Winter Issue 1996
|
Issue #30 Winter Issue 1996 |
|
In a heavy handed move, NSW Commissioner of Corrective Services Neville Smethurst banned Issue 29 of Framed from entering the state's jails. The following week, in an unrelated incident, he resigned as Commissioner. Two sources in the Department have informed Framed that Smethurst submitted his early resignation after clashing with Minister Bob Debus, over issues including the appointment of an Inspector General of Corrections. The official reason for the resignation, however, is that the Commisioner wants to allow time for his successor to be involved in preparation for the opening of the new Metropolitan Remand and Reception Centre at Silverwater.
Commissioner Smethurst had reacted to an article in Framed which reported the victimisation of prisoner Brian Hallwood, who was sacked from his job as a clerk for the prison Chaplain, and was then denied access to all word processors. Hallwood, who was serving on Cessnock jail's Inmate Development Committee, had typed letters critical of the jail on the Chaplain's computer. He was serving a sentence for marijuana offences but has now been released and deported to Britain. We reported that Brian (i) had lost his job with the chaplain (ii) had been banned from computers, & (iii) that this was because he had written letters critical of the Cessnock regime. None of the howls of protest from the Department since have contradicted these basic facts.
In a memo of 12 April Commissioner Smethurst wrote: Framed will not be permitted to be distributed in correctional centres until further notice, unless it has first been cleared by the Department.
After Smethurst's resignation, Deputy Commissioner Max Sulman demanded that all Framed articles on prison be checked with Department officials, prior to Framed being "cleared for distribution" within the prison system. However Corrective Services policy for many years has been that prisoners are entitled to see any publications available to the public, unless they pose a threat to the 'good order and discipline' of the jail. Sulman has suggested that Framed's reporting may add to "rumour and innuendo" in the prisons, which may in turn affect the "security, discipline and good order of correctional centres". This is a ridiculous claim and we reject it.
Sulman's main complaint is that Framed did not allow an adequate right of reply. The Deputy Commissioner thus suggests that, to be allowed into the prisons, Framed must adhere to his view of what constitutes "professional journalistic standards". Yet despite a series of letters over the past three months, neither the Department nor the Minister have replied to any of the substantial issues we have raised about the treatment of Brian Hallwood and the operation of the prisoner committees.
With no real contradiction on the basic facts, the essence of the dispute lies in the interpretation of Brian Hallwood's entitlements. Was he justified in using Chaplain Rod Moore's computer to type letters critical of the jail? Prison regimes have long regard public criticism by prisoners as illegitimate, if not mutinous.
Rod Moore complained that our article was "poorly researched and biasly [sic] presented in favour of Brian Hallwood". He called his clerk's preparation of critical letters a "breach of trust", suggesting that work in the Chaplain's office was incompatible with IDC activity. However Brian says he had been given additional access to this computer, specifically for his work with the prisoner committees. Further, Rod Moore conceded that the work of the chaplaincy should include 'inmate development and peer support initiatives'. He stressed, however, that his role was to support both prisoners and staff at the prison, and said that Brian Hallwood had invited a reaction by the "personal" nature of some of his criticisms.
The Ombudsman's office has now put a list of questions to the Department regarding the banning of Framed, the treatment of Brian Hallwood and the future of the Inmate Development Committees. We look forward to the Department's response.
The Hallwood incident and the banning of Framed indicate Corrective Service's weak commitment to elected prisoner committees, and a traditional thin-skinned approach to criticism. The banning of Framed was a clumsy attempt to gag informed criticism of the prison system. We reject the Department's attempts to censor or ban Framed, and will continue to report freely and critically on all prison issues.
Tim Anderson
NSW has one of the highest rates of imprisonment in Australia. In 1993, 48% of Australian prisoners were in NSW jails. These were the figures confronting a lofty gaggle of judges, academics and barristers who are the figureheads in a major review of sentencing law in NSW.
The agenda of the NSW Law Reform Commission's Sentencing discussion paper released in the first week of May is to get expensive minor offenders out of the prison system. Framed has long made the point that there are too many people inside for rubbish offences. A requirement that reasons be given before imposing less than six months imprisonment, rather than a prison alternative, is to be applauded. Given the promises made last election, the proposals are not disappointing overall - remember the five year add on for "selling drugs near schools"?
Problems in current sentencing practice are recognised. The report notes that "Truth in Sentencing" resulted in a 20% increase in prison terms, despite statements that this would not happen. The Commission compares sentencing in Victoria and NSW and is "gravely concerned at the level of imprisonment in NSW, particularly the length of time served". However the proposed solutions leave room for pessimism.
