the colour, race, ethnic or national origins, sex, marital status or religious, ethical or political beliefs of the accused;

(b) the prosecutor’s personal views concerning the accused or the victim;

(c) the possible political advantage or disadvantage to the Government or any political organisation;

(d) the possible effect on the personal or professional reputation or prospects of those responsible for the prosecution decision.

Consider the first part on “religious, ethical or political beliefs”. It sounds obvious and something we can reasonably trust the crown lawyers to respect. Except, in the case of terrorism, we cannot. With terrorism charges the decision whether or not to prosecute revolves to a great extent around the religious and political beliefs of those accused of the crimes (and, in practice, often by their race). The whole confused basis for having separate terrorism charges is that the Police are not supposed to treat everyone equally.

This is seen clearly in the United States. If a disgruntled former employee commits arson or sabotage of a business, it is normally criminal offence. If exactly the same acts are committed by a radical environmental group, it can result in special terrorism charges. There are, for instance, people in the US currently serving long prison sentences under new terrorism laws for setting fire to SUV cars, whereas people who murder others (e.g. angry people opening fire in schools or malls) are not called terrorists. A special new law called the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act was enacted in the US in 2006 specifically to target animal rights activists.

In New Zealand we have no experience of domestic terrorism charges but the laws are similarly based on who you are and why you committed the crime. The main source of terrorism in New Zealand, as in terrorising and killing people, is domestic violence but that is not “terrorism”. People can use or threaten violence and terrorise communities for the sake of money, or drug dealing, or gang conflict or any number of other purposes and be in no risk of terrorism laws either. But people accused of exactly the same crimes, if committed for a political or religious purpose, risk the parallel set of terrorism laws.

In other words the crime of terrorism is inherently discriminatory. For a given criminal act, the decision whether or not to prosecute is necessarily influenced by the “religious, ethical or political beliefs of the accused”, combined with the beliefs and prejudices of those making the prosecution decision. The Terrorism Suppression Act defines a terrorist act as one “carried out for the purpose of advancing an ideological, political, or religious cause”.

There are other important public interest issues that the Solicitor-General should consider as well. There is, for instance, the question of whether, if terrorism charges are used, “the consequences of any resulting conviction would be unduly harsh or oppressive” on the accused. But most important of all is the effect of the cases on society as a whole.

Democratic societies are built upon political agitation. Social progress often relies on the ‘radicals’. The strength and health of a democratic society depends on how well that society looks after and protects the rights of its radicals and agitators. The people accused in the current terrorism case are not from some shadowy foreign group. They are well-known and in some cases leading political campaigners. If they have broken the law, they should of course be charged. But unless they were very clearly involved in preparation for mass murder - terrorism in the horrific and undisputed sense of the word - the use of heavy anti-terrorism laws against these people will send a chill through the community, alienating and creating fear for people legitimately involved in politics. The country would be harmed.

There is a sensible and less inflammatory course that David Collins can take. He should send the Police back to prepare charges under ordinary criminal law. If Police have a good case, let them prove it the hard way, by establishing that real and well understood crimes have been committed. This is far more likely to produce a just and credible outcome than seeking convictions on the back of sensational claims and extreme charges (aided by decision-makers who will feel pressure not to be “soft” on “terrorism”).

Fortunately the war on terror is abating and clearer thinking is more possible today than it was when Ahmed Zaoui was arrested in December 2002. I suspect there are sensible people at Crown Law who will think twice about propelling the country back into another damaging and divisive war-on-terror case. Whatever happened in the Urewera, there are simpler and better ways for the Police to deal with it. We will shortly find out if sense has prevailed.

The focus of this conference was re-integration of released prisoners into society. In some ways, it was a follow-up to last year’s conference – “Beyond Retribution”.
The numbers in our prisons have now reached a record of over 8,000, but 9,000 prisoners are released back into the community every year. How can we help make it possible for them not to reoffend?

The conference began with a mihi to the Minister of Corrections, the Hon Damien O’Connor. That was followed by the Minister’s speech, a progress report on “Effective Interventions” in the lives of prison inmates. There certainly seems a political will to work for prisoner rehabilitation and increase treatment programmes, as well as to keep less serious offenders out of prison, but the government can work only as fast as public opinion permits. Nevertheless we were assured of a commitment to make meaningful changes.

For all that, the prison system itself, however enlightened it may eventually become, cannot re-integrate prisoners into the community. There is certainly a need for individual sentence plans for each prisoner, for thorough health checks, for drug and alcohol treatment, for programmes in literacy and more general education as well as employment skills and other activities.

But for me, the most important message of the conference was that prisoners are released into a community, and without the participation of the community, reintegration cannot be successful.

We heard about a number of community initiatives, and also of the experience of former prison inmates.

Kim Workman, the National Director of Prison Fellowship New Zealand, told us about the Fellowship’s contribution in the successful Faith-Based Unit at Rimutaka Prison. Operation Jericho is a programme that has Christians going into the prison and becoming mentors to prisoners, getting to know them in prison, and staying alongside them upon their release. The programme has a restorative justice component that has proved very helpful to victims as well as offenders.
Kim pointed out the need for informal support systems, and for engagement with the philanthropic sector and the business sector to provide employment for ex-prisoners.

An Englishwoman, Anne Burleigh, told us of a philanthropic foundation that funded the ‘Inside-Out Trust’ that runs charity workshops using prisoners, who, for example, translate books into Braille, renovate wheelchairs that are sent to the third world, and make furniture which is also given away. The scheme provides prisoners with skills as well as increasing their interaction with the community, fostering an interest in the needs of others.

