VICTORIA’S PRISONS

FROM SOLITUDE TO SOCIABILITY

A VISITOR’S GUIDE TO PENTRIDGE UNLOCKED Tony Vinson

Take a moment to consider the history of the place...

The prison buildings you will see during your visit to Pentridge are the visible traces of regimes designed to win from convicted men and women the compliance which society demanded of them. For as long as the focus was on individuals, even if that entailed breaking their bodies and spirits, the human warehouses you will visit, from the unmistakable Victorian cellblocks to the modern space station appearance of Jika Jika, fitted their purposes. However, over a hundred and fifty years, ideas about the purposes of imprisonment, and certainly ideas about the way in which prisons should be run, have changed. So, what you will see are the relics of outmoded thinking which became progressively more difficult to adapt to contemporary penal practices.

1 With even passing attention you will see the cold, comfortless environment in which the grinding routine of institutional life was lived out by prisoners and their guards. But so much brutality, so much desperation and despair cannot completely evaporate into the ether. Some of these things have been absorbed into the very fabric of the prison, and if you focus your mind and your heart on this place you will experience something of what it really meant to ‘do time’ at Pentridge. You will be helped if you know how it came to be what it was. So, this brochure is divided into two parts. The first describes the history of Victoria’s prisons from the 1840s to the present. The second part describes some of the locations you can visit as part of Pentridge Unlocked.

The material presented in the brochure draws upon several sources. We are particularly indebted to George Armstrong and Peter Lynn, whose 1996 book, From Pentonville to Pentridge, A History of Prisons in Victoria (published by the State Library), has been a major source of information. Valma Pratt’s 1981 book, Passages of Time, was particularly helpful in relation to the Collingwood Stockade. The Department of Justice also provided up-to-date information on the Government’s current prison initiatives.

2 The ‘Baggage’ the Convicts Brought With Them

It is possible to visit English prisons like Parkhurst on the Isle of Wight and be shown the path by which convicts were led to ships for transportation to Australia. These convicts did not travel alone; they were accompanied on their long and painful voyage by English ideas of how a prison system should be run and the people who should run it. These circumstances served to mould the nature of Victoria’s prisons, although American prison experiments of the early nineteenth century were also influential.

At the centre of reformist thinking at the time, if attempts to reshape character at any price can be described in that way, was the idea of criminal ‘contamination’ and ways of preventing it. One way was to physically separate prisoners by means of solitary confinement or to prevent them communicating by imposing a rule of silence. The silence and isolation thus endured, sometimes for years, apart from occasional contact with an official or prison visitor, was expected to encourage moral reformation. There is little evidence of that having happened, but what we do know is that prisoners considered solitary confinement the most terrible punishment they could face.

Some of these ideas have been highly influential in the management of Victoria’s prisons, particularly during the nineteenth century. They have left their mark on the buildings and other structures that are to be seen at Pentridge today.

The Early Victorian Prison System What were the basic requirements of an early Australian settlement: a store, a school, a church, a pub? These were certainly important, but so, too, was a court house and somewhere to lock up those deemed to be in need of punishment or restraint. The arrival of Police Magistrate William Lonsdale at the fledgling Port Phillip District of the Colony of New South Wales in 1836 marked the beginning of the Victorian prison system. That beginning was extremely modest, the first gaol being little more than a wattle and daub hut on Batman’s Hill, surrounded by a ti-tree stockade.

Prisons have always brought out the worst and the best in people. Sometimes the company drags one down. The only ‘staff’ company for the first Victorian goaler was a part-time scourger, who earned a shilling a day for flogging convicts. The following events, which occurred in the first six months of the Batman Hill gaol, raised the question of just how different staff were from those placed in their charge: 6 October 1837: The gaoler, Thomas Smith, found drunk in charge of the gaol and suspended;

26 October,1837: James Waller, informed of his appointment as gaoler, went, in the words of the records of the time “...to the lowest public house in the town, got very drunk, and made a public exposure of himself’’;

1 November 1837: Constable Joseph Hooson, the newly-appointed acting gaoler, was accused of taking a bribe and releasing a prisoner two days earlier than the discharge date. Hooson was subsequently dismissed.

3 Early in the following year the gaol was burnt down by escaping prisoners. Lonsdale found it necessary to rent a bluestone warehouse and yard belonging to John Batman to serve as a gaol. The male prisoners were kept downstairs and the females in the loft above: it was a case of using a building that was available, not one specifically designed to fulfil the purposes of a gaol. One prisoner, Thomas Flodden, simply dug his way to freedom through a wall of the building. The prison yard was adjacent to two public houses, separated from them by a ti-tree wall. Little wonder the gaoler appealed to the authorities for the appointment of an assistant turnkey and a yard constable.