It is most disappointing that the Commission's "tentative view" is taken against the re-introduction of earned remissions, although they expressly invited submission on this issue. The remissions issue goes some of the way to explaining the discrepancies between the NSW and Victorian figures. While Victoria has no remission system, the courts were instructed to take into account the remissions lost and so adjust the minimum term. Not so in NSW. We now live with the end result: an ever-growing prison population and massive prison cost blowout. You have until 21 June to change the Commissionís minds. It is not an overly long time to digest 450 pages of dense, mean stuff. Zeroing in on this point must be a priority.
If remissions are not to go, what else is proposed? The Commission proposes to abolish the required 3:1 ratio between the sentence and parole period. The fact that the ratio was done away with in 47% of cases means this will make little difference, but it is something. Wider use of concurrent sentences is proposed including use for sentenced prisoners. While the Commission criticises the fact that there is no parole period for sentences of less than six months, it neglects to propose amendment of the offending provision - s7 of the Sentencing Act.
The Commission is commendably big on non-custodial sentencing options. Apart from discouraging imprisonment for short periods of time, it proposes reintroduction of suspended sentences, and some increase in the use of periodic detention. It proposes that community service orders (CSO's) should be available for all offences, and that simple breeches of a CSO should not be an offence. In an overdue move, fines would be based on daily income. A charge attracting interest on cars and houses would replace imprisonment for fine default.
Then there are the real dangers zones. It looks like victim statements on "the actual physical, social and financial consequences of the offence on the victim" are on their way in "to afford a measure of the seriousness of the offence". The Commission's proposal is that they would be limited to evidence not already before the court, that only foreseeable impact would be considered, that makers of victim's statements be open to cross examination, and that they would not be available in homicide cases. Given Carr's loose cannon approach, victim statements which are as sensible as possible might be the best achievable scenario.
Many other topics are covered: life sentences; proceeds of crime legislation; parole; sentencing inconsistencies; diversion before the court; using informal mechanisms such as justice panels, and after sentencing ('front' and 'back-end' - no joke) discounted for early pleas of guilty; the sentence indication scheme and much more.
The report can be obtained by calling the NSW LAW Reform COMMISSION on 252 3855.
Paul Castley
The Criminal Justice Coalition is looking in more detail at the issue of medical services in the stateís 22 prisons. A recent report by Terry Sheehan on the NSW Corrections Health Service ("CHS") indicates that all is not well.
The focus of Sheehanís report is the underlying industrial conflict within CHS, but it contains broader criticisms of CHS, on subjects including the handling of human resources, gaps in Board membership, and the structuring of nursing services.
The Criminal Justice Coalition has met with the Corrections Health Board twice and raised issues such as the inadequacy of mental health services, the need for improved procedures for assessment on reception, continuity of care on release, inappropriate use of safe cells, and over-prescription of psychotropic drugs.
The fact is, CHS is riddled with a vast number of very significant problems.
The CHS Board knows this, and has made a start. It is now swimming in policies, plans and reports. One thing is certain: the CHS Board does not need any more paper.
The problems lie in the gulf between policy and practice. Implementation of policy lies in the hands of individual medical officers, nurses, and prison staff, who make the ground-level decisions. Information flows up or down the ranks are a major issue : Whether the staff are properly trained in CHS policy and practice; and whether the Board has any idea what is happening on the ground.
The CJCís first move has been to make submissions on improving the flow of information from the consumers of this service to the Board. That information must play an integral part in the formulation of CHS policy and practice. We have canvassed inmate and ex-inmate representation on the Board, and the establishment of a streamlined and independent complaints procedure (see CJC Submission summaries on this page).
It is critical that there be consumer representation on the Board, both to ensure the effective functioning of the Board and to respect the rights of prisoners to representation.
While members of the Board are supportive of inmate representation, departmental representatives have told us they oppose the idea out of concern for the safety of the inmate delegates. Of course the safety of prisoners who have been active on Inmate Development Committees has not been jeopardised in the past (prisoners who have been active on IDCís are more likely to be transferred by the Department than injured by other prisoners). It is a weak argument to disguise the Departmentís reluctance to empower the inmate population.
The CJC submission also provides for the appointment of an ex-inmate on the basis for effective and continuous consumer representation it is necessary to appoint an ex-inmate who is not subject to the constrictions and impediments of the custodial environment.
The structure of CHS also illustrates the great divide between theory and practice. In theory, the Board has ten, a Chairperson, a Chief Executive Officer and a staff-elected member; reporting to the Board are the Directors of various services and the sub-committees.
In practice, the Chief Executive Officer, Dr Phillip Brown, is wearing three hats by also acting as Director of Clinical Services and Director of Psychiatric Services. The person with overall managerial and administrative responsibility therefore holds two directorial positions and has his own patients. There is also no staff-elected member on the Board. There have been attempts to fill these positions, but no success. It has been over twelve months and excuses are now difficult to accept.
