RSA triple killer William Bell loses appeal after allegedly plotting to take a prison guard hostage

Convicted triple killer William Bell has lost a legal appeal following allegations that he planned to take a prison official hostage as part of an attempt to escape from Paremoremo prison.

Bell represented himself in an appeal to the Superior Court requesting a judicial review of a prison decision to raise his security rating from low medium to maximum after the alleged hostage scheme was discovered.

Judge Mark Woolford has dismissed the appeal, finding that “there was no violation of the applicant’s right to be treated humanely” and “no element of procedural injustice.”

Bell, now in his early 40s, apologized in court for killing three people and wounding a fourth in 2001 at Mt Wellington-Panmure RSA, where he was practicing but was told to leave.

He admitted that he was using methamphetamine at the time and was sentenced to life in prison with a minimum of 30 years without parole.

Judge Woolford said at his trial that Paremoremo prison staff discovered in March 2019 that Bell had a notebook containing the registration numbers of trucks making deliveries to the prison, names and addresses of former prisoners, details of the bank account of another prisoner who had escaped and a reference to a remote-controlled helicopter.

“This information led prison staff to conclude that Mr. Bell may be planning an escape,” the ruling reads.

“Subsequently, Mr. Bell was removed from his job in the prison kitchen.”

The following month, prison staff received an anonymous letter alleging that Bell was “seeking to obtain cleaning products or chemicals from the kitchen with the intention of using them to poison others in the unit or staff.”

“The information was not confirmed by other sources and there is no evidence that Mr. Bell is in possession of such chemicals or that the prisoners gave him such chemicals,” says the ruling.

However, the two incidents together led to the decision to raise Bell’s safety rating from low medium to high in August 2019.

In the same month, an anonymous informant called Crime Stoppers’ 0800 number alleging that Bell was “planning to take hostage a female employee in the prison laundry where Mr. Bell worked.”

“The informant also alleged that Mr. Bell was passing drugs and notes through his stall in the laundry room and was asking other prisoners for muffs,” the sentence reads.

“The prison staff reviewed the CCTV footage. They showed Mr. Bell taking something out of his pants and putting it in an envelope before handing it to another inmate who, according to the
defendant, is known for making weapons.

“The respondent [Corrections Department] considered that the risk of Mr. Bell taking a staff member hostage was real and that Mr. Bell’s job in the laundry was terminated. The female prison staff were also ordered not to work in Mr. Bell’s unit. “

Bell’s safety rating was raised again to the maximum. It dropped back to high in November 2019 and back to medium low in January 2020.

Bell requested a judicial review on eight grounds, including that he was discriminated against by prison officials because of unconscious biases against his “Maori heritage and criminal offenses”, that he was not treated humanely, that the prison proceedings were a violation of natural justice, and that the authorities acted irrationally.

He said the prison did not treat him fairly because the accusation about the plan to take an employee hostage came from “a female prisoner known to be annoying.”

He compared his safety rating to that of Philip John Smith, who escaped and fled to Brazil, but still received a lower safety rating than Bell.

But the judge found that there was no evidence that Bell was discriminated against and that none of the other grounds he offered proved that the prison decisions or processes were unreasonable.

“Whether the decision was too restrictive and whether other management tools were available was a matter of judgment for Corrections staff,” the judge said.

“The Court will take time to interfere with the decisions of the prison administration that involve such sentences.”