Amaravathee Wilson detention report, Departmental briefing on admissions to and health provision in correctional centres

Correctional Services

20 April 2010
Chairperson: Mr V Smith (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Department of Correctional Services (DCS) had been asked by the Committee to give a briefing on the case of Amaravathee Wilson, a woman who had been placed in a male cell in Durban-Westville correctional centre in 2002. Her case had now been put back on the roll, and was currently before the court so the Department could not discuss any detail, although it was noted that a full briefing would have to be given after 5 May.

The DCS briefed the Portfolio Committee on admissions procedure, which was relevant to the Wilson case, and described this as a system of checks and balances, where error could be picked up at different points. The courts, the South African Police Services (SAPS) and correctional officers cooperated in getting inmates from courts to prison, accompanied by a warrant and the SAPS 216 document that confirmed their identity. If an error was picked up, the process had to stop and be taken back down the line to check where the error occurred. Juveniles and adults, and males and females were separated. Vulnerable categories like individuals who had undergone a sex change were kept in single cells and hospitals. Records were updated continuously. Inmates had to be medically examined within 24 hours. Body searches were performed by the same gender personnel, and strip searches only took place when there was reason to suspect hidden objects. Inmates had to get the chance to notify their families. If the system was adhered to, erroneous admissions could not happen.

Members posed questions about the officers involved in the Amaravathee Wilson case, but the Department was unable to respond, since the case was sub judice. Further questions were asked as to whether male and females were separated in the SAPS vans from court to prison, whether there was compliance with the admissions policy, and how the structures were being managed, as well as whether there were opportunities for abuse in police vans and showers, which elicited the reply from DCS that opportunity for abuse was rife, and there was no foolproof solution. There was a question about the biometric rollout. A DA member remarked that he had witnessed public strip searches at remand detention centres. He also asked if Independent Correctional Centre Visitors were becoming institutionalised and losing vigilance. Female ANC members expressed outrage at the Wilson incident and remarked that she was simply one who had not kept silent, and it was possible that there were other unreported cases. There were questions about sexual status, as well as the situation with inmates who had undergone sex-changes or who were transvestite. It was agreed that urgent attention must be given to many of the issues to ensure proper compliance.

The second part of the meeting discussed health care provision in correctional centres, and the possible options for cooperation between the DCS and the Department of Health (DoH). The DCS reported that there was a new commitment to such issues and a task team was formed between DCS and DoH to take issues to Cabinet, and this was being driven by DCS within the framework of the Correctional Services Act. Health care would be conceived as a Human Resource (HR) challenge. The correctional environment had been drained of medical personnel. Correct medical information systems were crucial, especially with regards to mental disturbance. Centres had to be rationalised, and a feasibility study had to be done for pharmaceutical services. A task team had to be convened, and a project plan had to be evolved. The Department of Health also gave a briefing in which it noted that healthcare challenges varied from one province to the next. All centres had to have infection information, especially about air-borne infections like TB. The briefing considered different options, ranging from the DoH being put in a supportive role, contracting Military Health Services or the private sector, or a complete take over of health care delivery in DCS by the DoH. DoH suggested that a mix of options would be suitable in the short term, and there was a need for variability and flexibility. The participation of both Portfolio Committees would be required.

Members’ questions included discussion around natural and unnatural deaths in correctional centres and whether these were linked to inadequate health care, extra stress and changes to both physical and mental health of inmates. Members asked about the admission of inmates to private clinics, the appointments of doctors in the DCS, the professionalism of nurses, and the scarcity of all types of medical personnel. The Chairperson of the Health Portfolio Committee said that his Committee was supportive of the issues raised, and remarked that his Committee would wish to be involved in future engagements. Other questions related to medical parole and health professionals’ status, whether a return to the former district surgeon system would be viable, the shortage of medicines in correctional centres and inmates having access to their own medication such as asthma pumps, as well as the situation in regard to babies held with their mothers in correctional centres. One Member expressed his frustration that the healthcare issues remained the same, after many years and much discussion, and suggested that greater political will was required. 

Meeting report

Amaravathee Wilson case and procedure for admissions to Correctional Centres: Department of Correctional Services (DCS) briefing
Dr Jenny Schreiner, Acting National Commissioner, Department of Correctional Services, reported back to the Committee on the Amaravathee Wilson case, which had come before the Courts from November 2002 to April 2003. Ms Wilson had been detained in a male cell at the Durban Westville Correctional Centre. An investigation had been launched, but she laid a civil claim against the Department. The case had been taken off the court roll, but had resurfaced the previous year. There would be a court hearing on 5 May, so Dr Schreiner noted that the case, being sub judice, could not be discussed.