Similarly, not all sub-committees are fully operative. The Drug and Alcohol sub-committee does not hold regular meetings and the Aboriginal Services subcommittee is still getting off the ground. But the sub-committees do have enormous potential. The Womenís Health Advisory Committee appears to be efficiently run and very active. If sub-committees of a similar standard reported to the Board on every issue, ensuring appropriate follow up, they might form a strong structural base for CHS. With consumer representation and a streamlined complaints procedure facilitating the flow of information, CHS would be moving in the right direction. And then thereís the underlying industrial conflict....
1 The Board should initiate contact with Inmate Development Committees ("IDCs"): in each prison to give an introduction to the Board and its structure and to advise of intended inmate representation;
2. Two elected members of IDCs, at Long Bay and at Mulawa, should be appointed to attend CHS Board meetings on an ex-officio basis until permanent Board positions can be established.
3. An Inmate Contact Officer ("ICO") should be appointed by the Board to support and assist inmate representatives,
4. An ex-inmate should be appointed to the Board. The ICO should have the same role with the ex-inmate representative as it would with the inmate representatives. Part of the ex-inmateís role should be to elucidate and clarify issues raised by the inmate representatives.
1. A streamlined complaints procedure needs to be implemented whereby all
complaints which cannot be resolved at ground level are forwarded to an
officer at the Health Complaints Commission who is designated to deal with
Corrections Health complaints.
2. Inmates need to be fully informed of their health entitlements and the complaints procedure. The Corrections Health leaflet should outline the complaints procedure included in packages for new inmates on reception and should be available in prison libraries. As an interim measure, the leaflet should be put into notice form and pinned on noticeboards throughout the wings and in common areas.
Sarah Hopkins
The Victorian Government is undertaking the most radical and widespread private prison program anywhere in the world. By the end of 1997, Victoria will have three private prisons holding 45% of all prisoners. At a time when the crime rate in Victoria is falling by approximately 4% per year, the development of private prisons is expanding the prison capacity by 450! This privatisation of corrections is occurring behind a wall of secrecy. Corporations involved have invoked legal proceedingsñwrits and threatening lettersñagainst their critics in an effort to silence them.
No civilised society should hire out punishment for profit; nor can those responsible for administering the ultimate sanction of the state be accountable to anybody except its citizens. We must also fight for alternatives to imprisonment and against the causes, conditions and structures that cause an overwhelming majority of crimes. In pursuit of its plans the government has failed to identify constraints or investigate fundamental constitutional and legal issues. It has refused a public parliamentary inquiry, failed to hold open public consultations, failed to undertake a cost-benefit analysis, and appears not to have undertaken adequate probity investigations.
Wackenhut: Owner of Australasian Correctional Management Wackenhut (ACM) operates the Arthur Gorrie Remand and Reception Centre in Queensland and Junee Correctional Centre in New South Wales. It has been awarded the contract for the Fulham Correctional Centre in Victoria.
Wackenhut's board is dominated by former police and military officers. Its services include strikebreaking and the harassment of whistleblowers and other private citizens. Its clients include nuclear power, weapons and mining companies. It is the largest provider of security and intelligence-rated services to the United States Government.
Wackenhut lost a contract at a New Mexico airbase after and inquiry found their tender had been falsified. It was implicated in the misuse of almost $US140,000 of taxpayers funds, which were used to buy semi-automatic weapons as prizes for government officials. Wackenhut officials were alleged to have misused $US700,000 of funds in Texas, which investigators described as "unallowable petty cash expenses" such as mobile phones and trips to Britain.
Lockhart Technologies, one of three private companies housed at the Wackenhut Lockhart Facility, had a completely new factory assembly room built by prison labour. Lockhart Technologies pays prisoners minimum wages and the prison then takes about 80% for room and board. The state pays for workers compensation and medical care.
Corrections Corporation of America (CCAm): CCAm, founded in 1983 in Nashville, was bankrolled by the Massey Burch Investment Group which owned Kentucky Fried Chicken. CCAm is the largest private prison corporation in the world and has most of its facilities in the states of Texas, Tennessee, Florida and New Mexico where imprisonment rates are skyrocketing.
CCA (Australia) is owned 50% by CCAm and 50% by Chubb UK. The chairman of CCA (Australia) Don Hutto, an ex-Director of Corrections in Virginia and Arkansas, was found by the US Supreme Court to have violated the 8th and 14th amendments of the US Constitution regarding cruel and unusual punishment.
In the 1980's privatisation of prisons became popular in the USA, which has the highest rate of incarceration in the world. Over the past 20 years while serious crime rates have remained relatively stable the incarceration rate has more than doubled. In the last six years prisoner numbers have doubled to more than 1.12 million.
