Grant of $153k to support New Zealand’s first prison law book

Very few lawyers work regularly in this area: Auckland Law School senior lecturer

Grant of $153k to support New Zealand’s first prison law book

The University of Auckland has shared that a $153k grant from the Michael and Suzanne Borrin Foundation is supporting the development of Aotearoa New Zealand’s first detailed resource on prison law, with a focus on prisoners’ rights. 

The grant will go to researchers Dr Fleur Te Aho (Ngāti Mutunga), a senior lecturer at the University of Auckland Faculty of Law; Dr Eesvan Krishnan, a barrister and alum of the University of Auckland; and James Mehigan, an associate professor at the University of Canterbury

“The book will be the first detailed account and analysis of prison law – tikanga and state law – in this country,” Mehigan said in a news release. 

“My hope for the book is that it will help improve the lives of prisoners, particularly the lived experience of Māori in prison,” Te Aho added. 

The researchers explained that the guide will aim to help: 

  • Advance access to justice 
  • Fill the gap arising from the country’s lack of a comprehensive prison law map or commentary 
  • Catalyse work by the legal profession and non-governmental organizations to build capacity and more effectively utilise litigation and other legal tools to spur systemic reform, affirm the rule of law, and encourage respect for tikanga Māori and human rights in the nation’s prisons 

“A key challenge is access to justice,” Te Aho said. “Many prisoners are self-represented, and their claims don’t often succeed. There are very few lawyers regularly working in this field.” 

According to Krishnan, the freely available publication will seek to help lawyers: 

  • Identify legal issues 
  • Correctly advise prisoners on the existence or absence of a legal claim 
  • Represent those with valid claims 
  • Spot opportunities for strategic litigation to vindicate prisoner rights 

Sources of law

According to the university’s news release, the resource will cover relevant sources of law, including domestic statutory and case law, te Tiriti and Treaty jurisprudence, comparative case law, international materials, and tikanga, which is the legal system governing traditional and contemporary Māori communities. 

“Pre-colonial Aotearoa did not have prisons,” Te Aho said. “While conscious of this, we want to explore if tikanga might help efforts to secure prisoners’ rights.”

To delve into the implications of tikanga with respect to prisons, the researchers plan to incorporate into their publication insights gleaned from a wānanga, hosted jointly with Te Puna Rangahau o te Wai Ariki, the Aotearoa New Zealand Centre for Indigenous Peoples and the Law. 

At the wānanga, mātanga tikanga, academics, practitioners, and others can discuss tikanga in relation to prisoner treatment and conditions, among other issues pertinent to prison law. 

Watchdog feedback

Te Aho acknowledged that domestic and international watchdogs, government officials, NGOs, and others have scrutinised the nation’s conditions and treatment of prisoners, who are disproportionately Māori and Pacific. 

The university’s news release noted the following: 

  • The country’s ombudsman in 2024 described the Auckland Prison extreme risk unit’s prisoner conditions and treatment – which included “prolonged and potentially indefinite solitary confinement” and limited access to natural light and fresh air – as cruel, inhuman, degrading, oppressive, and potentially in breach of domestic and international law. 
  • The United Nations’ committee against torture questioned the New Zealand prison system’s overcrowding, poor conditions, inadequate healthcare, prolonged and indefinite solitary confinement, and other practices disproportionately impacting Māori and Pasifika prisoners. 
  • After a 2025 visit of the UN subcommittee on torture prevention, the delegation head said of the country’s 10-year prison population forecasts: “At present, forward planning appears to focus primarily on building new prison facilities rather than expanding the use of alternatives to detention.”