|
Nova -- The Shackling of Expectations
The last institution visited in the Atlantic Region was Nova, the new
regional institution for women. The opening of the new regional institutions
late in the 1990’s was intended to usher in a new era in Corrections,
following along the path charted by Creating Choices,
the 1990 report of the Task Force on Federally Sentenced Women. That Report
had added its voice to the long list of those who had previously called
for the closure of the Prison for Women and its replacement with smaller
regional institutions to enable federally sentenced women to be close
to their communities and families. Creating Choices,
however, had not just recommended new architecture; it also urged that
a new, women-centred correctional philosophy should govern the operation
of these prisons, based upon principles that called for empowerment, meaningful
and responsible choices, respect and dignity, a supportive environment,
and shared responsibilities. The Correctional Service of Canada had endorsed
the principles recommended by Creating Choices
and the new regional prisons were constructed with the legitimate expectation
that they would form both the architectural and conceptual foundation
for fundamental change.
That expectation was dampened with remarkable speed. In her Report,
Madam Justice Arbour, in describing the correctional context for what
happened at the Prison for Women in 1994, made this trenchant comment:
In broad terms, the response of the Correctional
Service to the incidents which took place at the Prison for Women on April
22, 1994 and the many months that followed, is difficult to reconcile
with the spirit of Creating Choices which was concurrently animating its
entire strategy for dealing with women offenders. Nearly every step that
was taken in response to this incident was at odds with the intent of
the new initiatives. (Arbour, p. 24)
The Edmonton Institution for Women was the first of the new regional
facilities to open. Nova institution in Truro, Nova Scotia, was the second.
In their first months of operation, both experienced major incidents where
the response of the Correctional Service of Canada, in the minds of many
critics, undermined the founding principles upon which the institutions
were built.
Nova Institution, like the other new regional facilities, is organized
around a series of cottage-style housing in which women are encouraged
to be self-sufficient in taking care of their day-to-day needs. The only
part of the institution that approximates to the traditional concept of
a prison is the "enhanced housing unit" which contains individual cells.
One of the primary functions of the enhanced units is to provide the security
and safety traditionally served by segregation units, although in some
of the institutions it is also used during the reception and orientation
period for newly admitted prisoners.
A week before the visit of the Task Force to Nova Institution, there
was a major prisoner disturbance. On September 5, 1996 the warden made
the decision to segregate three prisoners, on the basis of their activities
in one of the housing units the evening before. Later in the day, a disturbance
erupted in the enhanced housing unit with prisoners lighting fires, flooding
and damaging their cells and being verbally aggressive and abusive. Four
prisoners damaged their cells to the extent that they could not be used.
Based upon a concern that prisoners in these cells might use the damaged
items to construct weapons, the cell extraction team was deployed and
the prisoners were removed from the cells, searched and returned to their
cell with the restraint gear removed and clothed in paper gowns. Subsequently,
a decision was made to transfer the four prisoners to the Provincial St.
John Regional Correction Centre. The chronology of these incidents, involving
as they did disruptive behaviour by prisoners in segregation, cell extraction,
strip searching and ultimately transfers, had the same contours as the
incidents at the Prison for Women in 1994. On this occasion, there was
no unlawful cross-gender searching but, based upon the findings of the
CSC’s Board of Investigation, there were serious violations of the legal
requirements for segregation and transfer:
Of the five inmates in question, only two received
their segregation notices . . . Given that the warden was on site and
made the decision to segregate, it is reasonable to suggest that the inmates
should have received their notices at the time they were placed in segregation.
As well, it is at this time that they would be advised of their right
to legal counsel. There is no evidence to indicate they were advised of
their right to access legal counsel without delay, at any point in the
process.
The rationale on the segregation notices for [three
prisoners] was insufficient. The notices provided a reason, stating section
31 of the CCRA ; however, this reason is
not substantiated with supporting rationale, in accordance with Corrections
and Conditional Regulations para. 19 and CD 590, para. 21. (Report of
the Board of Investigation pertaining to major inmate disturbance at Nova
Institution, 1996.09.05 Correctional Service of Canada, 1997. pp. 33-6)
One week after the Task Force visit to Nova, there was another incident
in which a prisoner was taken to the enhanced unit and left there naked,
in restraints, shackled to a bed, without a mattress, for several hours.
This resulted in both an administrative and disciplinary investigation
and the re-assignment of the warden to other duties at Regional Headquarters.
The Disciplinary Board of Investigation came to these conclusions:
While staff verbalised their awareness and knowledge
of certain relevant Commissioner Directives, Regional Instructions, provisions
of the CCRA and references to the Security
Manual, their actions demonstrated they were uncertain of their specific
roles, responsibilities and authorities. The result was that [the prisoner]
was segregated for approximately three hours before even being issued
a mattress or any acceptable form of body covering . . .
Furthermore, [the prisoner] was confined by restraint
equipment, including handcuffs and leg irons from approximately 1200 hours
until her arrival at Spring Hill Institution at midnight (12 hours). While
at Nova [she] was chained from her leg shackles to the bed frame from
approximately 1340 hours until her removal from the cell at 2209 hours
(approximately eight and one-half hours later) . . . No-one questioned
the need for restraint equipment or the justification for shackling the
inmate to the bed. Other concerns were generated pertaining to the excessive
delay in any decontamination efforts and attempts to provide her with
basic amenities including clothing, mattress and blankets. While no malice
or harmful intentions were evident on the part of the staff, the manner
in which [the prisoner] was managed and handled appeared inhumane . .
. While no malice or intent to treat [the prisoner] in an inhumane fashion
was detected during this investigation, the treatment in and of itself
was degrading and unjustified. The Board is of the opinion that staff
over-reacted to the danger that [the prisoner] presented and applied an
unreasonable and unjustified level of force vis-à-vis restraint equipment.
(Disciplinary Board of Investigation, Nova Institution, 1996-09-19) Page 1 of 1
|
