Has there ever been another figure as colourful or as potentially brilliant as Arthur Taylor, one who has spent nearly 40 years in prison and who is so unbowed? I can only think of the difference between chalk and cheese to the very quiet prison escaper George Wilder from the 1960s. George was immortalised in song by the Howard Morrison quartet and a small nation where television sets were then few followed the police hunts for Wilder with interest, no doubt more than a few willing him on - the lone man against the State. Wilder was not a serious threat to anybody and his offending was minor - his escaping on the other hand kept many in the country enthralled. This quiet man gone bush trailed by a police force occasionally finding an empty bach where George Wilder had broken into and spent a few days, cleaned up and left. If you wanted a folk lore 'bad guy' who was harmless but determined George Wilder was your man. I don't know if he is still alive but at some stage he blended into the bush and land and we heard no more of him.
Arthur Taylor on the other hand is nothing if not an unbowed extrovert of near genius. In his recent interview with Lisa Owens he was nothing short of a surprise. He had to fight the Justice authorities for the right to be interviewed, as he had to be removed from maximum security solitary confinement, for the right for prisoners to vote, and to smoke. He started out by saying that the Minister of Finance Bill English had a trickle down policy, while he, Taylor, had a trickle up policy - if you helped those at the bottom of society, preserving their rights, sense of worth and equal place then you benefited all. Refreshing stuff, an absolute surprise coming from a maximum security prison inmate with perhaps the most substantial legal record and law authority on the NZ Bill of Rights Act and all the law peripheral to that in this country.
Speaking of his wins he explained, to the ill prepared Lisa Owen, that his appearances in Court on his own behalf and others weren't greeted by a welcoming bench as might prevail in the mind of some, he went armed with the law, his law books to his left hand under familiar touch - he assured Lisa that he knew the Law and his rights (all of our rights) of access to the Law. Coming from a law breaker, willing to help others lawfully that was an impressive opening. When I say Lisa was ill prepared she didn't seem to know which hat she was wearing, enterprising reporter, or the mandatory spokes person for victims. She didn't really know what to make of Arthur Taylor. No whining from Taylor but his personal story was that of one who could be argued as a victim.
Taylor spoke not with regret, or by seeking any sympathy what so ever, of having a very close and loving family from which he was removed at the age of eleven for wagging school. He was put into custody with criminalised youth and soon eventually became criminalised himself. Taylor was refreshingly frank about this. He didn't labour how much being taken from his family impacted on his life, but anybody watching the interview was able to decide that for themselves - Taylor was not asking for pity, even to be understood, he was giving the facts in a way that seemed to remove the 11 year old boy as an actual child torn away from his family. Lisa Owen spoke to him about that and he agreed that he had been apologised to by the Government for that (decades later, it was hardly a rescue mission, but rather a belated reaction to a policy that damaged many young people and their families.) What amends those were to Lisa's mind was vague. It was almost suggesting that the 34 to 38 years in prison, many in solitary confinement, was a separate issue - some would agree with that, some wouldn't. Just because Taylor did not use that as an excuse wouldn't mean that in more enlightened times many of the public understand the bonds of family result in children growing as responsible citizens.
As Lisa continued this line of reasoning it was difficult to not consider that she was pushing the victim's barrow against somebody who could be considered a victim himself. On the other hand if in fact he was unrepentant career criminal it should have been clear to Lisa, as I'm sure it would have been to many others, that he'd spent the best part of his adult life in prison paying for that anyway - in the toughest conditions that could be applied to him. Lisa got a little excited and was demanding answers from Taylor about how things were smuggled into prison, she must have got confused and seen him as a Minister responsible for prisons and not an inmate struggling to get out of a life time of imprisonment.
For all that doing and froing and professional detachment for Lisa Owen some truths sparkled through. Taylor revealed that when he had spoken to opposition members of Parliament about prison conditions, his (Taylor's) opinion was that the new private prisons had inherited the problems from the state run prisons. Obviously that wasn't necessarily what the Labour Member of Parliament might have preferred to hear, but that was the truth as Taylor saw it - exposing again that he was no one's puppet.
