Report for the State Services Commissioner into the Department of Corrections Canterbury Emergency Response Unit (CERU)

State Services Commission		- Home - Search
Te Komihana O Nga Tari Kawanatanga		- Graphical version - Glossary - Site map - Contact us

Home > Quick-find all publications/papers/media/ listed here on one page > Public reports

Appendices to the Report (PDF 1.7M)

Report - minus appendices (PDF 986.2k)

Report for the State Services Commissioner into the Department of Corrections Canterbury Emergency Response Unit (CERU)

Report for the State Services Commissioner by Ailsa Duffy QC, 17 December 2004. ISBN 0-478-24478-9.

* For printing/downloading, use the TWO PDF VERSIONS above.

Media statement from Mark Prebble, State Services Commissioner
Department of Corrections response to release of Report.

Last updated 17/12/2004Plain text URL: http://www.ssc.govt.nz/report-corrections-ceru

Resources for this document

1 of 23

CONTENTS

Summary Of Findings

1.0 Introduction

-1.1 Establishment of Inquiry

-1.2 Terms of Reference

-1.4 Terminology

-1.5 Background

2.0 The Origins of the CERU

-2.1 Why was the CERU Established?

-2.2 No Contemporaneous Records of why the CERU was Established

-2.3 The Head Office View of why the CERU was Established

-2.4 Was the CERU as Established Appropriate for its Purpose?

-2.5 Who was Accountable for the Financial Management and Oversight of the CERU (Nationally and Canterbury Prisons Region)?

3.0 The Department's Response to Allegations of Inappropriate Behaviour in CERU

-3.1 The Allegations of Inappropriate Behaviour Directly Communicated to or Formally Raised with the Department

-3.2 The Allegations of Inappropriate Behaviour Indirectly or Informally Communicated to the Department

-3.3 Information Available to the Department that Pointed to Additional Inappropriate Conduct

-3.4 Strength of the Allegations

-3.5 What Standard Policies were in Place to Handle such Allegations?

-3.6 Were They [the Standard Policies] Adequate?

-3.7 What Action did the Department take in Response to the Allegations?

4.0 Statutory Investigations into Prisoner Complaints

-4.1 Were these Actions Consistent with Standard Policy?

-4.2 Were the Department's Actions Appropriate to the Presenting Facts?

-4.3 Did the Actions Remain Appropriate as Events Unfolded?

5.0 The Employment Investigation

-5.1 Were these Actions Consistent with Standard Policy?

-5.2 Were the Department's Actions Appropriate to the Presenting Facts?

-5.3 Did the Actions Remain Appropriate as Events Unfolded?

-5.4 Were the Recommendations of the Departmental Inquiries Actioned?

6.0 The Management Issues Investigation

-6.1 Were these Actions Consistent with Standard Policy?

-6.2 Were the Department's Actions Appropriate to the Presenting Facts?

-6.3 Did the Actions Remain Appropriate as Events Unfolded?

-6.4 Were the Recommendations of the Departmental Inquiries Actioned?

7.0 The Financial Audit

-7.1 Were these Actions Consistent with Standard Policy?

-7.2 Were the Department's Actions Appropriate to the Presenting Facts?

8.0 Prison Inspector's Review

-8.1 Were these Actions Consistent with Standard Policy?

-8.2 Did the Actions Remain Appropriate as Events Unfolded?

-8.3 Were the Recommendations of The Departmental Inquiries Actioned?

9.0 Additional Allegations

10.0 Actions And Results Since the CERU

-10.1 Are the Current Systems and Processes Adequate
- Particularly in Relation to:

11.0 Appendix 1 - Letter of Engagement

12.0 Appendix 2 - Terms of Reference

13.0 Appendix 3 - Minute

14.0 Appendix 4 - Pro-forma letter sent with Transcript

15.0 Appendix 5 - Abbreviations Used in this Report

16.0 Appendix 6 - Departmental Officers

17.0 Appendix 7 - Departmental Structure

18.0 Appendix 8 - Timeline

19.0 Appendix 9 - Photo

20.0 Appendix 10 - Photo

21.0 Appendix 11 - Photo

Privacy | Copyright | Disclaimer | Help | newzealand.govt.nz