Dr Schreiner continued that the Department would brief the Portfolio Committee on its admissions procedures, seeing that those were relevant to the Wilson case. She noted that the admissions procedure consisted of a system of checks and balances that should ensure that any errors would be picked up. Admission started at the courts, where an offender would leave with valuable information contained in a warrant. That information had to be accurate. The South African Police Services (SAPS) would issue a body receipt. The SAPS would leave the court with a list of names, each checked against a warrant. If error was picked up, the process was stopped and taken back to base. Before the SAPS left, there would be confirmation and signing off. There had to be inmate identification, and name and fingerprints for future identification. The Remand Detainee Identification Procedure was an electronic file that traveled with the inmate. The thumbprint was the ultimate check to see if a person had been detained previously. Body receipts and warrants were filed. There had to be physical verification through an inmate headcount to register.

Juveniles and adults, and males and females, were separated. There was separation according to categories. There were categories of inmates who were vulnerable because of sexual orientation, or sex changes. They were kept in single cells or in hospital. A medical examination had to take place within 24 hours of admission. Inmates had to take a bath and receive toiletries. The medical examination was also an orientation. Inmates were introduced to the rules of the house. The examination would check for discomfort. Complaints could be lodged with the nurse. Inmates had to get a chance to notify family, although some chose not to do so.

Dr Schreiner emphasised that admission was traumatic, and that all orientation could not be absorbed. There had to be follow-up. Identification cards were provided, and the remand detention process was repeated. Release dates and parole consideration dates were calculated and recorded. Searches had to take place for unauthorised objects, for the security of the Department and other inmates. However, human rights had to be respected. Strip searches only took place when there was reason to suspect that anything had been concealed. Strip searches had to be done by the same gender officials, and had to be private. Medical personnel were called in for sex change inmates. Humiliation was minimised.

Information was updated through computer records. Reports had to be managed every month, to pick up anomalies in the record. Checks and balances were built into the process. The court, SAPS and Correctional Service officials were involved. If there were anomalies, the process had to stop and return down the line to the point where error had crept in. Dr Schreiner assured the Committee that there would be a report on the Amaravathee Wilson matter given once the court process was finalised.

Discussion
The Chairperson said that although the Amaravathee Wilson matter was before the courts, and could not be discussed, he nevertheless wished to know what had happened to the officers responsible for the incident. He asked if they were still in the Department.

Ms M Mdaka (ANC) said that she felt outraged by the incident. She asked what had happened to the officers. The culprits had to be brought to book, even if no longer with the Department, no matter what effort that involved.

Dr Schreiner replied that the Regional Commissioner of KwaZulu Natal (KZN) had been responsible for investigation in 2002. Findings and recommendations had to be checked against what steps had been taken. There was currently a different Area Commissioner. The Department would report on the matter when the legal situation allowed.

The Chairperson remarked that the medical examination, on admission, had clearly been inadequate or had not taken place in the Wilson incident. It raised doubts to whether principles of male/female cross gender searching not being allowed, were adhered to. This incident showed that there were anomalies in the system.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) said that Departmental guidelines were sound, but they had clearly not been followed in the Wilson case. A medical examination would have pointed out the error. She wondered why Department had waited until the case broke in the media, and said that this was an important point that would have to be explained.  Ms Wilson had been brave enough to complain, but it was quite possible that this was not an isolated incident but that others kept silent.

Dr Schreiner conceded that if guidelines had been followed, the case would not have happened. The facts of the case would point out where things had gone wrong. During the process of transport from court, a person came with a warrant. That had to be backed up by due diligence on the part of officials. There would be a body receipt of SAPS 216 with the inmate. In case of a fault, she reiterated that the process had to be stopped, and taken back along the line to where the problem had started.

The Chairperson asked about transport of offenders by the South African Police Services (SAPS) from court to prison, and whether males and females would be separated or transported in the same vans.