Some measures were adopted to lessen the pressure on watch house and gaol accommodation. One of these was the placement in stocks of those who could not pay fines for drunkenness. Nevertheless, Melbourne’s population was growing, and to keep pace with it Melbourne Gaol’s first cell block on the Russell Street site was opened on 1 January 1844. The second cell block was completed in the 1850s. A major defect in the new Melbourne Gaol was that no provision was made for the segregation of offenders: those with long records, first offenders and lunatics mixed together in the yards. There was no work to perform and a treadmill was more often under repair than operative.

As well as Melbourne Gaol, prisoners were held in very basic gaols located in Collins Street (the Western Gaol), and the Eastern Gaol on the site of what was later the Eastern Market. Conditions were so bad at the Western Gaol that in the 1850s the women were transferred to the slightly improved but still overcrowded conditions of the Melbourne Gaol.

At the time, a method of dealing with the excess numbers of male prisoners was to confine them on ships or hulks. These were considered suitable for ‘the most desperate class of criminal’. Prisoners were kept in irons and close confinement in a bug-ridden, damp environment. They were without work, without books or diversions of any kind, and without hope: a recipe for bringing out the worst in human nature. The chief prison authority of the time, Inspector General Barrow, argued that to allow work would be to run the risk of earning shortened sentences, and that would be a grave mistake. Instead, he sought approval for visiting justices to inflict whippings on prisoners, ‘...monsters in human form’. Today this might be considered what is called a self-fulfilling prophecy -- create the conditions that will guarantee the conduct anticipated in the first place.

When the construction of other prison accommodation had reached an advanced stage and some hulks had been vacated by male prisoners, just over one hundred female prisoners and their children under eight years of age were imprisoned on such vessels. With increasing numbers, the prisoners were transferred to the hulk Success, where conditions below-decks were deplorable. There was one bath on board, and each woman and child was expected to bathe weekly. The major occupation was washing, which was hung on the rigging to dry. The Success was, in that sense, the flagship of the ‘Yellow Fleet’, the name by which the hulks became known. It is not surprising that under such crowded conditions there were frequent disturbances. The Chief Warder in charge of the Success (Robert Gardiner) tried to improve conditions, most notably by setting up a school for the older

4 children; later he introduced needlework as an industry and established a small library. Still the conditions on board the Success drew public criticism. By the mid-nineteenth century the full complement of prison institutions comprised gaols, lockups, the hulks and the Pentridge, Richmond, Collingwood and Marine Stockades. Valma Pratt, in her book Passages of Time, has described the life led by prisoners at the Collingwood Stockade. Prisoners worked from sunrise to sunset. Their main job was the quarrying and breaking of stone for the Corporation of Melbourne. After a breakfast of bread and gruel the prisoners were marched in single file to their place of labour. They worked on a system of labour credits -- by working harder or by doing longer hours they could gain a shortening (remission) of their sentences. An incentive was that after half the term of their sentence had expired a ticket-of-leave could be obtained. The prisoners were locked in their dormitories at 6.15 p m and allowed to converse until 7.30 p m, when the silence bell was rung. Thereafter, conversation was strictly forbidden. The original buildings were made of timber because the Collingwood Stockade was regarded as temporary confinement. The buildings at Pentridge in the early 1850s were also of timber construction, but because plans were being made for a more permanent structure at Pentridge it was expected that Collingwood prisoners would be eventually transferred. An Argus journalist made the following first-hand observations at Collingwood in 1857: Passing through the dormitories, we were at once impressed with the totally defective arrangements there ... The dormitories are about twenty-four feet square and twelve feet high. On each side, supported by posts, are a series of deep shelves and these are divided longitudinally into cots or cribs about sixteen inches wide. The partition boards are not more than ten inches high and there, ranged on a shelf, the convicts sleep. Should any contagious disorder arise amongst the men so confined, the most serious results must occur, escape from its influence being totally impossible.

The Stockade dispenser’s records for a five-month period (May-September 1864) give an indication of the illnesses suffered by the prisoners: Ailment Number of Cases (i) Stomach and bowel disorders 20 (ii) Rheumatic and respiratory 17 (iii) Ulcers and contusions 13 (iv) Skin diseases 5 (v) Hernia 3 (vi) Venereal disease 3 (vii) Mania 1 (viii) Paralysis 1 (ix) Epilepsy 1 (x) Enuresis 1

These types of illnesses generally seem to support the Argus journalist’s comments about close confinement. The category ulcers and contusions included two cases of scurvy. The skin diseases category involved at least one case of leprosy. Cases of both syphilis and gonorrhoea were recorded, venereal disease being quite common at the time, but a cure was unknown.

5 Any over-excited patient could be said to be suffering from mania, a term loosely used to describe a variety of symptoms including, possibly, those of schizophrenia. The Stockade lasted as a penal institution for thirteen years, until 1866, during which time bluestone buildings were added.

