In the matter of a Human Rights Application pursuant to Sections 57 and 37 of the Constitution; Danny Pirino v The State (2006) N3111

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Date: 17 November 2006
• Citation: (2006) N3111
• Docket Number: MP 588 of 2006
• Court: National Court
• Year: 2006

Full Title: MP 588 of 2006; In the matter of a Human Rights Application pursuant to Sections 57 and 37 of the Constitution; Danny Pirino v The State (2006) N3111

National Court: Lay J

Judgment Delivered: 17 November 2006

Facts

The applicant was held in solitary confinement for a period of 90 days on a single order of the gaol commander. He was given 30 minutes a day for exercise.

Held

1. Solitary confinement of more than 28 days on a single order is unlawful. A gaol commander may make an initial order for separate confinement not exceeding 28 days. He may make a subsequent order not exceeding the same period. No further order can be made unless endorsed by a visiting magistrate. The applicant was unlawfully confined separately for 62 days.

2. It is unlawful to issue an order for separate confinement in terms of “until further order.”

3. All prisoners are entitled under CIS Regulations to 1 hour per day to be out in the fresh air. Confining that period to half an hour is a breach of the applicant’s rights to protection of the law.

4. The applicant should be compensated for the breach of his right to protection of the law. In lieu of monetary compensation on allowance will be made on sentence for the charge of escape.

Cases Cited:

Tom Amaiu v Commissioner for Correctional Institutions and the State [1983] PNGLR 87; Bialla Police Lock Up N3022; The State v Bafo Quati (1990) PNGLR 57.

1. LAY J.: The applicant has made an application under Section 57 of the Constitution for enforcement of his rights on the basis that he was unlawfully detained in solitary confinement and that as a consequence he was illegally detained, subject to inhuman treatment and subject to acts that were harsh and not reasonably justifiable.

2. The complaint was initially made orally to myself during arraignment of the applicant on a charge of escaping. I directed the Public Solicitor’s office to assist the applicant to bring his application formally before the Court.

3. An affidavit was filed by the applicant and sworn evidence was given by John Poname, the Lance Corporal in charge of records at Kerevat and Commander Matthew Bine, the OIC of Kerevat Correctional Institution.

4. The applicant was in lawful detention at Kerevat Correctional Facility serving sentences for escape and armed robbery, when he escaped on the 20 February 2003. He was recaptured on 21 September 2005 and on 29 September 2005, he was taken to Kerevat Correctional Facility and placed in the Main Detention Cell where he remained until 29 December 2005, a period of 90 days. On that day he was moved to a separate self-contained cell in the Maximum Security Unit. He was kept there until his release into the open dormitory cells on 13 March 2006. There was no examination or report by a medical officer in relation to either period of detention.

5. The Main Detention Cells at Kerevat are what is commonly known as "solitary confinement". There are two cells. Each cell houses one detainee. There is a solid steel door, the walls of concrete, there is an air vent in the ceiling and a window high up in the wall measuring approximately 30 cm x 20 cm which is both barred and covered by a heavy mesh grille on the inside. It would not be possible for a detainee to see through this window. The applicant estimates the size of the cell as 3 m x 2 m. There is nothing in the room, no bed, no toilet. A detainee is given a bucket to use as a toilet. When I inspected these cells they were vacant and clean.

6. The Maximum Security Unit at Kerevat is a concrete block building with a series of self-contained detention Cells with full length steel bar doors facing on to a corridor. There is a common area where detainees take their meals. Unlike the Main Detention Cells, detainees are not completely isolated from each other because they have sight, light and sound through the full-length steel bar doors to each cell in addition to the common sharing of mealtimes where they gather in a common area. Each cell is fitted with a bed and on the floor below the wall opposite the foot of the bed is a stainless steel Asian squat toilet. The applicant estimates the toilet to be 1 m from the bed. According...