Dr Schreiner replied that inmates did not have a say in where they had to go. The process was court-driven until transferred to the DCS, which was the point at which the DCS rules would apply. Integrity had to be maintained from the issue of the warrant to the body receipt. The SAPS transported men and women separately. Where data integrity had suffered, the vigilance of officers had to come into play. If a prisoner had been brought to the wrong centre, he could not be admitted there. If there was doubt about whether a person was indeed a youth offender, perhaps because he might look too mature, he would have to be taken back to court. Officials had to have the scope to say that a child was too young for admission. A medical examination could determine the facts of the case. Such things had to be picked up during admission. The Department had, for instance, picked up in the past that a life sentence inmate had been erroneously released. Fraud and corruption could set in during the issue of the SAPS 216 warrant, but the Department could pick that up. Large numbers of inmates and overcrowding, and the vast numbers arriving from court, posed challenges. Offenders could only be admitted on the basis of a warrant for that particular centre.

Mr J Selfe (DA) said that he was disturbed by the number of times that phrases such as “ought to”, or “should be” had been used. There was a policy in place, but the question was whether there was compliance, and to what extent it was possible to ensure that this did happen. He had spoken to a medical doctor at Pollsmoor, who had told him that medical checks in fact rarely took place at all, never mind during the first 24 hours. Structures for compliance were not being managed, and compliance with policy was simply assumed.

Dr Schreiner replied that this case had indeed raised concerns about compliance with policy. Policy could be subverted. Efforts had been made to create a system of checks and balances, where error could be caught out through repeated checking. It had to be granted that the reverse of the Amaravathee Wilson matter also took place. Signing off on data integrity led to compliance. One could not assume a complete lack of compliance in the Wilson case. She agreed that medical checks were a challenge, as the Department did not have enough doctors, and had other challenges of personnel, which made it difficult to identify vulnerable categories. It was easier in small centres to accommodate such difficulties, but at a facility like the remand detention centre in Johannesburg, huge numbers had to be dealt with. Centres differed, and people were transferred from centre to centre.

Mr Selfe asked about opportunities for abuse in the police van or in the shower, before the medical examination. He asked what happened during the 18 hours before the medical examination took place, where people were housed, and at what stage vulnerable people could be identified.

Dr Schreiner replied that there were countless opportunities for abuse. It was impossible to design a foolproof system. There had to be supervision and checks and balances, as well as personnel capacity. Medical examiners had to pick up abuse between centres, and between court and centres. The role of medical personnel was critical, but the fact was that there was lack of capacity.

Mr A Fritz (DA) remarked that there seemed to be great diligence in checking people in, but not in keeping them out. He said that the seven big remand centres presented the most problems. It was frightening to see how body searches were done, where detainees had to publicly strip and jump up and down.

Dr Schreiner remarked that in the big remand centres, admissions were a daily process The infrastructure had to be addressed, in terms of the Remedial Detention Project. The process for remand detainees was different. Facilities were not designed for them. Staff diligence was needed.

Mr Fritz asked why Independent Correctional Centre Visitors (ICCVs) did not pick up on this case, and wondered if they had become too institutionalised.

Dr Schreiner agreed that ICCVs were not picking up enough. It did happen that they became institutionalised. However, the onus was on the inmate to flag problems. Loss of empathy had to be guarded against. The single Wilson case did not yet reflect on the ICCVs.

Mr Fritz pointed out that the Correctional Services Act stated the role of ICCVs who were supposed to visit the whole correctional centre and examine documents. The onus in fact fell on them to reach prisoners, as they also had to visit single cells. In every institution there were rumours, and these should also be picked up by these visitors.

The Chairperson said that perhaps the Judicial Inspectorate of Correctional Services should be meeting with the Committee. He agreed that the reports about Pollsmoor raised serious concerns and would be sent to the Inspecting Judge.

Mr Fritz asked about telephone calls to families. He had seen a man in tears the previous week at Good Hope Centre, pleading for his family to be phoned. Warders would not make calls to cellphones, and there were few landlines in places like Khayelitsha. People at admissions level had to have empathy. He said that a surprise night visit to Pollsmoor would reveal much.

Dr Schreiner answered that the admissions section could also write to the family. She said that the matter of calls being made to cellphones would be taken further.

Ms M Nyanda (ANC) said that the head of the correctional centre had to address inmates.

Dr Schreiner responded that the head of the centre had to address all those who were newly admitted. It was necessary to ensure that whatever was said would be meaningful to inmates, and comprehensible, not couched in official or Departmental-specific language. The emphasis had to be on orientation.