Daily Ration for Prisoners, late 1850s Maize, oats or meal 8 ozs Bread 20 ozs Meat 12 ozs Potatoes 16 ozs Sugar 1 oz Salt 1/2 oz Soap 1/2 oz

By 1854 a moveable stockade -- the ‘Crystal Palace’ -- had been introduced. Discipline was unnecessarily severe, and intended to ‘crush out of prisoners the last spark of humanity’. Prisoners worked, slept and were fed in chains; the punishment of being chained to a large stone was carried out to correct insubordination and the ‘indulgence’ of tea and sugar was withdrawn for some categories of prisoners. In 1856 and 1857 Victoria’s penal establishments were under attack from the public, as reports of brutality, neglect and humiliation were exposed in the newspapers. A Citizen’s Committee v John Price (Inspector General of Prisons) was set up to investigate ‘cruelty exercised in Victoria’ (Pratt, 1981). The Head Administrator had virtually unfettered control over the lives of prisoners, although in 1857 the latter exercised their one reserve power by killing the Inspector General.

Seven prisoners paid for that pay-back with their lives, although some of those responsible for Price’s death gloried in having ‘done for him’. Many of those charged with the murder offered no alibi at their trial; they showed their wounds and scars to the jury, testified to sleeping for nights on wet decks (on the hulks), and to the administering of castor oil for any illness. The reaction of the public seemed to depend to some extent on whether they subscribed to the Age or the Argus. All deplored the violence but there were differences of opinion about what had caused it. For months the Argus had defended Price against the Citizen’s Committee and blamed the latter for the murder. The Age championed the Committee’s cause and blamed the harsh system which had led to a brutal murder.

Today you sometimes hear the accusation academic levelled at prison reformers. It is doubtful, however, if you could find administrators now who, for sheer commitment to a theoretical viewpoint, could match some of their nineteenth century counterparts. For example, William Champ, who in the late 1850s became Inspector General, had a ‘separation and silence’ penal philosophy, and because of it the rule of silence was enforced. Champ’s view was that if you detained prisoners in silence and solitude, after they were thoroughly wearied of sheer idleness and want of companionship they would become motivated to gain employment as a means of relieving the monotony of their existence.

6 Champ’s approach would probably be described today as a form of ‘mind game’. He wielded enormous power and carried his experiment in breaking ‘ruffian spirits’ to the extreme by attempting to impose absolute silence among prisoners during fourteen hour intervals when they were packed together in dormitories. One warder, given the unenviable task of imposing this discipline, was almost murdered. Of course, as Peter Lynn and George Armstrong say in their history of prisons in Victoria, From Pentonville to Pentridge (1996) ‘it was an indication of Champ’s absurd efforts to gain and retain total control of convicts that he attempted to prevent hundreds of men packed together for fourteen hours each night from even talking’. Prisoners housed in the section of Pentridge known as the Panopticon, which was designed by Champ, were isolated in their cells for twenty-four hours each day, except for one-hour’s exercise under officers’ supervision. When they left their cells they wore masks to prevent recognition by other prisoners. All conversation with prison officers, unless strictly necessary, was to be avoided.

Meanwhile, the necessity for a place in which to confine offenders was being experienced in the rapidly developing major towns in the goldfields districts, and in the towns which were growing along the roads which linked the goldfields and the major regional ports of Geelong and Portland. Efforts were made by community leaders in many of the smaller mining towns to have gaols built so that prison labour could be used on roadworks and drainage in the towns.

The four major gaols, Ballarat, Beechworth, Castlemaine and Bendigo, incorporated many of the features of overseas prisons, including the use of single cells and radial wings. Low security risk prisoners were employed, often in irons, on roads and similar works for local municipalities. The country gaols held women in designated cells and exercise yards. At the larger gaols one or two female officers were usually available to handle such prisoners, while at the smaller gaols this responsibility was assumed by the gaoler’s or senior turnkey’s wife. Female prisoners were subjected to the normal disciplinary procedures, and punishments were imposed on them by the Governor or visiting magistrate. The Governor’s Charge Book at Castlemaine (March 1883) contains the following unusual charge of misconduct: Failing to take proper care of her baby. Guilty. Sentenced to twenty-four hours’ solitary confinement. The record sheds no light on the usefulness of this punishment to the neglected child. A Royal Commission in the 1870s recommended the adoption of a modified version of what was called the Crofton System. The elements of this system were: (i) solitary confinement for six months with limited employment; (ii) employment in workshops with grades of promotion and money allowances; and (iii) possibly moving to employment on public works. Around the same period there was greater recognition that prison systems have responsibilities which do not cease when the prisoner reaches the front gate. Without help many women and men will fail to re-establish themselves in society, particularly in the face of the discrimination they generally experience; hence the efforts made to gain the interest of voluntary groups in assisting prisoners.

7 Unfortunately, many of the organisations involved in this work have had rather forbidding titles. In the 1870s a major agency engaged in after care was called the Discharged Prisoners Aid Society, formed by the Society for the Promotion of Morality. When it was first formed, the Society helped only ‘deserving cases’, causing the Inspector General of the day to state: “It is to be hoped that the Society will soon find itself in a position to extend its aid to the less deserving prisoners also, who are, no doubt, the more helpless and hopeless but all the more in want of guidance and support.”

