Section 9 of BoRA states, "Everyone has the right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, degrading, or disproportionately severe treatment or punishment.
"[2] Three of the prisoners appealed against the lower courts findings that the BMR did not breach section 9 in their case, sought higher awards of damages, sought declarations that their rights to the observance of natural justice as protected by section 27(1) of BoRA had been breached as "they were not given opportunities to be heard on the placement and its continued application to them", and a court direction that the Attorney-General conduct an independent investigation into their treatment on the BMR.
[10] The Attorney-General cross-appealed against the decision of the Court of Appeal seeking to lower or extinguish the awards of damages in respect of all prisoners except Tofts.
[11] The Court also dismissed the applications for declarations that natural justice rights had been breached and for a direction to Corrections to hold an independent inquiry.
However, in the case of Taunoa, who spent 2 years and 8 months (the longest) on BMR, Justice Blanchard like Elias CJ held there had been a breach of s 9; "To inflict an unlawful regime with the features of BMR on a prisoner for that length of time is conduct on the part of a government department which must in this country be regarded as outrageous and indecent.
[17] Elias CJ also held that for a breach of s 9 to occur does not require proof of demonstrated harm to the person subjected to the treatment.
"[27] Justice Blanchard held, damages should be moderate, but, "enough to provide an incentive to the defendant and other State agencies not to repeat the infringing conduct and also to ensure that the plaintiff does not reasonably feel that the award is trivialising of the breach.
[29] Justice McGrath stated, "The amount of compensation should be assessed by reference to what is appropriate in the New Zealand social, historical and legal context in order to vindicate the right in all the circumstances.