Ms Nyanda related that at Bloemfontein Correctional Centre, there had been a lady in a man’s cell nicknamed “Queen, with a wig and make-up. She enquired what was the sexual status of the person concerned.

Dr Schreiner replied that she was familiar with such cases, which were one example of a category of vulnerable people. Gender identity could take many forms. Transvestites could cross dress, and some were biologically transsexual, or exhibited biological signs of masculinity and femininity. Such things could be picked up in a medical examination, even though they were often internalized. Some people might be at various stages of a sex change. It was important how such people defined themselves in terms of gender. They were held in single cells or hospitals. Admissions staff were being trained to be sensitive to such issues.

Mr Selfe asked about the biometric process to be rolled out, and when that would happen. 

Dr Schreiner replied that she could not as yet reply. However, she noted that it would be constructed from an inmate tracking record.
 
The Chairperson noted that Correctional Services relied on other role players, such as Public Works, in respect of buildings, Education in respect of services. The Department of Education would be briefing the Committee in the following week.

Health issues in correctional centres: DCS briefing
Ms R Mathibela, Deputy Commissioner: Personal Well being, DCS, stated that health care would also be extended to remand detainees. The Department had spoken to the Department of Health (DoH) about partnerships. The DCS would drive the joint process.  In terms of legislation, the Correctional Services Act would serve as a guideline. There had to be consistency between legislation and implementation. Health presented a human resource challenge. There was a constant draining of medical personnel; psychologists were depleted, and psychiatric personnel were as good as non-existent. Health challenges in correctional centres differed from those in remand detention centres. There were a range of illnesses. There was a health information system.

Ms Mathibela also referred to a shortage of pharmacists to administer medication. This posed a risk because corruption and fraud occurred around investments, and the Department had to protect itself. Expired medicines had to be phased out. The Department had managed to contain a recent outbreak of measles in facilities. The Correctional Services Act had to be clarified. Health in prisons was generally better in the metropolitan areas. Nurses were trained by the Department of Health, and had to report to Health personnel. Those were independent, and not affected by Correctional Service systems.

Correct medical information had to be available about rape, trans-gender issues and assault. Medication for conditions like schizophrenia had to be recorded and filed. There had to be continuity. Correct procedures had to be adhered to when people were referred for health services while waiting to go to a correctional centre or a psychiatric institution. Warrants had to state that people were present for mental health observation. Mental health cases could not be kept in correctional centres for long. With regard to communicable diseases, she said that there had to be a referral if more care was needed.

Health professionals had to be employed at the managerial level. Centres had to be rationalised. A feasibility study had to be done for pharmaceutical services. A task team had to be convened, and stage 1 commitments made. A project plan had to be evolved.

Department of Health (DOH) briefing on health care in correctional centres
Mr Yogan Pillay, Acting Director General, Department of Health, opened with the ironic remark that the best remedy for healthcare issues in correctional centres would be to keep people out of them in the first place because the environment inside the centres was not conducive to health.

In the short term, there were a list of challenges in each province. New correctional centres had to be supplied with infection information, especially regarding air infections like TB. Such diseases could spread very quickly. Simply keeping windows open could prevent the spread of an outbreak of measles, for example.

There were four options to consider: strengthening of the current health care system in the DCS with DoH support, taking over of DCS health care delivery by the DoH, contracting the South African Military Health Services for health care services, and contracting health care services to the private sector. He was convinced that a fifth option, which would be a combination of the four options, could be made to work with immediate effect. Variability and flexibility were needed. Precedents for transfer existed, as in the transfer of mortuaries from the SAPS to Health. A forensic audit took time, however, and the National Treasury would have to participate. Interventions were needed at the system level. There were human resource issues around stigma in the corrections environment. Any improvement would require added resources. The DoH was willing to work with the DCS. The participation of both Portfolio Committees would be necessary.

Discussion
The Chairperson remarked that the nature of oversight had to change. There had to be more feedback from constituencies, based on what was felt on the ground. Theory alone was not sufficient. That was not intended to be a reflection on the Departments, and the Committee appreciated theory for what it was. He said that when the Service Level Agreements (SLAs) had been finalised, the PC would comment on them. There would be practical difficulties if health care in prisons became a Department of Health matter.