Just as ideas from overseas had influenced the Victorian prison system in its formative stages, the findings of an 1895 enquiry in England (Gladstone Committee Report) encouraged a number of changes which took place at Pentridge. These included better classification and a more individualised approach to the treatment of prisoners. The Panopticon underwent a modification of role: it was still used for solitary confinement but more for court-imposed solitary confinement. By the turn of the century the Panopticon was used for accommodating ordinary prisoners in single cells, employed in industry and spending their out-of-cell time in association.

The Female Prison At Pentridge From 1894 to 1956 female prisoners were held at Pentridge. The beginning of this period in female penal history in Victoria was blessed by the appointment of an Inspector General, Commander John Evans, who was convinced that his responsibility as Head of the Penal Department was to provide a means of reforming prisoners. Progressive prison administrators of the modern era often regard their ability to reduce the size of the prison population as one of their positive contributions. By that criterion, Evans enjoyed some success; in 1891 there were 350 female prisoners and in 1908 there were 98.

It is seldom, however, that the actions of an individual are entirely responsible for changes in penal policy. In this case, there was a considerable drop in the 1890s in the number of ‘older infirm vagrant’ female prisoners, and the economic recovery following the depression of the 1890s may have helped to reduce numbers. Evans’s other achievements include a system of classification, linked to useful employment and individual treatment of prisoners. The operation of the Female Prison illustrated these ideas: separate confinement was used to overcome what he termed ‘criminal contamination’, by means of the segregation of ‘Specials’, that is, first offenders or hopeful cases, and the breaking up of criminal associations by prisoners having a period of pre-release solitary confinement. This was augmented, in the case of females, by putting them in touch with appropriate community visitors from organisations like the Christian Women’s Temperance Union and the Salvation Army’s Bridgegate organisation. During the last four weeks of their sentence, female prisoners were assigned to a number of individual ‘sewing boxes’, in which they were locked away from other prisoners during their working hours.

What did the Female Prison look like? It consisted of a new, large, three- story cell block with 196 single gas-lit, sewered cells and six exercise yards. Two ‘black’ punishment cells were provided. The refurbishment of other buildings provided for other functions including a hospital, laundry,

8 workrooms, and a section ‘for old women of the vagrant class’. The cell block held the ‘Specials’ and the hopeful cases, who were subjected to a regime of firm discipline, including the rule of silence which prevailed in the cell block. At exercise in the yards the prisoners were required to walk briskly in single file at a regulation three paces apart. The few lifers accommodated in the cell block were allowed a bed and a few small possessions. The other prisoners slept on cell mats. Today there is an emphasis throughout the Western world on facilitating contact between prisoners and the outside community. At the time in question, like their male counterparts, female prisoners were allowed to receive one letter a month and to write one letter every three months on subjects strictly connected with themselves or their families. Visits were allowed at intervals not less than three months.

9 Reforms since the 1950s The twentieth century has seen a number of significant reforms introduced into the Victorian prison system. Typically, what appear in one generation to be adventurous leaps forward, later, in the light of overseas and local social developments, take on the appearance of being mild and conservative. Since we cannot cover all of these initiatives, we will use reforms which occurred in the 1950s as an illustration before concluding this brief history with a comment on the present situation.

Alexander Whatmore was appointed Inspector General in 1947 and he immediately set about making some minor changes as a prelude to what can best be described as a major restructuring of his department. In 1950 Mr Whatmore visited European, United Kingdom and American prisons, and the recommendations he furnished in 1951 were eventually incorporated in the Penal Reform Act of 1956. They constituted a blueprint for the development of the Victorian prison system for the next thirty years. Some of the major themes of the Whatmore years were:

• the creation of a parole and probation service and the appointment of the Parole Board, with a Supreme Court Judge as chairperson;

• the introduction of a system of minimum and maximum sentences for offenders convicted of indictable (serious) offences;

• provision for pre-sentence investigation;

• a separate female prison away from Pentridge;

• a new prison hospital and psychiatric centre with highly qualified psychiatrists;

• the establishment of youth training centres for young offenders;

• improved staff training and the appointment of a Chief Education and Training Officer who would have charge of all staff and prisoner training programs;

• the upgrading of existing prisons.

A key element of Whatmore’s plan was the establishment in 1956 of Fairlea Female Prison. It was opened with a female governor in what was formerly a venereal disease clinic and was an autonomous female prison with predominantly female staff. The formation three years earlier of a Consultative Council, headed by someone whose name is synonymous with prison reform in Victoria (Dame Phyllis Frost), proved an important step in ensuring the appropriate establishment of Fairlea.

Within a year Fairlea was setting new standards in the range of programs offered to the prisoners. Many organisations and individuals became involved in the prison in areas like hobbies, education and counselling. Improved medical and psychiatric services were provided in the less stressful Fairlea environment. It was not long before there was a reduced demand for such services. To convert progress made behind walls into productive lives in

10 the community requires that constructive partnerships be formed between prisoners and those able to assist them at the time of their release. This work was carried out by the religious and other community representatives involved at Fairlea.

THE 1970S By 1970 the proportion of young prisoners without any experience of the ‘bad old days’ had greatly increased, and this group was less receptive to the Fairlea parental management style. In the 1970s, in keeping with trends across the Victorian prison system, there were escapes and disturbances at Fairlea, but despite this, reforms, which included an improved classification system and the construction of small, self-contained cottages for prisoners, were implemented. Visiting conditions improved and infant children were allowed to remain with their mothers. The number of inmates continued to rise, and in 1983 a deliberately lit fire destroyed parts of the prison and three people were killed. In July 1986 the rebuilt Fairlea, with a capacity of eighty- six prisoners, was opened. The Melbourne Herald declared ‘As jails go, this one look Fairlea nice’. By now drug and alcohol dependence were acknowledged major problems for many inmates, and special programs were instituted to combat these problems.

With a change of government in 1993, more emphasis began to be placed on privatising prisons, and it was decided to close Fairlea when a new private prison at Melton became available. For just over forty years Fairlea had been the site of major efforts to improve the conditions of women prisoners; the limitations of the site eventually sealed the institution’s fate.

The 1970s was a special era in prison systems around Australia. Revelatory enquiries, such as the Royal Commission into the New South Wales prison system, highlighted abuses of prisoners’ rights at the very time when there was an increase in calls for their recognition. In Victoria prisoners began concerted acts of disobedience, especially within ‘H’ Division at Pentridge, regarded as a symbol of an oppressive regime. Staff/prisoner relations were tense, and the threat of industrial action over the perceived excessive softening of the prison regime was constantly in the air. Some allegations of staff brutality were upheld by courts and enquiries. Among the official responses was an attempt to open up the operation of the system to wider public scrutiny: the creation of a Prisons Advisory Council and a State Ombudsman with powers to investigate complaints were among the measures adopted. Social work services were strengthened and female prison officers commenced duty at Pentridge. Over time, the role performed by women officers has become similar to that of their male counterparts. Several escapes by high security prisoners focused attention on the need for security cells, thus beginning the ill-fated Jika Jika maximum security unit project at Pentridge, which is discussed in a later section.

11 Premier Kennett opening the prison for public tours by JSS.

TODAY... The Victorian correctional system of 1998 is quite different from that of ten, or even five years ago. The key difference is the decision by the Victorian Government in December 1993 to introduce private sector participation and competition into the system. Private participation has taken the form of the financing, design, construction and operation of three new prisons: the Metropolitan Women’s Correctional Centre in Deer Park, Fulham Correctional Centre in West Sale, and the Port Phillip Prison in Laverton North. Public Corrections was established as a service agency in July 1996 to enable it to enter into a service agreement for delivery of correctional services and thus operate within the newly-created competitive environment. It is anticipated that Public Corrections will continue to play a key role in the system, operating both prisons and community correctional services. The three new private prisons are expected to accommodate over 70% of the state’s female, and approximately 45% of its male prisoners.

Under these new arrangements prisoners are given access to programs which address issues related to their offending behaviour, including violent and sex offending behaviour. For those with a drug dependency problem, assessment, education and individual and group treatment programs are provided. Prisoners are given access to personal development and life skills programs and receive professional assistance in resolving personal difficulties and crises. It is also a central element of the prison policy that prisoners should be given the opportunity to develop the skills necessary for employment after their release through: education and training programs, including adult basic education and accredited secondary and tertiary studies, and work experience in prison industries which emphasise the development of work habits and skills.

There are elements of the ‘privatisation’ of prisons which remain controversial. One is the sub-contracting of what many consider to be an essentially state function -- the administering of punishment -- to a commercial enterprise. Another is the fear that, possibly after an initial period of providing quality service, contractors will inevitably put their business interests first and attempt to maximise profits by cutting costs. In Victoria it is obviously hoped that this second problem will not arise because of the careful specification of service contracts and careful monitoring of the

12 provision of services. No doubt these matters will continue to be debated, and it is vital that the community should watch closely the operation of institutions in which the exercise of power can be near absolute. Meanwhile, there is no doubting the scope of the experiment which has been launched. In terms of the percentage of inmates held in private prisons, Victoria is one of the most extensive users of this approach in the world.

Former prison officer and now JSS tour guide describes the regime in the former remand jail.

If Champ, Price and Inspectors General of old would be surprised by the privatisation initiatives, they would find unbelievable the changes in practices within today’s prisons. Not that a gaol remains anything but just that -- they are still places to be avoided -- but century-old practices of breaking minds and bodies have been discredited around the world. Instead, under a variety of names, but predominantly with the title Unit Management, regimes based on building co-operative relations between guards and inmates have arisen. Instead of having to manage hundreds of people via a rigid hierarchical structure, with a governor in an all-powerful position, prisons have been broken up administratively into more manageable and human-scale units. These units have their local management structure which, to some degree and as appropriate, consults inmates about day-to-day decision making. Typically, prisoners have personal plans to help ensure that their time in prison is used constructively, and they are assisted in this regard by a case manager.