The US prison system is characterised by appalling conditions, with high rates of litigation by prisoners about overcrowding, abuse and conditions. Entire State systems have been found to be unconstitutional. As a result the country embarked on a large-scale program of prison privatisation. There are now 84 private prisons with a 44,000 prisoner capacity.
The government is committed to having 10% of Britain's prisoners under private management. Operated by Group 4 Remand Services Ltd, Britain's first private prison, Wolds Remand Centre, was opened in April 1992. Soon followed Blakenhurst, run by United Kingdom Detention Services Ltd (CCAm is a partner), Doncaster, run by Premier Prison Services (Wackenhut is a partner) and Buckley Hall, run by Group 4. Two more private prisons are under construction, Brigend and Fazarkely.
Blakenhurst, opened in May 1993, has suffered major disturbances. Default notices have been issued by the Prison Service on two occasions, warnings on another six occasions and the company was fined £41,166 for losing control of the prison. In the final quarter of 1993 recorded assaults at Blakenhurst were far higher than at any other state prison in England and Wales: 73 against a prison service average of 11.
Since it opened in June 1994, Doncaster private prison has hardly been out of the headlines. Three default notices have been issued against Premier Prison Services and a senior Home Office official has been put in to monitor the management of the prison. There were 59 suicide attempts in just seven months in 1994 and a further 37 by November 1995.
Four private prisons are operating in Australia with three more planned for Victoria. By 1997, 20% of Australian prisoners will be in private prisons; the highest proportion anywhere in the world.
New South Wales:
Junee, operated by ACM, was opened in April 1993. There has been widespread
and continuing concerns about the adequacy and appropriateness of ACM's
management including:
ï inadequate staffing levels
ï substandard wages and conditions for custodial and program staff
ï high staff turnover, especially program staff
ï enduring staff and prisoner concerns about personal safety
ï adequacy of educational and vocational programs, and
ï inadequate monitoring and assessment of contracts
ï The 1994-95 Ombudsman's Report documented that Junee had the highest
number of complaints from any prison in NSW.
Queensland:
Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre has been operated by AMC since June
1992. There were eight deaths in custody between November 1992 and September
1995. Borallon has been operated by CCA since January 1990.
Borallon is often held up as an example of a successful private prison.
What is overlooked is that the contract excludes the following categories
of prisoners from the centre:
ï protection prisoners
ï reception prisoners, sentenced and/or remanded direct from police
or court custody
ï prisoners who require extended hospital or infirmary care
ï prisoners currently subject to separate confinement or special treatment
orders
ï prisoners medically assessed as having a psychiatric illness and
incapable of functioning in a open-campus correctional environment, and
ï prisoners who are actively suicidal or currently experiencing suicidal
tendencies requiring a prevention program that would require constant observation.
South Australia:
Mount Gambier Correctional Facility has been operated by Group 4 since
June 1995.
The Victorian Department of Justice currently manages 14 publicly owned and operated prisons. In December 1993, the government announced the New Prisons Project (NPP) to seek public sector involvement in the delivery of three new prisons to replace Fairlea Women's Prison, Pentridge Prison and the Metropolitan Reception Prison.
CCA will own and operate the Metropolitan Women's Correctional Facility at Deer Park, the first private women's prison outside the US. The contract for the Men's Multifunctional and Remand Metropolitan Prison is yet to be awarded but is scheduled to be finished by late 1997. A contract for the Fulham Medium Security and Protection Men's Prison near Sale was awarded to ACM. Some of the units will be ready for occupancy in April 1997.
The NNP private prison program raises concerns because "commercial
confidentiality" has been used to deny access to :
-complete contracts
-tender evaluation criteria
-performance specifications
-information relating to the possible contamination of the Deer Park site.
The death rate in private prisons in Australia is excessive. Both Arthur Gorrie and Junee have been plagued by high levels of internal violence, riots, insufficient staffing levels and contract breaches. There is a conflict of interest between a society's goal for rehabilitation of prisoners and safety and the private prison corporation's desire for increased profits. Numerous royal commissions and judicial inquiries have identified the crucial importance of clearly defined and publicly accessible lines of accountability and public scrutiny in regard to the provision of corrective services.
The People's Justice Alliance demands:
-All prison privatisation plans be cancelled immediately
-All existing contracts and information relating to contract evaluation
process, probity investigations and unsuccessful tenders be made public,
and
-A Federal royal commission be convened to investigate the Australian private
prison experience with specific focus on deaths in custody, the probity
and ethics of private prison corporations, the probity of the tender process
and an investigation of the legal and constitutional issues surrounding
private prisons.
This is an edited version of an article which appeared in Frontline 32 (March 1996) The Peopleís Justice Alliance can be contacted at PO Box 1567 Collingwood 3066 or telephone (03) 9489 0149.
Bipartisan moves in New South Wales to exclude prisoners from the state's
victims' compensation scheme will most likely violate Australia's human
rights obligations, and this will draw the Federal Government into an international
legal challenge.