The Chairperson continued that he had certain issues that he wanted to higlight. He had asked the Committee Secretary to obtain records of correctional centre deaths, divided into natural and unnatural death. Between 70% and 80% of deaths occurring in correctional centres were due to natural causes, and 20% were classified as unnatural causes. If a prisoner got medically checked within 24 hours and died two months later, there was a problem. There were too many such deaths that were, possibly incorrectly, being recorded as natural. Correct oversight was needed.

The Chairperson said that in his constituency, in Westbury, Johannesburg, communities could not understand why inmates had been sent to Garden City private clinic, although some were also sent to Baragwanath hospital. The Helen Joseph public centre was right next to Gardens, and he asked whether there was insufficient security there; private citizens were being placed there instead of in the preferable private clinic.

Mr Fritz referred to the different operational options. In the Western Cape there were people waiting for admission to Valkenburg mental hospital. Priority was given to children, and in the meantime some had to wait long in Pollsmoor and often suffered great abuse. Some actually became mentally disturbed by being in detention. If the option was followed where Department of Health took over, there had to be continuous treatment, similar to that which would be offered outside of correctional centres, and doctors would have to be appointed by DOH. He commented that nurses working in the correctional centre environment lost their professionalism as nurses. The Public/Private Partnership (PPP) model had to be considered, but it must be cost effective and serve communities. It would be unacceptable if the youth were to get the impression that it was preferable to be inside prison rather than outside.

Ms Nyanda said that the Department would have to pay for medicine. In Mpumalanga there was a total lack of medical treatment. There were a thousand inmates at Barberton. One doctor visited once a week, and there were no nurses. She asked if budgeting for medication was being done.

Dr M Goqwana (ANC- Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Health) said that his Committee accepted the constituency verdict about health problems in correctional centres. Information was needed about infection control. The Health Portfolio Committee supported the transfer of health services, and wanted to know where it could fit, and what option would be preferable. The DoH would handle correctional centre health problems, but, given the background of substantial health challenges, it was necessary to decide which should be receiving priority. There had to be engagement on the issue. Directions had to be given about infections and death in prisons. Health professionals were not trained to deal with sexual issues, and had to be equipped to deal with that, and the matter of medical parole.

Dr Schreiner responded that there was ongoing interaction with the Portfolio Committees regarding Service Level Agreements. She agreed that the statistics around death in correctional centres was alarming. Some people in fact came in ill to the centre and there had to be greater screening initiatives. . She agreed that incarceration was not good for mental health, and physical health could also be disturbed due to forced inactivity and stress. For those who were mentally vulnerable, the impact was extreme. Psychologists and psychiatrists had reported that such people were able to function well outside, but in correctional centres they could literally become insane.

Dr Schreiner continued that certain forms of treatment were simply not an option for those who were incarcerated; a patient, for instance, could not be told to take daily walks on the beach for a back problem. Stress related diseases were bound to come to the fore during incarceration. Communicable diseases were a challenge. Measles in Johannesburg had spread from remand detainees. Certain inmates did routine work in the remand centres, but had to be removed to prevent them infecting those in the detention centres. Babies who were held with their mothers were the prime target for vaccinations.

Inmates usually went to state hospitals, but some were placed in private institutions at their own expense, unless the treatment was not available at a State hospital. Dr Schreiner said that it must be asked whether the former district surgeon system was not perhaps the better option. There had to be interaction on the different models or options. Possibly the fifth option was most workable. Her own view was that Department of Health should have a full mandate. The district surgeon model was a means to achieve security of doctors. Medical parole was a crucial issue. It had been instituted for the terminally ill only, but a model was being developed that would consider incarceration inappropriate for those with other medical problems. The National Council decided about Parole Board matters. There were health professionals on the Parole Boards, but not on the National Council. Independent professionals had to be drawn into medical parole, and there had to be engagement with them around medical parole policy, so as to have a genuine and workable medical parole system.

Mr Pillay responded on the issue of natural and unnatural deaths. He pointed out that some offenders were suffering from chronic stages of Aids and would die if not treated well. There had to be screening on admission. There had to be a checklist to evaluate health services. Health workers had to know what was within their control, such as the possibility of windows being kept open to improve infection control. He pointed out that the district surgeon system had been abolished due to abuse of the system. It had been replaced with sectional doctors, on a zone by zone basis. In regard to the reported lack of medicines in hospitals, he suggested the possible central purchase of medicines. He agreed that the observation of mental patients was problematic, due to a lack of available beds. The overall picture was one of striving to keep people out of correctional centres, but if they were detained, then to keep them healthy.