Instead of prison experience being totally distinct from that of normal life, with certain remaining crucial differences such as the deprivation of freedom and a high degree of disciplined order, imprisonment can be a time of learning how to cope with behavioural and social problems. The Victorian system has become part of this international trend. While Unit Management may not always produce the results we all want, it is less likely to produce men and women more embittered than when they entered the prison. Fundamental sociability and awareness of the rights and needs of other humans and the skills to make one’s way lawfully in the world, are the aims of today’s prison systems.

13 PART TWO : LOCATIONS OF INTEREST, PENTRIDGE UNLOCKED

Fr John Brosnan, Pentridge Prison Chaplin (1956 - 1985)

THE GALLOWS

The ultimate penalty for crime is to forfeit your life. The last execution in Victoria took place on 3 February 1967 in one of the wings on display as part of Pentridge Unlocked, namely, D Division. This execution was preceded by 185 others starting in 1842, but the spread of their occurrence was anything but even. The first three decades, the 1840s-1860s, witnessed almost 60% of the executions, and a little under 90% of them had occurred by the end of the nineteenth century. Among the list of those executed was the famous name of Edward (‘Ned’) Kelly, aged twenty-five years, and put to death on 11 November 1880.

14 By the mid-twentieth century executions had become a rarity, there being one in the 1940s and three in the 1950s; hence, sections of the public interested in human rights issues were ill-prepared for the restoration of the death penalty in the late 1960s. On 19 December 1965 Ronald Ryan and Peter Walker escaped from Pentridge and in the course of doing so took the sentry’s rifle. An unarmed officer (George Hodson) who confronted Ryan was shot dead and Ryan was later convicted of Hodson’s murder. The other fleeing prisoner, Walker, was convicted of the manslaughter of both Mr Hodson and a taxi driver. The state government, headed by Sir Henry Bolte, ruled that the death sentence would be carried out and Ryan was executed on 3 February 1967. Thousands of people assembled outside Pentridge to protest against the hanging. While inspecting the D Division you will be able to observe the crosswalk where Ronald Ryan was executed. The noose was suspended from the beam above the crosswalk and a green tarpaulin was draped from the crosswalk to hide the body. The public outcry over the execution finally resulted in the abolition of capital punishment in Victoria some years later.

GRAVE SITES

One would think that, provided relatives were available and interested in the burial of deceased prisoners, including those who had been executed, they would be able to exercise that right. Perhaps it was the macabre events which followed the 1853 execution of a bushranger, George Melville, which persuaded the authorities to the adoption of a different view. Melville’s wife was the proprietor of an oyster shop in Collins Street and, having obtained her late husband’s body, she proudly displayed it in a semi-frozen state and surrounded by flowers in the window of her shop. This display did no harm to Mrs Melville’s trade but appalled more conservative elements of the community and probably had a lot to do with an 1855 Act to Regulate the Execution of Criminals.

Hitherto, the bodies of executed prisoners had either been buried in unhallowed ground outside the Melbourne Cemetery or buried by the

15 families concerned. The 1855 Act stipulated that hanging should be carried out within a gaol and that the responsibility for carrying out the execution should be lodged with the Sheriff. The Act provided for an autopsy to be carried out on the body and for its burial within the gaol where the execution took place. The procedures prescribed by the Act continued until the last execution in 1967. Sometimes the Sheriff sub-contracted the actual performance of the executions to a willing prisoner in exchange for special remissions. Within Pentridge, the precise location of burial sites remains a little uncertain, but a signposted mound at the back of D Division marks one of the known sites of multiple burials.

JIKA JIKA (K DIVISION)

How do you manage the most unruly and aggressive prisoners? In former times the answer, as we have seen, was to attempt to break the spirit of such people by inflicting physical and mental punishment. In recent decades, with human rights a major issue of concern in many countries, prisoners have revolted against inhuman prison regimes and related their cause to the wider human rights movement.

In the 1970s a refined expression of the total subjugation approach, albeit in a semi-clinical ‘hands off’ form with little guard/inmate contact, appeared in New South Wales in the form of a totally enclosed, electronically operated, concrete tomb (Katingal), and an electronically operated space station at Pentridge (Jika Jika).

Jika Jika Exercise Yard: Roof used to prevent helicopter escape!

Both ‘solutions’ stand in absolute contrast to approaches adopted to the same problem, around the same time, within leading European prison systems. While Jika Jika and Katingal represented a further step down the path of the pseudo-science of the ‘separation and mind manipulation ‘ approach of the mid-nineteenth century, in countries like Holland and Sweden they were developing a no-nonsense, close human contact method of dealing with their

16 most difficult prisoners. The results speak for themselves: relatively trouble- free regimes in the European systems mentioned; embittered graduates of Katingal who went on to commit heinous crimes; and five prisoners who died in a fire of their own making in Jika Jika.

The design of Jika Jika was based on the idea of six separate units at the end of radiating spines. The provision of useful industry remained a problem that was never really solved. The other major problem was the number of staff needed to administer the unit. The electronic doors, closed-circuit TV and remote locking were all intended to keep staff costs to a minimum. The furnishings were sparse and prisoners exercised in aviary-like yards. In 1983 four prisoners escaped from ‘escape proof’ Jika Jika (in the 1970s a prisoner had also escaped from ‘escape proof’ Katingal, in Sydney). When two prison officers were disciplined in relation to the Jika Jika escape there was a week- long strike at Pentridge.

Jika Jika double cell.

The Coronial Enquiry into the previously mentioned deaths of five prisoners in Jika Jika on 29 October 1987 was concluded on 28 July 1989. In the findings the coroner was critical of the response of the Office of Corrections to the fire. However, in the light of developments elsewhere in the western world, Jika Jika must be seen as an idea whose time had certainly passed. Oppressive, isolating regimes do nothing to ease the task of prison officers; they certainly do nothing for the community except return to our midst even more dangerous and embittered people.

After the tragic fire the major purpose of Jika Jika was to provide a range of assessment and treatment programs for prisoners who were intellectually disabled, alcohol or drug dependent, or required specific programs offered in the unit. The Division also provided accommodation for a small number of prisoners who required a high level of protection.

17 Visiting room in Jika Jika

Unit 4 accommodated up to twenty prisoners undergoing programs, with an emphasis on literacy and numeracy to enhance their employment prospects both in prison and post-release. Unit 5 accommodated up to twenty prisoners undergoing a drug and alcohol treatment program. Units 4 and 5 were also able to be used as an initial placement option for HIV-positive prisoners pending their further integration into the prison system, and provided programs designed to assist this group. A small number of longer-term, mature prisoners were also accommodated in Unit 6 to provide a stabilising influence and to assist in providing peer support to prisoners with a lower level of functioning.

METROPOLITAN REMAND PRISON (D DIVISION)

The gates are open!

Once charged with offences, at the discretion of the courts some people are allowed to remain on bail in the community awaiting determination of their

18 case. Others are remanded in custody and account for a significant proportion (currently ...%) of Victoria’s prison population. However, in most countries, including Australia, some regard is had to the fact that while remandees are being held in an environment where order and discipline must be preserved in the interests of staff and detainees, the person held is yet to be found guilty of an offence. Indeed, some individuals have been held on remand for substantial periods before being discharged by the courts. A balance must be struck between the need for good order and security and the preservation of the rights of the unconvicted detainee, a balance further complicated in many Australian jurisdictions by the fact that remand prisoners frequently share the same institutions with sentenced prisoners. In the modern era, new arrivals at the Metropolitan Remand Prison received a booklet which explained the way the prison operated. In accordance with contemporary ideas on prison management, inmates were reminded that they should consult officers, particularly their case manager and members of their unit’s staff, on any matter of concern. Ways of addressing staff (Sir or Miss) were described and the prison routine for D Division was outlined: 7.00 a m Wake-up bell; breakfast in cells 8.00 a m ‘Let out’ commences; line muster; break off to unit/work; 10.30 a m Line muster; lunch 2.30 pm Line muster 3.30 p m Evening meal 4.00 p m Return to cells 4.30 p m Final muster 5.00 p m Close of prison The frequent reference to musters is a reminder of one of the most basic functions of any prison, whether it be for remandees or sentenced prisoners, namely, to ensure that inmates are where they are supposed to be. With regard to dress standards, detainees were reminded “modesty is expected and enforced”. Inmates were advised that they were able to use the prison canteen located in D Division on a once-a-week basis.

19 Pentridge Remand Section – a typical cell

It may have been comforting to the uninitiated to read the following: “Although you are in prison this does not mean all your rights have been removed. Your rights and responsibilities are still protected by an Act of Parliament. It is your status of a free citizen that has changed.” Of course, one of the main things on the minds of remand prisoners is the effective preparation of their court cases. Many would, therefore, have read with particular interest about the attendance at the prison each weekday of representatives of the Legal Aid Commission. They were also informed that, subject to the nominated parties being willing to accept their calls and the transfer of the necessary funds to cover costs, they would be able to maintain telephone contact with friends and loved ones. A reasonable amount of written correspondence would also be permitted. Income could be increased by working in the Metropolitan Remand Prison, mainly in the form of providing prison services like cooking and cleaning. Sentenced prisoners were told they must work when it was offered; remand detainees were told they might work if work were available Performance in such duties could be a factor influencing later classification decisions, the lowering of security rating, or the granting of parole.

Summary of Rights and Privileges (D Division) • to have access to open air for a period of at least one hour every day; • to be provided with special dietary food on medical, religious or vegetarian grounds, if required; • to be provided with clothing that is suitabe to the climate or for work; • if not serving a sentence of imprisonment, to be able to wear suitable clothing owned by the detainee;

20 • access to reasonable medical attention, including a private medical practitioner (at the prisoner’s own expense); • access to reasonable dental treatment; • to practise the religion of the prisoner’s choice and to possess such articles as are necessary for the practise of that religion; • to make complaints concerning prison management to the Minister for Corrections, the Director of Prisons, the Governor, the Official Visitor and/or the Ombudsman; • to receive at least one visit of half-hour duration each week; • to send letters to and receive letters from the Ombudsman’s officers on a confidential basis; • to take part in educational programs in the prison.

Prisoners’ Privileges The following privileges could be earned subject to each prisoner’s location, diligence, behaviour and participation: • access to private money; • use of the canteen, other than for essential toiletries; • access to telephone calls; • access to approved tobacco products; • access to television; • access to recreational activities; • access to specialist accommodation.

The distinction between sentenced and unsentenced inmates was important with respect to visiting rights: Unconvicted - two visits per week (one was a ‘contact’ visit); Sentenced - one visit per week (either ‘contact’ or ‘non-contact’ visit); Work Force - two visits per week (one was a ‘contact’visit). Visitors were prohibited from giving any article or money directly to prisoners. There were penalties of up to two years imprisonment for bringing, or attempting to bring, unauthorised items into the prison. Where an offence was committed during a contact visit the prisoner was unable to participate in such visits for three months or longer. Prisoners were informed that they would be required to undergo personal searches, and searches of their property and belongings in accommodation areas, at any time. Some examples of things regarded as offences: • assaults or malicious threats against another person; • acting in a disruptive, abusive or indecent manner, whether by language or conduct; • engaging in gambling or trafficking in unauthorised articles or substances; • having in one’s possession an article or substance not issued or authorised by an officer; • being involved in an incident involving drugs or alcohol; • sending or receiving a parcel or letter containing an article or substance that the prisoner knew to be unauthorised; • without the direction of an officer, being in a place where the prisoner was not required or permitted to be; • working in a careless or negligent way; • disobeying a lawful order of an officer.

21 F DIVISION

F Division: The original women’s penitentiary

On 5 December, 1850, sixteen prisoners were marched from Melbourne Gaol to take up residence in a building virtually on the site of the original Pentridge Stockade. Thus began F Division, which was to become known as the ‘Dormitory Division’, capable of accommodating 200 prisoners sleeping in hammocks. It was a low security section of Pentridge with workshops located nearby. In the 1850s there were allegations of gross sexual immorality among the residents of F Division and the 1870 Royal Commission recommended its closure. Shortly afterwards it was decommissioned as a gaol and became an industrial school. In the 1880s a riot took place and a Board of Inquiry again recommended the closure of the institution.

Later, F Division became part of the Women’s Prison, being used as a kitchen, workroom and as a dormitory for vagrants. Following the creation of a women’s prison away from Pentridge in the 1850s, F Division was pressed into service to provide accommodation for male vagrant prisoners, who slept in double-decker bunks. Over time, the Division served other functions until in 1986 it was closed (yet again!) and converted into an Assessment Centre staffed by a multi- disciplinary team. That was the Division’s final job in its stop-start career.

METROPOLITAN RECEPTION CENTRE (G DIVISION)

22 This Division opened in the 1870s as an Industrial Reformatory School. In 1890 the function of the Division changed and it commenced accommodating female prisoners, who were said to have better prospects of rehabilitation (see previous discussion).

Observation cell In G-Division (Psychiatric)

With the transfer of female prisoners to Fairlea in 1958 the Division commenced operation as a psychiatric unit for male prisoners. In 1987 part of the Division was converted to operate as the state’s first drug treatment unit for male prisoners, but this was later relocated. From 1990 G Division was again used solely as a psychiatric unit. It had a capacity of forty-six inmates.

The major purpose was to provide a range of assessment and treatment programs for prisoners who were mentally ill. The Acute Assessment Unit provided short-term assessment facilities for those thought to be suffering from psychiatric disorders. The Psycho-Social Unit provided longer-term rehabilitation programs for the mentally ill. The average age of the inmates was thirty-five and the average length of sentence was two years and seven months, two-thirds of the prisoners being unemployed prior to reception into custody. The average length of stay was three to four weeks.

IN CONCLUSION...

The bluestone monuments, and Jika Jika, which are available for inspection as part of Pentridge Unlocked are, of course, only part of the story of Victoria’s prisons. They are, however, the physical shells within which the human drama of ‘corrections’ was enacted. Take such opportunities as may be afforded in the future to see the physical fabric of contemporary corrections and the human interactions which are, and always have been, at the heart of the experience of imprisonment.

23