It is fair to say that this remains her present attitude. In the course of his submissions the applicant was quite frank in conceding that, at times, his conduct had not been appropriate - he had declined to interact with professional staff and participate in certain programmes; he had, in anger and frustration, made some unfortunate threatening statements; and he had, as he put it, "spat the dummy" on occasions. However, he had made no actual move to commit violence towards anyone. In essence, he feels unduly oppressed by his separation and virtual complete isolation over a long period of time. He says, and I can readily understand, that, at times, he is overcome by the restricted and oppressive regime of G Division. The associated frustration has caused him to react by acting out his pent up resentment. He contends that the present system of weekly reports sent by his Unit Manager without any opportunity to comment on them is unfair and a denial of natural justice. As to this lastmentioned aspect I feel constrained to comment that, given the applicant's circumstances and the very long time for which he has been on separation, the present system seems both unfortunate and almost certain to produce tension counter productive to the applicant's progress. It is no real solace to him to say that he sees the reports after a determination has been made in respect of them. He is to be pardoned for thinking that, at that point, it would be somewhat futile to make any representations. The system in vogue seems inherently illogical and likely to breed or maintain unnecessary frustration and anger which is counter productive to rehabilitation. Be that as it may, I am not able to conclude that, at the present time, the approach of the prison administration has been so unfair and unreasonable as to constitute an abuse of power warranting the interference of this Court. The applicant himself concedes that, in various respects, he has not been co-operative - although my impression is that there has been a distinct improvement in his conduct in more recent times. That has been reflected in gradually extended privileges granted to him. I am particularly mindful of the medical evidence which has been placed before me and the professional opinions expressed that unrespited, long term, continuous exposure to the somewhat stifling environment of G Division could well lead to the development of an adverse psychiatric condition which currently does not exist - even given the presently diagnosed personality disorder and periodic episodes of deep depression which the applicant experiences. Clearly his continued retention in a very restricted regime will tend to inhibit his mental health progress and may precipitate periods of intense frustration resulting in mood swings and very aggressive outbursts. Furthermore, I accept the applicant's contention that the G Division regime does not appear ever to have been designed for very long term inmates and it is, inherently, oppressive, doubly punitive and potentially counter productive to his rehabilitation and return to mainstream prison environments. It must be recognised that the prison management is, in a very real sense, faced with a catch 22 situation. On the one hand it clearly has a duty of care to other prisoners, in light of the applicant's past conduct and more recent threats expressed by him. On the other, the applicant's emotional and mental health state seems not likely to improve dramatically unless he is progressively released into a more general prison environment. Perhaps more importantly for present purposes, it seems to me that the practical effect of what is occurring is that, because no other prison environment seen to be appropriate is available, the applicant is being subjected to an abnormally harsh, almost punitive prison regime (for what are, essentially, non disciplinary reasons) on a very long term basis - when there is no suggestion of recent violent behaviour or serious misconduct on his part. It is, in a very real sense, an abnormally hard, almost a penal, environment (in the disciplinary sense) which has now persisted for a very long time. A stage may well be reached at which it could well be said that it is an abuse of power to continue to subject him to it, provided that he co-operates as reasonably required of him. He is not, in effect, to be punished twice for the one offence. However, having said that, it is clear that the General Manager is doing her utmost, progressively, to relax the applicant's environment as and when his conduct warrants such action. It is true that, in a practical sense, the future lies very much in the applicant's hands. I have already pointed out that he is mistaken in his belief that he is predestined to remain in G Division until at least late 2000. That is not the decision of the prisoner assessment committee, or any other body. Once he appreciates that fact it may become easier for him to see the obvious way forward. It seems to me that, on the evidence, that the true attitude of prison management is that, if the applicant is genuinely prepared to co-operate by participating in programmes designed to address his personality problems; to accept the professional assistance which the authorities wish to make available to him; and, with such assistance, to controlling his understandable frustration and cease making threats - and that this continues over a reasonable space of time - then there is every possibility that a change in environment will become possible. The applicant, not unreasonably, complains that he is not clear as to precisely what programmes he is expected to undertake. In this regard I would strongly suggest that he be provided with some written intimation of precisely what is expected of him in this regard, so that his actual future conduct can be tested against a specific set of criteria which he is expected to satisfy. This would provide a stable basis for assessment of his future conduct. It would also meet his contention that the absence of such criteria can, in the long term, constitute an abuse of power, because of his inability to understand and attempt to achieve standards expected of him. The applicant is, in my opinion, a not unintelligent person. If he will only continue his recent trend towards a less confrontationist stance and meet the authorities half way, then many of his present difficulties are likely to resolve. The future is, indeed, very much up to him, given a fair and reasonable approach to his present problems. I am not satisfied that, at this point in time, a situation has arisen whereby judicial intervention can be justified, conformably with established legal principle. However, I am prepared to monitor the position in order to ensure that the applicant's rights are fully protected and all reasonable steps are taken to ensure that his continued incarceration in G Division does not amount to an abuse of his rights. If his conduct is satisfactory (as meeting reasonably established criteria as above referred to) on a sustained basis and his situation is not improved in proper recognition of that fact, then my attitude may well change. I reiterate, I accept that the G Division regime was not, on its face, ever intended to accommodate extremely long term inmates on a non disciplinary basis; and its environment is scarcely suited to that purpose. The point made by the applicant as to quality of life is not without force. On the other hand, he cannot expect the protection of the Court if he is not prepared to do his part to earn it."