Ms Mdaka referred to a R80 million reduction in the care budget. She asked who would be paying for this now.

Dr Schreiner replied that there was a contract funds budget, and that National Treasury would be taken on board to resolve the issue, which would be interrogated by a task team.

Ms Ndube (ANC) said that realism was needed. The health care human resource challenges in South Africa were known to all. There was a general scarcity of staff in hospitals. Health care would be extended to correctional centres, but ordinary people also suffered. She asked how long any babies born while their mothers were in correctional centres remained in those centres. They were vulnerable. She had been detained herself and although she suffered from asthma, her medicine was kept elsewhere, and her access to it was blocked. She asked if this situation had now changed.

Ms Mathibela replied that people currently kept asthma pumps with them. Medicines were kept away from patients if it was felt that they could pose a risk to themselves through overdosing, for instance.

Dr Schreiner noted that babies remained with their mothers in correctional centres for two years, to ensure bonding with their mother. She agreed that  babies were indeed vulnerable to disease, and had to leave as soon as possible. Access to medication, and abuse of such medication, was receiving attention. Human resources concerns were important. There were many health professionals in Nigeria, and partnership with them could perhaps be considered.

Mr S Abram (ANC) asked who would pay if babies being held with their mothers were to fall in, and need surgery, for instance.

Mr Abram noted that there had been a meeting on 18 November of the previous year, to look at some of these issues. The challenges remained the same, despite having been discussed at many meetings over many years.

Mr Abram asked how serious the death situation was and whether there was a lack of administrative will; if so, then it must be found where this was lacking. He likened the health care situation to a time bomb waiting to explode. He found the continuous talk frustrating. It was not known where the bottlenecks were. He suggested that all dates of meetings and engagements be made known so that political interventions could be made. He also asked about the provincial health departments. The correctional centres were controlled nationally, but they were scattered all over. Correctional centres had to be located close to hospitals. There had to be resolution of these issues.

Dr Schreiner responded that the DCS had formed a task team with Department of Health, in order to take things to Cabinet. Health care in Correctional Services would improve, along with improvement in health care generally. The DCS drove the task team around key deliverables. Constraints did exist around the changes in personnel. There was not a lack of will, but it was necessary to ensure that a sustainable process was put in place. There must be clarity about the relative responsibilities of the DCS and the DoH. The DCS was represented on the technical Committee of the National Health Committee. She noted that in regard to the provincial health departments, challenges would be examined per province. There were bi-lateral agreements between the DCS and the Department of Health. There would be a collective, systemic approach and she assured Mr Abram that this would extend beyond mere talking.

Dr Schreiner answered that the DCS would pay in the instance of sick babies needing medical treatment.

Mr Thulani Masilela, Chief Director: Strategic Planning, Department of Health, agreed with the remarks of Dr Schreiner and Mr Pillay. Permanent and workable solutions had to be found. There had to be funded money. Provinces were wary of an unfunded mandate; it had to be checked with the Treasury. In public health, everything came under consideration. Statistics for prisoners were needed, and funded mandates.

Dr Goqwana said that care must be taken to choose the best option. If the DoH and DCS were to work together, there had to be clarity on who was to do what. If DoH took the lead, it had to be fully aware of what was going on. He said that certain matters could probably be tackled even while waiting for the audit. The deaths were of concern. Psychiatric services were needed. An inmate who was detained, and who had Aids, could well become depressed, which would compromise his immune system, and his death would occur earlier. He accepted that there was sense in making Correctional centre sentences punitive, but inmates must be properly cared for to achieve a balance. The Health Portfolio Committee would want to participate in meetings in the future.

The Chairperson suggested that the Health Portfolio Committee should then schedule the next meeting to discuss the issue, and invite the Correctional Services Portfolio Committee to attend that meeting. He agreed that joint ownership of the issues was important. DCS had tended towards a silo mentality in the past, which had hampered integrations with DoH.

The Chairperson noted that DCS must report back to this Committee after the court hearing of Amaravathee Wilson on 5 May. Discussion on parole boards was due, especially with regard to the two men who had placed another in an enclosure with lions, of whom one was on parole and the other not. He encouraged members to engage with their constituencies.

The meeting was adjourned.

Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: