1

VICTORIA’S PRISONS

FROM SOLITUDE TO SOCIABILITY

A VISITOR’S GUIDE TOPENTRIDGE 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 visibletraces of regimes designed to win from convicted men and women thecompliance which society demanded of them. For as long as the focus was onindividuals, even if that entailed breaking their bodies and spirits, the humanwarehouses you will visit, from the unmistakable Victorian cellblocks to themodern space station appearance of Jika Jika, fitted their purposes. However,over a hundred and fifty years, ideas about the purposes of imprisonment, andcertainly ideas about the way in which prisons should be run, have changed.So, what you will see are the relics of outmoded thinking which becameprogressively more difficult to adapt to contemporary penal practices.

2

With even passing attention you will see the cold, comfortless environment inwhich the grinding routine of institutional life was lived out by prisoners andtheir guards. But so much brutality, so much desperation and despair cannotcompletely evaporate into the ether. Some of these things have been absorbedinto the very fabric of the prison, and if you focus your mind and your heart onthis place you will experience something of what it really meant to ‘do time’ atPentridge. 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 ofVictoria’s prisons from the 1840s to the present. The second part describessome of the locations you can visit as part of Pentridge Unlocked.

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

3

The ‘Baggage’ the Convicts Brought With Them

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

At the centre of reformist thinking at the time, if attempts to reshapecharacter at any price can be described in that way, was the idea of criminal‘contamination’ and ways of preventing it. One way was to physicallyseparate prisoners by means of solitary confinement or to prevent themcommunicating by imposing a rule of silence. The silence and isolation thusendured, sometimes for years, apart from occasional contact with an officialor prison visitor, was expected to encourage moral reformation. There islittle evidence of that having happened, but what we do know is thatprisoners considered solitary confinement the most terrible punishment theycould face.

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

The Early Victorian Prison SystemWhat 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 acourt house and somewhere to lock up those deemed to be in need ofpunishment or restraint. The arrival of Police Magistrate William Lonsdale atthe fledgling Port Phillip District of the Colony of New South Wales in 1836marked the beginning of the Victorian prison system. That beginning wasextremely modest, the first gaol being little more than a wattle and daub huton 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 thefirst Victorian goaler was a part-time scourger, who earned a shilling a dayfor flogging convicts. The following events, which occurred in the first sixmonths of the Batman Hill gaol, raised the question of just how different staffwere from those placed in their charge:6 October 1837: The gaoler, Thomas Smith, found drunk in charge of thegaol 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 thetown, got very drunk, and made a public exposure of himself’’;

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

4

Early in the following year the gaol was burnt down by escaping prisoners.Lonsdale found it necessary to rent a bluestone warehouse and yardbelonging to John Batman to serve as a gaol. The male prisoners were keptdownstairs and the females in the loft above: it was a case of using a buildingthat was available, not one specifically designed to fulfil the purposes of agaol. One prisoner, Thomas Flodden, simply dug his way to freedomthrough a wall of the building. The prison yard was adjacent to two publichouses, separated from them by a ti-tree wall. Little wonder the gaolerappealed to the authorities for the appointment of an assistant turnkey and ayard constable.

Some measures were adopted to lessen the pressure on watch house and gaolaccommodation. One of these was the placement in stocks of those whocould not pay fines for drunkenness. Nevertheless, Melbourne’s populationwas growing, and to keep pace with it Melbourne Gaol’s first cell block onthe Russell Street site was opened on 1 January 1844. The second cell blockwas completed in the 1850s. A major defect in the new Melbourne Gaol wasthat no provision was made for the segregation of offenders: those with longrecords, first offenders and lunatics mixed together in the yards. There wasno work to perform and a treadmill was more often under repair thanoperative.

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

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

When the construction of other prison accommodation had reached anadvanced stage and some hulks had been vacated by male prisoners, justover one hundred female prisoners and their children under eight years ofage were imprisoned on such vessels. With increasing numbers, theprisoners were transferred to the hulk Success, where conditions below-deckswere deplorable. There was one bath on board, and each woman and childwas expected to bathe weekly. The major occupation was washing, whichwas hung on the rigging to dry. The Success was, in that sense, the flagshipof the ‘Yellow Fleet’, the name by which the hulks became known. It is notsurprising that under such crowded conditions there were frequentdisturbances. The Chief Warder in charge of the Success (Robert Gardiner)tried to improve conditions, most notably by setting up a school for the older

5

children; later he introduced needlework as an industry and established asmall library. Still the conditions on board the Success drew public criticism.By the mid-nineteenth century the full complement of prison institutionscomprised gaols, lockups, the hulks and the Pentridge, Richmond,Collingwood and Marine Stockades. Valma Pratt, in her book Passages ofTime, has described the life led by prisoners at the Collingwood Stockade.Prisoners worked from sunrise to sunset. Their main job was the quarryingand breaking of stone for the Corporation of Melbourne. After a breakfast ofbread and gruel the prisoners were marched in single file to their place oflabour. They worked on a system of labour credits -- by working harder orby doing longer hours they could gain a shortening (remission) of theirsentences. An incentive was that after half the term of their sentence hadexpired a ticket-of-leave could be obtained. The prisoners were locked intheir dormitories at 6.15 p m and allowed to converse until 7.30 p m, whenthe silence bell was rung. Thereafter, conversation was strictly forbidden.The original buildings were made of timber because the CollingwoodStockade was regarded as temporary confinement. The buildings atPentridge in the early 1850s were also of timber construction, but becauseplans were being made for a more permanent structure at Pentridge it wasexpected that Collingwood prisoners would be eventually transferred. AnArgus journalist made the following first-hand observations at Collingwoodin 1857:

Passing through the dormitories, we were at once impressedwith the totally defective arrangements there ... Thedormitories are about twenty-four feet square and twelvefeet high. On each side, supported by posts, are a series ofdeep shelves and these are divided longitudinally into cots orcribs about sixteen inches wide. The partition boards are notmore than ten inches high and there, ranged on a shelf, theconvicts sleep. Should any contagious disorder ariseamongst the men so confined, the most serious results mustoccur, escape from its influence being totally impossible.

The Stockade dispenser’s records for a five-month period (May-September1864) 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’scomments about close confinement. The category ulcers and contusionsincluded two cases of scurvy. The skin diseases category involved at least onecase of leprosy. Cases of both syphilis and gonorrhoea were recorded,venereal disease being quite common at the time, but a cure was unknown.

6

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

Daily Ration for Prisoners, late 1850sMaize, oats or meal 8 ozsBread 20 ozsMeat 12 ozsPotatoes 16 ozsSugar 1 ozSalt 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 prisonersthe 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 correctinsubordination and the ‘indulgence’ of tea and sugar was withdrawn forsome categories of prisoners. In 1856 and 1857 Victoria’s penalestablishments were under attack from the public, as reports of brutality,neglect and humiliation were exposed in the newspapers. A Citizen’sCommittee v John Price (Inspector General of Prisons) was set up toinvestigate ‘cruelty exercised in Victoria’ (Pratt, 1981). The HeadAdministrator had virtually unfettered control over the lives of prisoners,although in 1857 the latter exercised their one reserve power by killing theInspector General.

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

Today you sometimes hear the accusation academic levelled at prisonreformers. It is doubtful, however, if you could find administrators nowwho, for sheer commitment to a theoretical viewpoint, could match some oftheir nineteenth century counterparts. For example, William Champ, who inthe late 1850s became Inspector General, had a ‘separation and silence’ penalphilosophy, and because of it the rule of silence was enforced. Champ’s viewwas that if you detained prisoners in silence and solitude, after they werethoroughly wearied of sheer idleness and want of companionship they wouldbecome motivated to gain employment as a means of relieving themonotony of their existence.

7

Champ’s approach would probably be described today as a form of ‘mindgame’. He wielded enormous power and carried his experiment in breaking‘ruffian spirits’ to the extreme by attempting to impose absolute silenceamong prisoners during fourteen hour intervals when they were packedtogether in dormitories. One warder, given the unenviable task of imposingthis discipline, was almost murdered. Of course, as Peter Lynn and GeorgeArmstrong say in their history of prisons in Victoria, From Pentonville toPentridge (1996) ‘it was an indication of Champ’s absurd efforts to gain andretain total control of convicts that he attempted to prevent hundreds of menpacked together for fourteen hours each night from even talking’. Prisonershoused in the section of Pentridge known as the Panopticon, which wasdesigned by Champ, were isolated in their cells for twenty-four hours eachday, except for one-hour’s exercise under officers’ supervision. When theyleft their cells they wore masks to prevent recognition by other prisoners. Allconversation with prison officers, unless strictly necessary, was to be avoided.

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

The four major gaols, Ballarat, Beechworth, Castlemaine and Bendigo,incorporated many of the features of overseas prisons, including the use ofsingle cells and radial wings. Low security risk prisoners were employed,often in irons, on roads and similar works for local municipalities. Thecountry gaols held women in designated cells and exercise yards. At thelarger gaols one or two female officers were usually available to handle suchprisoners, while at the smaller gaols this responsibility was assumed by thegaoler’s or senior turnkey’s wife. Female prisoners were subjected to thenormal disciplinary procedures, and punishments were imposed on them bythe Governor or visiting magistrate. The Governor’s Charge Book atCastlemaine (March 1883) contains the following unusual charge ofmisconduct:

Failing to take proper care of her baby. Guilty. Sentenced totwenty-four hours’ solitary confinement.

The record sheds no light on the usefulness of this punishment to theneglected child. A Royal Commission in the 1870s recommended the adoption of a modifiedversion of what was called the Crofton System. The elements of this systemwere: (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 sameperiod there was greater recognition that prison systems have responsibilitieswhich do not cease when the prisoner reaches the front gate. Without helpmany women and men will fail to re-establish themselves in society,particularly in the face of the discrimination they generally experience; hencethe efforts made to gain the interest of voluntary groups in assistingprisoners.

8

Unfortunately, many of the organisations involved in this work have hadrather forbidding titles. In the 1870s a major agency engaged in after carewas called the Discharged Prisoners Aid Society, formed by the Society forthe 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 tobe hoped that the Society will soon find itself in a position to extend its aid tothe less deserving prisoners also, who are, no doubt, the more helpless andhopeless but all the more in want of guidance and support.”

Just as ideas from overseas had influenced the Victorian prison system in itsformative stages, the findings of an 1895 enquiry in England (GladstoneCommittee Report) encouraged a number of changes which took place atPentridge. These included better classification and a more individualisedapproach to the treatment of prisoners. The Panopticon underwent amodification of role: it was still used for solitary confinement but more forcourt-imposed solitary confinement. By the turn of the century thePanopticon 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 PentridgeFrom 1894 to 1956 female prisoners were held at Pentridge. The beginning ofthis period in female penal history in Victoria was blessed by the appointmentof an Inspector General, Commander John Evans, who was convinced thathis responsibility as Head of the Penal Department was to provide a means ofreforming prisoners. Progressive prison administrators of the modern eraoften regard their ability to reduce the size of the prison population as one oftheir positive contributions. By that criterion, Evans enjoyed some success; in1891 there were 350 female prisoners and in 1908 there were 98.

It is seldom, however, that the actions of an individual are entirelyresponsible for changes in penal policy. In this case, there was a considerabledrop in the 1890s in the number of ‘older infirm vagrant’ female prisoners,and the economic recovery following the depression of the 1890s may havehelped to reduce numbers. Evans’s other achievements include a system ofclassification, linked to useful employment and individual treatment ofprisoners. The operation of the Female Prison illustrated these ideas: separateconfinement was used to overcome what he termed ‘criminal contamination’,by means of the segregation of ‘Specials’, that is, first offenders or hopefulcases, and the breaking up of criminal associations by prisoners having aperiod of pre-release solitary confinement. This was augmented, in the caseof females, by putting them in touch with appropriate community visitorsfrom organisations like the Christian Women’s Temperance Union and theSalvation Army’s Bridgegate organisation. During the last four weeks oftheir sentence, female prisoners were assigned to a number of individual‘sewing boxes’, in which they were locked away from other prisoners duringtheir 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 otherbuildings provided for other functions including a hospital, laundry,

9

workrooms, and a section ‘for old women of the vagrant class’. The cell blockheld the ‘Specials’ and the hopeful cases, who were subjected to a regime offirm 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 singlefile at a regulation three paces apart. The few lifers accommodated in the cellblock were allowed a bed and a few small possessions. The other prisonersslept on cell mats. Today there is an emphasis throughout the Western worldon facilitating contact between prisoners and the outside community. At thetime in question, like their male counterparts, female prisoners were allowedto receive one letter a month and to write one letter every three months onsubjects strictly connected with themselves or their families. Visits wereallowed at intervals not less than three months.