Putting all of Taylor's offending together, and accepting that he has already spent too much time in prison, a lot of which has been because of his failure to knuckle down, that he is in fact a danger because he is armed with a comprehensive knowledge of the Law, having won recognition for that perhaps even to a greater extent than any other person in contemporary times, and from a prison cell, it's time that apology, and compensation also recognised that Taylor has something to offer back to those that imprisoned him, took him away from his family as a child and put him into a situation which resulted at least in some way to him becoming a long term maximum security inmate - it's time to let the man go. He, clearly has money behind him, another testament to his wasted abilities and something that distinquishes him from most if not all other prisoners, he has a brilliant mind, he says he wants to help others. This is a man that the prison system couldn't change, in fact 1 who helped change the prison system from within. He has worked near miracles for a person whose education was stopped at the age of eleven, not high school, or Law school for Taylor yet he's capable at the Bar with the best of then. Can't the complex, introverted, drag the chain system, let Taylor go. Perhaps commission his help if he's willing to provide it, learn something from a man who from nothing but a bare isolation cell took on the Government several times and won.
Taylor's intellect is that up there with that of Finance Minister Bill English, Bill, according to Taylor is working from the top down while Arthur works from the bottom up for a fairer society. I actually think that both men work in both directions, not simply from opposite ends, but more from the middle in both directions for better outcomes. Where Lisa missed the bus a little, and to be fair, part of her audience would have wanted strips torn off Taylor. the issues are bigger than the larger than life Arthur Taylor although he has a pool and wealth of information he's willing to share. The 11 year old may have come to age, about time the system did itself a favour and extended a hand out to him. That's real life, why George Wilder was sung about, why Taylor is often heard about, not anonymous names in a Justice administration but real people with real lives. Time to celebrate the diversity of Taylor's opinions and see what can be learned from them. He says the current Government won't reach it's target of reducing offending by 25% by 2016, so why don't they challenge him to help?
Showing posts with label Arthur William Taylor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Arthur William Taylor. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 2, 2016
Saturday, October 10, 2015
Arthur Taylor wins as Paremoremo Maxi gets closer to being shut down.
Earlier in the week we saw the Minister of Corrections Sam Lotui'iga set about striking into the foundation works of a new maximum security prison to be built at Paremoremo in close distance, just over a small prison road in fact, from where the 'old' Maxi Security Block stands with all it's secrets, its violence, the spaces where men's bleak futures were sometimes uplifted into a better life, or where others died by their own hands or that of others. Some days later we got the chance to read a judgement delivered by the Appeal Court into an appeal by Arthur William Taylor who won case of the analysis of the New Zealand Constitution, Bill of Rights. He's had more than a few victories in his various differences with the NZ Justice system where he has been imprisoned for much of life.
I recall recently reading a disclosure in the Courts or media where he had spoken or written about issues of rehabilitation - it seemed to be particular to be in respect of youth who got fed into the Justice system and were criminalised by it, or had their fledging or experimental criminality, hardened. In this week where the grounds for a new maximum security block is to be built the long term prisoner Taylor is successful in our 2nd highest Court in winning an appeal as to his, in fact our, rights under the New Zealand Constitution. His opponent once again the Justice System that failed to conscript the young Taylor into a law abiding citizen. Most people agree that the early years of any person's life are the most important, in that respect the Justice System failed Arthur Taylor and around 80% of those that come into their 'care' as children, teenagers or young adults.
Maybe the old Maxi Unit will be opened up for the public to view in future times. Those who will have read the latest judgement favouring Arthur Taylor who remember the detail that according to the Justice Department refusing to let Arthur be interviewed on TV one reason was that Arthur ought not be interviewed was because he jammed a lock in his cell, also set a fire there - in the end of the road formerly called D Block, now whitewashed with a new name 'East Block' will get a surprise to find there are no locks on D Block cells. Surely not, one might think. How could the gaolers not know there were no locks on the cells. It would certainly be a mishap, dangerous maximum security prisoners in cells which someone had forgotten to include a lock? Basic English please.
Out where Sam had been filmed digging new foundations there had a sound over in which he said would be included in the new institution better rehabilitation than old prison which he described as run down. He spoke about safety of staff, inmates - the design for better rehabilitative outcomes for those that will be housed there. It really was a fresh start dug into the clay according to Sam. Clay of course is a barren underlay where fresh roots can't crop. The Minister would not have known that later in the same week that he overturned those first sods of soil from where a new prison would emerge another man who had spent a great part of his life in the old maximum security unit would win another case against Sam's department, the same one for which the Minister furnished hope for better outcomes as he dug at the foundations. A further analysis of those foundations and the case Taylor just won would show that what Arthur dug into was the self protecting construction of the Justice Department. Arguing that Taylor was too dangerous to be interviewed because he allegedly 'jammed' a lock exemplifies how old antiquated the Justice System in NZ has become.