Dr Shadd Maruna, Reader in Criminology at Queens University, Belfast shared some of the learnings from his research into what makes people stop offending – basically having ‘a greater sense of meaning and purpose in life’.

His three presentations all provided a strong foundation for the practical experience that was described by the other presenters.

Our other overseas presenter was the Australian, Arthur Bolkas, a former prisoner, who is director of ‘Lives in Transition’ programme at Barwon Prison in Victoria. He spoke of ‘The pain of imprisonment’, giving an insight into his own experience of prison. He described a totalitarian regime of absolute power and control, of total deprivation, of being stripped of everything.

For him, the answer to re-integration is ‘fix the family’ so the prisoner can come home. Prison damages relationships outside prison, and families suffer the stigma. Children of prisoners are the most marginalised and deprived. He talked about the need for meaning and hope.

A father and son team spoke of their experience of prison, when, in 1970, the solicitor father was imprisoned for embezzling funds to feed a gambling habit. Society continued to punish this man after his release, and more than 30 years later, there are lawyers he trained with, who look the other way if they see him in the street. He commented that ‘society seldom forgives and never forgets’

Jackie Katounis spoke of the benefits of Restorative Justice programmes run by Prison Fellowship in prisons. She believes many prisoners and victims could benefit if there was funding for more of these programmes.
John Whitty, National Director of NZPARS [Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Society] spoke of the Society’s work throughout the country, establishing a working relationship with prisoners that can carry on after release. He spoke of the high risk period immediately after release, of the need for post-release accommodation, and the importance of maintaining family relationships. There have to be strong networks of community support services for reintegration – which begins after release.

In one of the Reflections on the first day, John Pratt, Professor of Criminology at Victoria University, offered a comment on the $290 million spent on the new Otago Corrections Facility, pointing out how many people are working for nothing in restoration and reintegration. Surely more money could be spent on prevention and education – a far more productive use of funds.

On the second day, we heard more about New Zealand experiences of prisoner reintegration.

These included the Pathway Trust in Christchurch, which gives former prisoners a safe place to live, help to make life changes, and employment. Their successful programme has high costs and no government funding, but they are working towards self-sufficiency.

Operation Jericho is a Prison Fellowship initiative within the faith-based Unit, but also taking referrals from Work and Income. It is a mentor-based system, providing on-going support for prisoners and their families, especially through churches.

The Christchurch organisation, Pillars, works with prisoners and their families, inspired by research showing that prisoners returning to strong families are less likely to re-offend. They provide wrap-around support for children of prisoners.

Graeme Page of Auckland PARS spoke especially about the good quality self-contained accommodation they have been able to provide for released prisoners. People lose their independence when they go to prison, and need to re-acquire that independence.

Perhaps the most inspirational presentation was a panel of ex-prisoners, which included members of the Notorious Chapter of the Mongrel Mob in Auckland. They are working with their whanau to make sure that their young people don’t follow in their footsteps, but ‘choose life’. Some of them had been at last year’s conference. So they were reporting progress on their successes in the intervening year.

They talked about 3 programmes:

• Awhi Rangatahi – includes a beautification trust, removing graffiti, a cars project, and sport and recreation. Older members join in.
• Rent a Bro – a labour hire project, which undertakes a wide variety of work – working together - for themselves, the youth and those coming out of prison. They have had a lot of success in spite of some resistance in the community.
• Hauora – dealing with the health of young people, giving information about tuberculosis, hepatitis and diabetes, as well as addressing the use of P.

They work on a shoe-string budget, which is stretched, but their focus is on their children and their families - their families are their communities.

Perhaps the best comment to sum up this presentation came the next day from Dennis O’Reilly, Lecturer and Black Power Member. He quoted the first Maori Member of Parliament, Tareha te Moananui e Mani, who in 1868 said ‘The power of good is greater than the power of evil. Focus on that which is good’

On the final day, there was general group discussion, in which conference participants spoke of successes and needs in different parts of the country. There are a lot of people doing great work in the area, but there is room for many more, especially accepting, non-judgemental people to be there for the prisoners and their families post release.

Kim Workman spoke of a new venture – a 2-3 year partnership between Prison Fellowship and the Social Policy Unit of the Salvation Army, called ‘Re-thinking Crime and Punishment’. It is funded by the J R McKenzie Trust. Their aim is to ‘Inform, Influence and Involve’ the community. They are visiting all members of Parliament and looking for multi-party support. They want to be a prophetic voice to the nation. The Social Justice Commissioner is part of the reference board for this initiative.

The website is www.rethinking.org.nz

One comment on the prison system was ‘the word ‘prison’ means ‘failure’.

The conference underlined the necessity for a just society which repudiates this failure, and makes it possible for all people to live meaningful lives in loving families.

Bradford’s original proposal to repeal section 59 is therefore the sensible way forward. Anything less is a travesty of justice. The bill that came out of the select committee is a clumsy compromise, but passing it is important because anything else sends a message that assaulting children is OK.

New Zealand is known as a leader in the application of restorative justice to youth offending, with over 80% of juvenile offenses being handled through police diversion. The remaining 16-20% results in formal charges in the youth court. This article provides excerpts of a paper that examines the restorative potential of the New Zealand youth court. The full paper, written by Judge Andrew Becroft, Principal Youth Court Judge, New Zealand Youth Court, can be found here.