NSW Premier Bob Carr and Opposition Leader Peter Collins have both said they want to close the 'loophole' which allows, for example, a person convicted of murder to claim compensation for a serious assault suffered whilst in jail. Both politicians have said it is outrageous that Andrew Garforth, the convicted killer of Ebony Simpson, and former hotelier Andrew Kalajzich, should be able to make a claim. Garforth was severely bashed in jail by other prisoners, while Kalajzich, jailed for the killing of his wife, was stabbed at Lithgow Jail.
Undoubtedly many people will feel great sympathy with moves to deny ordinary rights to those convicted of horrific crimes. However the NSW Council for Civil Liberties has decided to support a challenge to the United Nationís Human Rights Committee, under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, if new laws entrench discrimination and violate the principal of equality before the law. The Federal Government would then have to decide whether to support the state laws, or abandon them and protect Australiaís reputation on human rights. When Tasmania's anti-gay laws were challenged, the Keating government chose the latter course.
The Council for Civil Liberties will support a challenge, despite its unpopularity, because we recognise that human rights are often eroded with popular support. It is easy to support the rights of those with whom one sympathises; but human rights only have meaning when they are universal, and rights are easily corroded by populist attacks on unpopular citizens.
Are those convicted of murder entitled to be called citizens? If you
support the international agreements on human rights: yes, certainly. The
arguments against denying rights, and victims' compensation, to those convicted
of serious crimes are these:
The current political arguments against compensation for serious offenders parallels those run by The Daily Mirror in the late 1970s, when it defended a defamation action by the late prisoner and escape artist Darcy Dugan. The Mirrorís defence was not that it had a run a true story, but that under the ancient English doctrine of 'attainder' Dugan, as a convicted capital felon, was of 'corrupt blood' and simply had no civil rights.
In 1978 the conservative majority of the High Court held that this ancient doctrine applied in Australia. Chief Justice Barwick argued that the merit of the doctrine was not for the court to decide. In his leading judgement Justice Jacobs said there was "no clear authority" on whether those convicted of a serious crime were to be denied civil rights, but that as Darcy Dugan was still serving a commuted death sentence, 'attainder' applied to him.
However the lone and proverbial dissenter, Justice Lionel Murphy, decried the old doctrine as violating "the universally accepted standards of human rights", as spelt out in several international agreements. Murphy addressed some of the flaws of the current proposal, when he wrote:
The civil death doctrine does not accord with modern standards in Australia ... There is an overwhelming weight of evidence against the doctrine that a convicted person should, while under sentence, be without redress for a personal wrong, whether the wrong arises before, during or after imprisonment ... Although the [civil death] doctrine treats the person as dead if he seeks to be a plaintiff, it treats him as alive when he is a defendant. The doctrine is anachronistic.
After this case a NSW Labor Government introduced the Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981, which ensured a controlled right for convicted felons to institute "any civil proceedings in any court". Current moves to deny such rights would have to amend this act and reverse this reform.
An international challenge to new legislation which seeks to extinguish prisoners' rights would argue against the necessarily discriminatory nature of such laws, and against the denial of equality before the law. Politicians who seek to deny universal rights by closing this alleged 'loophole' will distinguish themselves from their predecessors, who helped establish these universal rights.
Tim Anderson
Labor MLC Ann Symonds has convened a broad campaign group, determined to
see that victims rights are pursued alongside, and not opposing, civil
rights. The group rejects the denial of civil rights in the name of victims
rights.
Organised by members of Justice Action and the Community Legal Centre of the University of Technology Sydney's Faculty of Law, the Reference Group of the Victims Rights and Civil Rights Project includes more than twenty people including victims advocates, intellectual disability advocates, academics, feminist activists, lawyers, civil rights campaigners and several MPs. The project will address cultural and policy issues related to victims rights and civil rights.
The Reference Group had its first meeting at NSW Parliament on 16 May, where the following aims and objectives were adopted.
Aim:
Objectives:
Another meeting, planned for mid-June, will consider issues including
sentencing, victims compensation and direct victims support.
A public seminar on womenís imprisonment was held on 4 April 1996 at the NSW Parliament Theatrette. The theme was ëThe Politics of Differenceí. Speakers were Pat Carlen, British academic; Dr Eileen Baldry, from CRC Justice Support, the Prison Reform Council of NSW, and Lecturer in social work at UNSW; Bernadette OíConnor, Director of the Womenís Services Unit of the NSW Department of Corrective Services.
Ann Symonds MP opened the seminar, introducing the first speaker, the Minister for Corrective Services, Bob Debus. Mr Debus began by pointing out how much better things are now than they were under the Yabsley regime. He spoke about new periodic detention centres to be opened in Bathurst and Broken Hill, refurbishment of a centre at Tomago, near New Newcastle, and refurbishment of the Emu Plains PDC, all offering some places for women. Debus mentioned the future possibility of a community run program for Aboriginal women offenders, acknowledging the over-representation of Aboriginal women in the system.
On the issue of home detention, Debus said that he expected to introduce legislation formalizing his Intensive Community Supervision program, and mentioned that he was aware of the danger of such programs "widening the net" to catch those who would not have been imprisoned for their offences.
Debus talked about his restructuring of the prison system, and the substantial changes for the womenís prisons. Norma Parker will be closed; minimum security facilities will be provided at Emu Plains and new transitional centres, where mothers will be able to care for their children in custody. Importantly, a classification system specific to women will be implemented.
The Minister indicated that he was also concerned about the internal complaint handling and investigatory processes, although again, ëthings are better than they wereí. He mentioned his governmentís support for organisations that provide post-release services.
Debus did not stay at the forum longer than his own speech, but provided a paper by which he said he could be held to what he had said, and left confident that Ann Symonds would do a more than ample job of reporting comments from the audience to him.
After the politicianís promises and good will, we were nourished with a serving from Pat Carlen. Dr Carlen argued (with an allusion to Virginia Woolf) that women are locked up (whether out of public space, or in prisons). Women must serve the family, and the family must serve "the miitary, the markets and the man"; and on top of this ideological exclusion from public space was the physical, managed through law, economy and tradition, and later the media. And so we saw the context in which changes to the current system should be looked at: in terms of legitimacy (who womenís prisons are for), reality (what are they for), and utopia (what can change?). Pat Carlen pointed out the importance of looking at the relationships between gender and class and and racism and imprisonment; and that conditions of womenís existance (their lives, and representation of their lives in media, and other social controls) is most relevant to the political regulation of women.
Dr Eileen Baldry grounded many of Dr Carlen's ideas in the context of women in prison in Australia, and NSW legislation and policy. She spoke about the need for women specific sanctions, and post-release services, on the basis of statistics that show that women do not commit as much or the same type of crime as men; many women facing imprisonment have sole responsibility and care of their children; women are a minority in the justice system; the system itself perpetuates abuse already suffered by women; certain laws have led to an over-representation of Aboriginal women and drug addicts in prison. We were reminded once again that prison should be the last resort.
Bernadette O'Connor spoke lastly on her own Department policies, reiterating the needs for softening the blow of social control of women. She spoke predominantly of women prisoners who are mothers, and what is and will and can be done for them. Ms O'Connor reminded us of why we need to bother with trying to make a difference, and the need for providing options for housing, employment, health, etc., through intra and inter-departmental co-operation. "In NSW, about 740 women are released from gaol each year. They go back to their communities, our communities, to pick up their lives, to care for their children. They are our neighbours, our relatives and our colleagues."
The Mulawa Project has been running for six months now, and continues strongly, with energy from volunteers, and encouragement from prisoners. Funding from the Law Foundation has helped, though has now come to an end. Volunteers continue to be involved in matters ranging from simple referrals to other organisations and legal centres, to the handling of procedural internal jail matters. More complex issues, as well as the provision of legal advice , have on occasion been referred to solicitors or barristers on the roster, which the volunteer then passes on.
Another training session for the Mulawa volunteers has been held where potential problems that could be experienced in the jail were discussed. The issues of confidentiality, privacy, and the basics of how to conduct interviews with a woman in custody were given particular attention.
Kingsford Legal Centre recently asked us to provide case examples of women at Mulawa whose needs had not been met by the people or services operating in the jail system. To that end, we have had meetings with representatives from Corrective Services, Legal Aid and the Prisonersí Legal Service to discuss these problems. The Mulawa women play an important part in extending the benefit of the program. The complaints against Legal Aid and the Prisonersí Legal Service were were based on complaints made to us on our visits to the jail, and from the letters / phone calls Justice Action has received.
Mulawa prisoners have also played a vital role in the production of the Plain English booklets, funded by the Law Foundation. The booklets are on requested subjects including ëcourt issuesí (bail, appeals, character references and warrants) and problem solving (a directory of who to go to with complaints) and prisonersí rights.
Problems have also been addressed in meetings with Legal Aid and the Prisonersí Legal Service, including the complaint that some prisoners were missing their visits because of missing announcements, or not being called; and a lack of awareness as to who the PLS are. Other problems raised include the fact that prisoners might see at least two or three Legal Aid solicitors, and are obliged to tell their story several times over during the course of their case. Sometimes they see a different person at every court appearance. Continual swapping of representation makes it impossible to build up the trust essential to the solicitor-client relationship, and leads to repetition, overlap, poor communication and prisoner frustration. A further complaint has been Legal Aid/PLS failure to respond to questions, or to keep the client advised of progress. The failure to provide adequate follow-up, even of simple problems, can have drastic consequences for women in jail who may be dwelling on the problem. The problem that Legal Aid will not address most internal jail matters leaves a large gap in the meeting of women prisonersí legal needs. Family law matters, for which most women are denied Legal Aid, also continue to loom large in Mulawa, where most women are mothers.
