Liam Ashley's death, 11 years later.

Liam Ashley was 17 years old in 2006 when he took his parents car without permission. Apparently at the stage he was playing up a bit, nothing too serious according to his parents at the time who considered that laying a complaint with the police could be just the good shake up the young teen needed. Liam was arrested and his parents declined to support his bail so he was remanded in custody. I recall reading later that his parents considered a small stint on remand in Auckland's old Mount Eden prison would straighten him out. Shortly after he was strangled and stomped in the prison escort van by 29 year old George Baker who would say he thought the young boy was a 'nark.' The day after, Liam's life support was turned off in Auckland Hospital.

George Baker was classified as a dangerous prisoner with mental health issues who more than likely in a less rigid of the appraisal between mad and bad would have been in a mental health institution and no where near the youngster said to be 'gentle and kind.' How the young boy could apparently be a nark, the term for an informer, at the age of 17 and without any criminal background is another indication of the mental health of George Baker who was sentenced to life with a minimum parole period of 18 years after pleading guilty. Understandably the public concern was high and the Minister of Corrections Damien O Conner was under attack by the opposition shadow Minister Simon Power.

The escort vehicle was not a Corrections van but a contractor's secure van operated by Chubb Security. In 2007 Chubb expressed the desire to give up the contract no doubt because they broke the rules and put a large dangerous adult offender with a small teenager first offender. It was with that situation in mind that I read a letter from the Howard League of Penal Reform (Wellington) dated 16th October 2017 regarding Chubb operating transport for woman offenders between Auckland and Wellington. The letter sets out that the minimum trip time is 12 hours during which there is only one toilet break and no food or water short of a packed breakfast. The prisoners cannot stand (lack of headroom) and are given no chance to alight and walk around to stretch their legs, most are low security and from the description given the conditions are deliberately cramped for financial reasons. 60 cm of bench space per prisoner, inadequate leg space, steel interior, with only small grills for ventilation, they are generally handcuffed. The accommodation has been described as steel cages, without windows. These for women with minimum security ratings that allow them freedom to work outside in prison grounds. Women also prepared to undertake a rehabilitation course to be better mothers and better citizens.

These trips indeed follow rehabilitation programmes the women have completed at Arohata Prison, Wellington before being returned to the Auckland Women's Prison. The Howard League letter discloses a 2006 Ombudsman report which includes a quote from Corrections as saying;

'There is no formal national policy on the provision of food, water and rest breaks or for providing opportunities for prisoners to stretch their legs. Most prisoner transport will consist of relatively short journeys and would not necessitate the need for rest breaks for food and water.'

In 2007 the Chief Ombudsman, John Belgrave, described Corrections 'prisoner transport polices as inhumane.'

I think it is fairly clear that New Zealand Justice changes are generally reactive and most often follow some exposure or 'whipping up' of public outrage. A good example for that is any debate on sentencing where the 'outraged' always have a specific case that they can quote to show the prisons are soft, sentences too short and so on despite their being no correlation for that which is objective rather than subjective. New Zealand is not good at standing back and being objective about such things and anything to do with imprisonment is soon politicized from both sides of the spectrum, generally favouring the outraged who are not in anyway personally involved.

One reaction following Liam's death was against the mentally disturbed George Baker, such are the complexities of the man that I recall him writing (or it may have been by video) to the Court to support his appeal by saying that he had spoken to his mum and they agreed that 18 years was too long. Another was Chubb saying they would walk away from their contract, probably a less than subtle threat to Corrections. Possibly the most recent has been the escape of the prisoner to Brazil from a home leave visit, this resulted in all prisoners having home leaves stopped (some apparently recently beginning again after some 2 years) all work outside prisons was also stopped in some South Island prisons for minimum security prisoners which is apparently still in place. Think of the maths for that. Around 10,000 prisoners is the current prison population. 1 escapes 9,999 suffer for that. Consider the message as being similar to men and boys taken away from their villages in Europe or the Middle East because of a single event against the powers that be, or because of their ethnicity, never to be seen alive again.

A person sent to prison is encouraged to take part in reform programmes in the belief that they can improve themselves, gain assistance for psychological or behavioral problems they may help gain an early release and lead to an improved life for themselves, children or future children. All sounds good. This is the system extolling the benefits of prisoners taking a good look at themselves, looking to take responsibility for themselves and ultimately benefit society by not breaking the law, instead working and being productive in some way. Then 1 escapes, and 9,999 get clonked with the hammer one way or another, reduced chances to visit family toward the end of their sentences, to work outside the prison or eventually work on parole but not because they did something wrong but rather because a person they don't even know did something wrong, got caught and was re-imprisoned. So what actually is the lesson?

It appears to go like this, you've broken the law and at anytime in the future you can be held responsible for something that you didn't do or did not know about. There is something missing here obviously. I'd called it fortitude. When Simon Power put pressure on Damien O'Connor there was a fair chance neither man knew that Chubb would put Liam at the mercy of the madman Charlie Baker, in fact would have been horrified at the thought, presumably think that it could possibly never happen as did the public. However, a battle waged - perfectly understandable in the political spectrum of the time. However is it understandable now? With a prison population of over 10,000 and a solid effort being made to 'command' the re-offending problem by the current and past Government will the politicians continue to wave the big stick as to who is tough on crime and who is not? More than likely, assuming that it will let's go back to the van and being 'reactive.'

What happens if that van catches on fire, does the door open automatically? Is there even an emergency exit as is required on a bus or a plane.

What happens if the vehicle crashes, goes off the road into deep water?

What happens if the vehicle breaks down in an isolated area, say the desert road?

What happens if the steel cage is kicked to touch and the women are moved in Transit van or similar, even a people mover? So that stops can be made, a chance to walk around for both the staff and those in their custody - will the sky fall in? Will the women fail to appreciate that if just 1 of them does something wrong 9,999 others will be punished in some way.

Liam was described as 'gentle and kind'. I wonder what he would have said about this had he not be locked in a cage with a man twice his size who imagined he was something that he was not,  who didn't see just a  frightened young man being given what was hoped to have been a lesson not to drive the family car without permission and instead felt sorry and protective of him.