From the beginning of having prisoners mine rock to in fact build prisons where they were fed meagre food, lashed and treated largely according to the whim of the prison master whether he be a good man or one described as tough. Prisons where the opportunity to go to Court over a grievance was limited to periodic visits by a Magistrate called a visiting Justice whose main task was to deal with serious 'insubordination' resulting in punishments of isolation and restricted diets designed to break the spirit of incalcitrant prisoners, escapers, the violent and often those of disturbed mind who could be ordered into the care of psychiatric institution - to a time now where only a small percentage of prisoners have the knowledge of opportunity to seek Justice in the Courts was marked this week.
What was also marked for the keen observer was the nonsense that the Justice Department can bring to situations. Taylor had sought a Judicial Review of the JD (Justice Department's) decision to not allow Television NZ to interview Taylor about another case Taylor won regarding the rights of prisoners to smoke tobacco. The High Court rejected the Judicial Review which Taylor in turn took to the Court of Appeal. There the Court first of all referred to the description of Heath in the High Court as to the essence of Taylor's case as;
As Heath J succinctly put it, the issues arising involve the balance to be struck between the need to maintain order in a prison and the human rights of its inmates.
This is the old acorn of prison administration 'maintaining order' which is invariably wheeled out as a buttress against anything other that routines which suit the prison, and the administrational mind set as order at all costs. Basically most people would agree that an interview is hardly likely to strike at good order in a prison, especially in a maxi unit where all inmates are locked down anyway. Additionally, there was the opportunity for the JD to take action to prevent TVNZ from presenting to the public any segment of the interview by Court Order. A compromise could quickly have been reached leaving those of the public who watched the interview able to make up their own minds as to it's value and consider the counter views of both the JD and Taylor himself.
The concept that 'order' would be disrupted by an interview held in a maximum security unit is fragile and should have failed in the first instance. Of course more thoughtful people might consider that the concern about 'order' was simply a red herring and the uncomfortableness of the JD was that they had lost the case Taylor had taken to Court over smoking. When considerations such as that can be seen to linger in the background the JD ought to be more circumspect about 'order' as an old favourite and consider the depth and breadth of 'human rights' under the NZ Constitution of Human Rights. In doing so it could be submitted that they are benefitting society by ensuring all citizens are equal before the Law. The message in that is also to the inmates who feel aggrieved or lost in a system where they might have spent most of their lives without a voice or direction. This in itself is in the public interest, the move forward of an archaic Justice System with it's high failure rate.
More fool me perhaps, but I genuinely believe in the efforts by Minister Sam, that hatched within the current Government and it's predecessors. Most importantly by the current Minister of Finance looking at the financial generational costs of not capturing those youngsters (as Taylor once was) tangled in the Justice System. Time to remember all the recent reports into the abuse against children in the care of the Government, the mixing of those in care from abuse or neglect with those in care for crime - each treated no differently, one group victims, the second beginning to victimise others - be tough and bad or die.
Obviously I don't believe in obstinacy against good reason, or against demonstrations of logic and fairness to those in particular who may not have ever experienced the same. In Taylor's recent victory we all share in the thought of what is right should prevail and that which is wrong cannot be disguised as 'order' or as broken locks where there are no locks.
Even the locks feature in the COA Judgement where it is described that a SMS message was received to prison, thought to having come from within the prison, where, how exciting and fortunate for the JD - it was revealed that during the consultation process with TVNZ over the interview news broke that Taylor had flooded his D Block cell, set a fire and jammed the locks. Even if that were true the person in danger was Taylor himself which seems quite contrary to the view of considering the safety of others, rather than Taylor, in deciding whether he could be interviewed. By the time the review of the decision had been heard and the appeal held it was acknowledged that the SMS message was incorrect, only a hopefully bewildered person would consider that it was not a member of the JD who had sent the message from within the prison, and who of course had been unable to consider Taylor allegedly harming himself in a protest was not threat to any other person.
The report that accompanied the 2nd decision not to allow the interview basically were wisps of smoke, maybes that included character analysis and the purported motivation of Taylor himself - all of which was quickly set aside by the COA as irrelevant, or in my terms irrational speculation without logical reasoning. Para 44 of the Judgement on extra material sought to be submitted post the original decision and declined was of particular interest in that it referred to prison 'hard liner' Garth McVicar being refused permission to visit Taylor - in itself a surprise, that the 2 men from very different sides of the fence were not allowed to meet.