Justice Action has also met with Corrective Services' Bernadette OíConnor (Director, Womenís Services Unit) and Joanne Self (Director, Indigenous Services Unit). The Mulawa visits have alerted Justice Action to the grossly inadequate welfare facilities; including the lack of sufficient individualised counselling, particularly relating to the provision of methadone; and complaints about the health services as well. The directors encouraged us to write letters addressing such problems and issues. We were also able to raise some practical problems with the operation of our Project.
Justice Action is in a rare and ideal position to maximize the benefit that can be obtained by a project such as this one. Our volunteers are capable and committed to providing individual assistance as it is requested from us. Justice Action is in the unique position of being able to walk around the prison and interact with women in their custodial environment, which helps to facilitate honest exchanges between volunteers and prisoners, and gives student volunteers an important insight into prison life. Complementary to this is that we are able to take more broad problems, and repeating problems, to appropriate sources to consider them.
Nicola Mostert and Katherine McFarlane
To
top of page
Phillip Brown, Chief Executive Officer of the Corrections Health Service (CHS), sub-titled his report on overdosage and deaths from drugs in prison, "A New Way of Looking at Deaths in Prison." While any study of this subject is welcome, particularly with a stated aim to attain lower suicide rates and deaths in prison than the general community, groundbreaking this report it is not.
Brown states that he suspects "that about 40% of deaths in prison could be related to the use of illicit drugs." With the prison population in it's controlled setting, he has no excuse for not being able to confirm this estimation. And without confirmation, it is suprising that Brown has come up with some of the comments that he has.
Brown cites a study from Thomson and McDonald (1993), to support the proposition that deaths from natural causes in prison are lower than that of the general community. He puts this down to a "healthy prisoner" effect whereby "the rate of deaths is lower probably because persons with major or chronic health problems are less likely to engage in criminal activity." It is disappointing that Brown has relied on statistics from Thomson and McDonald which are now outdated by seven years. But let's just accept that for now.
Brown has found that death from overdosage in prison can result from a range of circumstances. These include the higher chance of overdose due to decreased tolerance and the number of drug cocktails consumed which can have a lethal effect. Despite this Brown still makes the comment that, "It may be that gaol is a safer place for an intravenous drug user (IVDU) than the community." He has based this on the assumption that because someone is in prison they have less opportunity to inject drugs. He has ignored his own findings of why death from drug overdosage in prison can occur. He has also failed to recognise the increased risk of catching a blood borne communicable disease from the sharing of needles which occurs in prisons.
While death from natural causes is lower than that of the general community (accepting his statistics), suicide rates are five times higher. Brown has put this down to a number of factors in this report all entirely related to drug use and abuse. He has failed to mention the causal relationship between suicide and the enormous impact of the custodial environment on the mental health of the prison poulation. While the means of suicide may be drug related, it is irresponsible for Brown to report that all suicides are the result of things such as drug manipulation gone wrong and the stress related to drug dealing.
Overall, Brown's objective is excellent for the correctional system. However, the means to achieve this are not entirely realistic.
Brown would like to see the maintenance and expansion of the methadone program. He does not recognise that the current prison methadone program is not adequately assessing the needs of individual clients. We only need to look at the the death of Michelle Roberts. Roberts methadone dose was increased from 90 to 120 days before her death. She was due to be released from prison soon after. The coroner found that Roberts died of myocarditis (inflammation of the muscle tissue surrounding the heart) as well as an overdosage of methadone. Dr. John Caplehorn, a doctor of Public Health, also believes her death resulted from an increased dosage of methadone as she was showing signs of methadone toxidity, prior to her death, which included breathlessness.
Increasing the numbers of people on the prison methadone program, as pointed out by Dr. Caplehorn could produce more harm than good while the specifics of each person are not individually considered. As said by Dr. Caplehorn,"Methadone, like any treatment, needs to be closely monitored so results can be maximised while the risks minimised."
Another of Brown's aims to reduce deaths from drug use is improved supervision of inmates undergoing drug detoxification. This detoxification coupled with rehabilitation need to be considered as serious alternatives to placing or maintaining a prisoner on the methadone program.
While it can't be denied that raising the issue of overdosage and deaths in prison is a significant move by the CHS before such a move was made Brown needed to consult people such as Drummer who has extensive knowledge in the area. Without this advice Brown has failed to come up with a worthy study. Before looking at the issue again Brown needs to get some hard facts and solid statistics, which can be made readily available to him, so the conclusions he makes are based on a well-informed opinion and not on potentially dangerous estimations.
Rachel Curry
May 9th this year marked five years since the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody handed down its final report, complete with 339 accompanying recommendations.
Half a decade later, there is still no significant change in the rates of Aboriginal people taken into custody, charged, arrested and subsequently gaoled.
Since May 31, 1989 when the Royal Commission stopped investigating, there has been 92 Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. The original Royal Commission looked at 99 deaths over a nine and a half year period. In the last five years that number has almost been reached.
The sharpest increase in gaol deaths has been among Aboriginal inmates. In 1995 there were 16 Aboriginal deaths in prison custody nationally, an increase over 1994. So far this year 6 Aboriginies have died in custody - 2 in Queensland, 2 in NSW, 1 in Western Australia and 1 on the Tiwi Islands in a police lock up.
A death in custody as defined by Corrections Health Services is divided
into five broad headings:
It is unclear however, how a death is categorised and one can assume it is up to both the staff and coroner's discretion which decides.
The issue of Aboriginal Deaths in Custody encompasses a whole area of underlying issues and factors. These underlying issues and factors, identified throughout the Royal Commission Report, have been researched, documented and reported repeatedly over the last few years by many social justice organisations. However, a significant point needs to be raised and that is the issue of arrest and subsequent imprisonment (which will inevitably lead to further deaths in custody if you keep locking Aboriginal people up!).
Three areas need to be noted here. The police, the courts and the gaols. It is the police who use arrest in the first instance, the courts who subsequently deliver custodial sentences and the gaols act as the end of the line. You cannot achieve positive results with one without working with the others. You cannot expect the Royal Commission Recommendations to be fully implemented, unless they are implemented in all. You cannot expect nor hope for deaths in custody to stop without the full support and commitment of all three of these instittions. Collectively, this hasn't happened.
In 1994 the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs compiled a report 'Justice Under Scrutiny' looking at the Royal Commission and the implementation of its Recommendations. This report was scathing in its findings of non implementation of the Recommendations at all Governments levels and recommended to the then Prime Minister that State and Territory Governments be held accountable for this lack of will in implementing the Recommendations.
Between 1988 and 1994 the total numbers of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people held in prison has increased. The following table should illustrate the ongoing failure to fully implement the Recommendations.
|
Year |
Aboriginal Inmates |
|
1993 |
704 |
|
1994 |
813 (FT& PD) |
|
1996 |
958 (FT & PD) |
Source: Australian Prison
Trends, June 1993 & March 1994, NSW Department of Corrective Services
Statistics Unit, March 1996; FT & PD = full-time and periodic detention
The Watch Committee has continually raised concerns regarding the total lack of consideration in the proper implementation of the Recommendations. For example, Recommendation 87 states that "arrest should be as a matter of last resort". In examining the arrest rate of Aboriginal people the Royal Commission said: "A number of options are, of course, available to police.....Among these are informal warnings, formal cautioning, reporting and summoning".* The arrest rate in NSW, at least, has doubled since 1989. Furthermore, Recommendation 92 states that "incarceration should be as a matter of last resort". Incarceration rates in NSW have more than doubled since 1989.
Law and justice and how it relates to Aboriginal people is a central area of the Royal Commission Report with half of the 339 recommendations dedicated to this area. It is the underlying issues, albeit the Social Factors which need to be addressed if the imprisonment rates are to be reduced.
Although it appears that this area has neither the committment nor will of the State and Federal Governments either. A recent example of this involves allegations made against Western Australia State Housing Department Homeswest..
Aboriginal disadvantage in the area of housing and infrastructure was clearly documented in the Royal Commission Report. The Report stated that local governments play a critical role in meeting the needs of Aboriginal people, a statement supported by all local governments including Western Australia. Yet Homeswest eviction policies and processess, which have increased almost 100% each year are to the detriment of Aboriginal welfare as Aboriginal people are the majority subject to these orders. The situation in other States, whilst not as extreme as Western Australia, are similar.
Senator Herron, Federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has said that he finds it extraordinary that $400 million had been spent on the problem of black deaths in custody without any improvements. The Justice Under Scrutiny Report also found that millions of taxpayers dollars could not be accounted for.
The Watch Committee also wonders where money allocated to implement the Royal Commission Recommendations has disappeared to. It is a question that our incarcerated brothers and sisters have too much time to ponder on.
* RCIADIC, National Report, Vol 3, p34
Special Note: The General meeting of the Watch Committee has now changed dates & venue: Meetings will be held on the 2nd Tuesday of each month at the offices of the Watch Committee; Room 34, 1st Floor, Trades Hall, 4 Goulburn St, Sydney; Enquiries please phone: 264 9895
Marnie Aquilina
|
|
