By Anna Longdill
Civil claim by prisoner against Department of Corrections after mail from lawyer was inadvertently opened – Corrections Act 2004, ss 6, 110 – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 21 – does inadvertent cutting of an envelope constitute a breach of the Corrections Act or Bill of Rights? – did Corrections breach s 6(f)(ii) Corrections Act by not providing an adequate opportunity for complaint?
Van Syp v Attorney-General [2025] NZHC 703 per Tahana J
Regan Van Syp is a prisoner who is incarcerated at Waikeria prison.
The Department of Corrections received correspondence addressed to Van Syp from his lawyer. The correspondence was “double enveloped”. Within the outer envelope was a cover letter from Van Syp’s lawyer, stating that enclosed (in the inner envelope) was a letter containing legal advice that should be delivered to Van Syp unopened in accordance with s 110 Corrections Act 2004.
Section 110(1) prescribes requirements for the opening of mail from a legal adviser:
A staff member must not open any mail, and an authorised person must not read any correspondence, and a prison manager must not withhold any mail between a prisoner and his or her legal adviser, unless authorised to do so under any of subsections (2) to (6).
The Administration Support Officer at Waikeria Prison opened the correspondence with a letter opener. In doing so, she inadvertently cut both the outer and inner envelopes. She taped the slit on the inner envelope closed and stamped the cover letter with the acknowledgment “unopened letter received”.
When Van Syp received the letter, he noticed the tape and refused to sign the stamp as he considered it had been opened.
The same day (3 May 2024), Van Syp made a complaint through an online “kiosk” system available to prisoners. In his complaint he referred to the opening of his letter and stated, “[I] have active court proceedings and corrections have breached the Act by opening this…”.
A staff member recorded that the complaint had been sent to the inspector to deal with.
Van Syp followed up directly with the Office of the Inspectorate by phone. It sent him a letter on 9 May 2024 advising that the Office of the Inspectorate did not undertake investigations of allegations of inappropriate staff behaviour, but it had notified prison management of Van Syp’s phone call and requested that “they initiate the IR.07 process if appropriate”.
Corrections did not initiate the IR.07 process. Van Syp’s complaint was however investigated, and it was determined there had been an administration error whereby the letter was mistakenly opened and immediately resealed. The residential manager addressed these findings with Van Syp.
Van Syp sued Corrections, claiming it had breached the Corrections Act in the opening of his mail (and in its response to his complaint), had infringed his right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure under s 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and was negligent.
Applicable principles: Corrections Act 2004, ss 6, 110; New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 21 – did Corrections breach s 110 Corrections Act or s 21 Bill of Rights? (No, an inadvertent cut of the envelope, where none of the contents was viewed, does not constitute a breach of either statute or of Van Syp’s rights. Not satisfied that Van Syp’s confidential and privileged correspondence was searched or seized) – did Corrections breach s 6(f)(ii) Corrections Act by not providing an adequate opportunity for complaint? (No, clear from the evidence that the prison investigated the incident, determined it was because of an administrative error and apologised to Van Syp. This was not a case of staff misconduct or a failure to investigate. An IR.07 process would likely have achieved the exact same outcome) – did Corrections breach a duty of care through the conduct of the Administration Support Officer? (No)
Held: All of Van Syp’s claims are dismissed.
0 Comments