In finding the appeal in Taylor's favour the Court gave significant weight to the false allegations made about Taylor and the lock. Minister Sam is a Lawyer and well as Minister of the Crown and many days ago released the care of the digger (excavator) back to its operator. It might now be time for the Minister to seek information from someone duly qualified to 'dig into' where the false allegation arose from, you know the one - the one that miraculously supported the JD decision to turn down the interview.
In the meantime Garth McVicar who recently lost a Judicial Review for want of status regarding a Parole Board decision might be even more interested to meet Arthur Taylor, if not for that fact alone. However, if solely for the symbolism, a Minister digging the foundations for a new prison in the shadow of the old prison where one man somehow, without training, and by self education became a person able to win cases of merit concerning the Bill of Rights. Achieving this milestone from behind razor wire nearby where the Minister worked in a photo opportunity for the press and claims of improve rehabilitation, is worth noting. It is mysteries such as these (the false report) that favour the Crown or Police in some prosecutions which are seldom dug into after the fact of their falsity is revealed which leave those adversely effected by them to learn the inequality of the administration of the Law strikes at freedom and all rights which follow - that is a lesson that students of the Law (as the Minister once was) might learn from this case.
The full judgement is here:
'
I recall recently reading a disclosure in the Courts or media where he had spoken or written about issues of rehabilitation - it seemed to be particular to be in respect of youth who got fed into the Justice system and were criminalised by it, or had their fledging or experimental criminality, hardened. In this week where the grounds for a new maximum security block is to be built the long term prisoner Taylor is successful in our 2nd highest Court in winning an appeal as to his, in fact our, rights under the New Zealand Constitution. His opponent once again the Justice System that failed to conscript the young Taylor into a law abiding citizen. Most people agree that the early years of any person's life are the most important, in that respect the Justice System failed Arthur Taylor and around 80% of those that come into their 'care' as children, teenagers or young adults.
Maybe the old Maxi Unit will be opened up for the public to view in future times. Those who will have read the latest judgement favouring Arthur Taylor who remember the detail that according to the Justice Department refusing to let Arthur be interviewed on TV one reason was that Arthur ought not be interviewed was because he jammed a lock in his cell, also set a fire there - in the end of the road formerly called D Block, now whitewashed with a new name 'East Block' will get a surprise to find there are no locks on D Block cells. Surely not, one might think. How could the gaolers not know there were no locks on the cells. It would certainly be a mishap, dangerous maximum security prisoners in cells which someone had forgotten to include a lock? Basic English please.
Out where Sam had been filmed digging new foundations there had a sound over in which he said would be included in the new institution better rehabilitation than old prison which he described as run down. He spoke about safety of staff, inmates - the design for better rehabilitative outcomes for those that will be housed there. It really was a fresh start dug into the clay according to Sam. Clay of course is a barren underlay where fresh roots can't crop. The Minister would not have known that later in the same week that he overturned those first sods of soil from where a new prison would emerge another man who had spent a great part of his life in the old maximum security unit would win another case against Sam's department, the same one for which the Minister furnished hope for better outcomes as he dug at the foundations. A further analysis of those foundations and the case Taylor just won would show that what Arthur dug into was the self protecting construction of the Justice Department. Arguing that Taylor was too dangerous to be interviewed because he allegedly 'jammed' a lock exemplifies how old antiquated the Justice System in NZ has become.
From the beginning of having prisoners mine rock to in fact build prisons where they were fed meagre food, lashed and treated largely according to the whim of the prison master whether he be a good man or one described as tough. Prisons where the opportunity to go to Court over a grievance was limited to periodic visits by a Magistrate called a visiting Justice whose main task was to deal with serious 'insubordination' resulting in punishments of isolation and restricted diets designed to break the spirit of incalcitrant prisoners, escapers, the violent and often those of disturbed mind who could be ordered into the care of psychiatric institution - to a time now where only a small percentage of prisoners have the knowledge of opportunity to seek Justice in the Courts was marked this week.
What was also marked for the keen observer was the nonsense that the Justice Department can bring to situations. Taylor had sought a Judicial Review of the JD (Justice Department's) decision to not allow Television NZ to interview Taylor about another case Taylor won regarding the rights of prisoners to smoke tobacco. The High Court rejected the Judicial Review which Taylor in turn took to the Court of Appeal. There the Court first of all referred to the description of Heath in the High Court as to the essence of Taylor's case as;
As Heath J succinctly put it, the issues arising involve the balance to be struck between the need to maintain order in a prison and the human rights of its inmates.
