|   The last two allegations against Mr. Thomas were that on February 12,
        1991 he yelled with other inmates "we don’t care, bring the gas, bring
        the army," and on February 13, 1991 he threw his food tray and garbage
        onto the tier. Mr. Thomas’ response was to this effect:
          With respect to the matter of February 12, 1991,
        this involved the Protective Custody segregated prisoners flooding our
        tier below them by plugging up their toilets and causing ours to overflow
        into our cells at approximately 5 p.m. We, the administrative segregation
        prisoners, bagged up our belongings and cleaned up our cells. At 1 a.m.,
        the Protective Custody prisoners did this again. We were all very upset
        because we had three inches of water on our floors and, consequently,
        in protest, we, as a group, turned up our stereos in order to make noise
        to try and get back at the Protective Custody prisoners. Mr. Cassin was
        the keeper that night and he came onto the tier and told us to shut up
        or we would be gassed and chained to our beds. This fuss carried on most
        of the night. We did yell back as a group to Officer Cassin that we did
        not care and he could bring the gas or bring the army because we were
        very upset about what had happened.     As a general response to all of the allegations, Mr. Thomas wrote,
          You can see that the longer I’m kept in solitary
        confinement, the greater the deterioration in my behaviour as a result
        and yet you propose to continue to maintain me in solitary confinement
        or to send me to a Special Handling Unit . . . I do not understand how
        you think I will be a risk to the good order of the institution if returned
        to the population. You primarily refer to the escape but you know that
        my role in it was opportunistic and unpremeditated. You then refer to
        a number of matters that occurred since I have been in solitary confinement
        and you know well that lengthy periods in solitary confinement cause deterioration
        in behaviour...
          I submit that the length of time that you have kept
        me in solitary confinement has contributed to my anxiety and frustration
        and caused me to become more impatient. This has been exacerbated by your
        holding over my head the threat of a Special Handling Unit transfer package
        and not providing me with the package itself until I had served eight
        months in solitary.     On March 18, Warden Scisson affirmed his recommendation for Mr. Thomas’
        transfer to the Special Handling Unit.
          You have been exhibiting a pattern of problematic
        behaviour throughout your current incarceration including what is clearly
        an escalation of violent behaviour. You chose to continue to participate
        in a violent helicopter escape from Kent Institution and have chosen to
        assault other inmates. You have received numerous charges for substance
        abuse-related activities and have damaged government property. Your contention
        that the longer you remain in segregation "the greater the apparent deterioration
        in my behaviour as a result" is not a valid excuse for your behaviour.
        I contend that you have a choice in how you behave and your choices have
        thus far been unpredictable, impulsive, increasingly violent and without
        insight. I believe you seriously minimize and rationalize your actions
        and that you would escape again if given the opportunity. (Notification
        of Review and Recommendation Relative to Transfer, March 18, 1991)     Mr Thomas filed a petition for   habeas corpus  
        in the Supreme Court of British Columbia on March 29. On April 22, before
        that petition could be heard, he was released from segregation.
          Less than four months later, Mr. Thomas found himself back in the hole.
        On August 6, he was placed in segregation pending an investigation into
        the assault of another prisoner, and the warden again recommended that
        he be transferred to the Special Handling Unit. On August 26, he filed
        a second application for   habeas corpus,  
        claiming that he was not involved in the assault and, further, that he
        was not provided with any evidence on which the institution was basing
        its allegations against him. In support of his petition, Mr. Thomas included
        an affidavit signed by the prisoner who had been assaulted swearing that
        Mr. Thomas was in no way responsible for and had not contributed to the
        assault.
          On December 23, Regional Headquarters denied Kent Institution’s recommendation
        for Mr. Thomas’ transfer to the Special Handling Unit. However, Mr. Thomas
        spent his second consecutive Christmas and New Year in segregation and
        was not notified until January 6, 1992, by memo from the deputy warden,
        that the Special Handling Unit package had been declined. That same day
        -- two weeks after the Regional Headquarters decision and five months
        after his second period of segregation had begun -- he was seen by the
        Segregation Review Board and released to the general population.
          When I interviewed David Thomas in the spring of 1992, he said he had
        no difficulty in understanding why he had been kept in segregation until
        police completed their investigation of his role in the escape. However,
        once it became clear that he had joined in at the very last minute, he
        became increasingly angry at being kept in the hole. He believed that
        keeping him in segregation and recommending his transfer to the Special
        Handling Unit was the institution’s way of making him pay for the embarrassment
        the escape had caused the CSC and for his defiant comment that he’d "do
        it again." His anger was fuelled by the conditions in the segregation
        unit and by what he saw as the arbitrary treatment of prisoners there.
        Constant bright light and extreme cold in the cells and unfair policies
        regarding showers and exercise were some of the issues he identified.
        Most of the incidents the warden relied upon in the transfer package were,
        he said, a form of group protest through which he and some fellow prisoners
        had tried to attract the attention of both the administration and the
        public.
          Why is this happening? You know, nobody ever came
        from outside this joint wanting to see why this had taken place. We’re
        not animals. We’re not fools. We’re not going to set the whole house on
        fire for no good reason. (Interview with David Thomas, Kent Institution,
        March 1992)     Although Mr. Thomas acknowledged that there were many guards who responded
        to prisoners’ requests in a humane manner, there were far too many who
        treated them with disdain.
          I used to wonder to myself what kind of man does
        it take to walk past my cell ten times a day and look in there, you know,
        and not feel something like, "What can I do to help this guy?" They think
        we’re sub-human because we’re in a box. (Thomas interview, March 1992)
        Page 3 of 4
           |