NPMs

Norway’s NPM: Some More Useful Lessons for Canada

In her cutting-edge series of human rights and criminal justice interviews the Irish broadcaster and writer, Jane Mulcahy, has posted a new Law & Justice Soundcloud interview with the Head of Norway’s NPM.

In this fascinating recent conversation with Helga Fastrup Ervik, Jane Mulcahy broaches a range of different OPCAT-related topics. Canadian human rights experts and lay-persons alike will find some interesting insights in this revealing exchange, including into the operation of Norway’s NPM in practice and the related challenges it faces.

Norway's NPM

Jane Mulcahy Interview with NPM Head, Helga Fastrup Ervik (copyright of Jane Mulcahy).

The Norwegian NPM representative also tackles the the question head on why countries like Canada and Ireland should ratify the OPCAT (at 10 minutes 30 seconds onwards).

In the interview Helga Fastrup Ervik makes it clear that, contrary to popular belief, all is not 100% well in her country’s prison estate. As in Canada, resort to isolation of prisoners and limited out-of-cell activity are common challenges found within the system.

Norway's NPMNorway ratified the OPCAT in June 2013 and designated the Parliamentary Ombudsman as the NPM the same month. The NPM has been operating since 2014 and consists of an independent department within the Parliamentary Ombudsman, comprising a team of seven multi-disciplinary staff. Detailed information about the structure and operation of Norway’s NPM can be found on its website in English.

A good snapshot of the scope activities of the activities of the Norwegian NPM can also be obtained by delving into the institution’s 2017 Annual Report (please click on the adjacent image to access this report) or its different news items.

Equally as interesting past OPCAT-focused interviews conducted by Jane Mulcahy are also available on-line, including with the UN Subcommittee on the Prevention Chair, Malcolm Evans, and Australian OPCAT expert, Steven Caruana.

Posted by mp

OPCAT Ratification in Australia: Some Lessons for Canada?

After detention scandal upon detention scandal and no end of highly damaging domestic and international news headlines, Australia finally implemented a decisive measure to turn around this depressing state of affairs. The country ultimately took the decision to put pen to paper, ratifying the OPCAT in December 2017.

While the two countries may be many thousands of miles apart, the parallels between Australia and Canada are not insignificant, not least as Australia is a similarly geographically vast, federally structured state, comprising six states and two self-governing territories, which complicates the implementation of the OPCAT in practice. Despite these challenges, Australia has succeeded in ratifying the OPCAT and is currently in the process of instituting a multi-body NPM structure.

In a recent illuminating interview with the Australian OPCAT expert, Steven Caruana, Sydney Criminal Lawyers’ writer Paul Gregoire asked the interviewee a series of probing questions relating to the operation of the OPCAT detention-oversight system in practice, both at home and abroad.

OPCAT Australia

Steven Caruana, recent Winston Churchill Memorial Trust Fellow (copyright of Sydney Criminal Lawyers).

In the course of 2017 Steven Caruana undertook in-depth research into the wider issue of how the OPCAT was functioning in reality as part of his Winston Churchill Trust Fellowship. The resulting publication (which has also been featured on this website), Enhancing best practice inspection methodologies for oversight bodies with an Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture focus, identifies both good practice inspection methodologies as well as a concept of what constitutes a framework for good practice for NPMs.

In the interview Steven Caruana responds to a series of questions of direct relevance to the Canadian context. These include questions on the impact of the OPCAT in real life, the improvements the OPCAT might engender in places of detention, the uniqueness of the OPCAT preventive approach, and the best NPM-related practices he encountered in the course of his research. The interviewee also replies to the age-old question of why the human rights of persons in detention should be safeguarded.

Best Practice cover

The Article 24 Procedure

Canadian readers may also be interested to know that, upon ratifying the OPCAT, Australia took advantage of the so-called Article 24 procedure, which allows states to delay the domestic implementation of the instrument (or visits by the UN Subcommittee) initially for up to three years. The idea for such a postponement at the national level is to create an extended window of opportunity for OPCAT States Parties to put in place an NPM.

Australia is certainly not the only country to have made good use of the Article 24 procedure, as Germany, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Philippines and Romania have all done so in recent years.

In a nutshell, the above interview comes as highly recommended reading, especially as the Australian expert responds eloquently to questions routinely raised in the Canadian context. His valuable research can also be accessed by clicking on the adjacent image.

Posted by mp in NPMs, OPCAT, Ratification

New Publication on Mental Health in Prisons

Mental Health in PrisonsPenal Reform International has issued a new publication, Mental health in prisons: A short guide for prison staff. The guide seeks to help prison staff understand and respond appropriately to the mental health needs of adult prisoners. It focuses on how prison staff can promote and protect mental health and well-being and enable those with existing conditions to function better in the prison environment.

The guide will also prove to be a useful tool for independent detention monitors in different national contexts, including Canada.

The publication is currently available in English and Georgian.

Posted by mp