This is the old acorn of prison administration 'maintaining order' which is invariably wheeled out as a buttress against anything other that routines which suit the prison, and the administrational mind set as order at all costs. Basically most people would agree that an interview is hardly likely to strike at good order in a prison, especially in a maxi unit where all inmates are locked down anyway. Additionally, there was the opportunity for the JD to take action to prevent TVNZ from presenting to the public any segment of the interview by Court Order. A compromise could quickly have been reached leaving those of the public who watched the interview able to make up their own minds as to it's value and consider the counter views of both the JD and Taylor himself.
The concept that 'order' would be disrupted by an interview held in a maximum security unit is fragile and should have failed in the first instance. Of course more thoughtful people might consider that the concern about 'order' was simply a red herring and the uncomfortableness of the JD was that they had lost the case Taylor had taken to Court over smoking. When considerations such as that can be seen to linger in the background the JD ought to be more circumspect about 'order' as an old favourite and consider the depth and breadth of 'human rights' under the NZ Constitution of Human Rights. In doing so it could be submitted that they are benefitting society by ensuring all citizens are equal before the Law. The message in that is also to the inmates who feel aggrieved or lost in a system where they might have spent most of their lives without a voice or direction. This in itself is in the public interest, the move forward of an archaic Justice System with it's high failure rate.
More fool me perhaps, but I genuinely believe in the efforts by Minister Sam, that hatched within the current Government and it's predecessors. Most importantly by the current Minister of Finance looking at the financial generational costs of not capturing those youngsters (as Taylor once was) tangled in the Justice System. Time to remember all the recent reports into the abuse against children in the care of the Government, the mixing of those in care from abuse or neglect with those in care for crime - each treated no differently, one group victims, the second beginning to victimise others - be tough and bad or die.
Obviously I don't believe in obstinacy against good reason, or against demonstrations of logic and fairness to those in particular who may not have ever experienced the same. In Taylor's recent victory we all share in the thought of what is right should prevail and that which is wrong cannot be disguised as 'order' or as broken locks where there are no locks.
Even the locks feature in the COA Judgement where it is described that a SMS message was received to prison, thought to having come from within the prison, where, how exciting and fortunate for the JD - it was revealed that during the consultation process with TVNZ over the interview news broke that Taylor had flooded his D Block cell, set a fire and jammed the locks. Even if that were true the person in danger was Taylor himself which seems quite contrary to the view of considering the safety of others, rather than Taylor, in deciding whether he could be interviewed. By the time the review of the decision had been heard and the appeal held it was acknowledged that the SMS message was incorrect, only a hopefully bewildered person would consider that it was not a member of the JD who had sent the message from within the prison, and who of course had been unable to consider Taylor allegedly harming himself in a protest was not threat to any other person.
The report that accompanied the 2nd decision not to allow the interview basically were wisps of smoke, maybes that included character analysis and the purported motivation of Taylor himself - all of which was quickly set aside by the COA as irrelevant, or in my terms irrational speculation without logical reasoning. Para 44 of the Judgement on extra material sought to be submitted post the original decision and declined was of particular interest in that it referred to prison 'hard liner' Garth McVicar being refused permission to visit Taylor - in itself a surprise, that the 2 men from very different sides of the fence were not allowed to meet.
In finding the appeal in Taylor's favour the Court gave significant weight to the false allegations made about Taylor and the lock. Minister Sam is a Lawyer and well as Minister of the Crown and many days ago released the care of the digger (excavator) back to its operator. It might now be time for the Minister to seek information from someone duly qualified to 'dig into' where the false allegation arose from, you know the one - the one that miraculously supported the JD decision to turn down the interview.
In the meantime Garth McVicar who recently lost a Judicial Review for want of status regarding a Parole Board decision might be even more interested to meet Arthur Taylor, if not for that fact alone. However, if solely for the symbolism, a Minister digging the foundations for a new prison in the shadow of the old prison where one man somehow, without training, and by self education became a person able to win cases of merit concerning the Bill of Rights. Achieving this milestone from behind razor wire nearby where the Minister worked in a photo opportunity for the press and claims of improve rehabilitation, is worth noting. It is mysteries such as these (the false report) that favour the Crown or Police in some prosecutions which are seldom dug into after the fact of their falsity is revealed which leave those adversely effected by them to learn the inequality of the administration of the Law strikes at freedom and all rights which follow - that is a lesson that students of the Law (as the Minister once was) might learn from this case.
The full judgement is here:
| IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND |
| CA816/2013 [2015] NZCA 477 |
'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)