10

Reforms since the 1950sThe twentieth century has seen a number of significant reforms introducedinto the Victorian prison system. Typically, what appear in one generation tobe adventurous leaps forward, later, in the light of overseas and local socialdevelopments, take on the appearance of being mild and conservative. Sincewe cannot cover all of these initiatives, we will use reforms which occurred inthe 1950s as an illustration before concluding this brief history with acomment on the present situation.

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

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

• the introduction of a system of minimum and maximum sentencesfor 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 qualifiedpsychiatrists;

• the establishment of youth training centres for young offenders;

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

• the upgrading of existing prisons.

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

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

11

the community requires that constructive partnerships be formed betweenprisoners and those able to assist them at the time of their release. This workwas carried out by the religious and other community representativesinvolved at Fairlea.

THE 1970SBy 1970 the proportion of young prisoners without any experience of the‘bad old days’ had greatly increased, and this group was less receptive to theFairlea parental management style. In the 1970s, in keeping with trendsacross the Victorian prison system, there were escapes and disturbances atFairlea, but despite this, reforms, which included an improved classificationsystem and the construction of small, self-contained cottages for prisoners,were implemented. Visiting conditions improved and infant children wereallowed to remain with their mothers. The number of inmates continued torise, and in 1983 a deliberately lit fire destroyed parts of the prison and threepeople 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 onelook Fairlea nice’. By now drug and alcohol dependence were acknowledgedmajor problems for many inmates, and special programs were instituted tocombat these problems.

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

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

12

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 VictorianGovernment in December 1993 to introduce private sector participation andcompetition into the system. Private participation has taken the form of thefinancing, design, construction and operation of three new prisons: theMetropolitan Women’s Correctional Centre in Deer Park, FulhamCorrectional Centre in West Sale, and the Port Phillip Prison in LavertonNorth. Public Corrections was established as a service agency in July 1996 toenable it to enter into a service agreement for delivery of correctionalservices and thus operate within the newly-created competitive environment.It is anticipated that Public Corrections will continue to play a key role in thesystem, operating both prisons and community correctional services. Thethree new private prisons are expected to accommodate over 70% of thestate’s female, and approximately 45% of its male prisoners.

Under these new arrangements prisoners are given access to programs whichaddress issues related to their offending behaviour, including violent and sexoffending behaviour. For those with a drug dependency problem,assessment, education and individual and group treatment programs areprovided. Prisoners are given access to personal development and life skillsprograms and receive professional assistance in resolving personal difficultiesand crises. It is also a central element of the prison policy that prisonersshould be given the opportunity to develop the skills necessary foremployment 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 developmentof work habits and skills.

There are elements of the ‘privatisation’ of prisons which remaincontroversial. One is the sub-contracting of what many consider to be anessentially state function -- the administering of punishment -- to acommercial enterprise. Another is the fear that, possibly after an initialperiod of providing quality service, contractors will inevitably put theirbusiness interests first and attempt to maximise profits by cutting costs. InVictoria it is obviously hoped that this second problem will not arise becauseof the careful specification of service contracts and careful monitoring of the

13

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

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

If Champ, Price and Inspectors General of old would be surprised by theprivatisation initiatives, they would find unbelievable the changes in practiceswithin today’s prisons. Not that a gaol remains anything but just that -- theyare still places to be avoided -- but century-old practices of breaking mindsand bodies have been discredited around the world. Instead, under a varietyof names, but predominantly with the title Unit Management, regimes basedon building co-operative relations between guards and inmates have arisen.Instead of having to manage hundreds of people via a rigid hierarchicalstructure, with a governor in an all-powerful position, prisons have beenbroken up administratively into more manageable and human-scale units.These units have their local management structure which, to some degreeand as appropriate, consults inmates about day-to-day decision making.Typically, prisoners have personal plans to help ensure that their time in prisonis 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 freedomand a high degree of disciplined order, imprisonment can be a time oflearning how to cope with behavioural and social problems. The Victoriansystem has become part of this international trend. While Unit Managementmay not always produce the results we all want, it is less likely to producemen and women more embittered than when they entered the prison.Fundamental sociability and awareness of the rights and needs of otherhumans and the skills to make one’s way lawfully in the world, are the aimsof today’s prison systems.

14

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 inVictoria took place on 3 February 1967 in one of the wings on display as partof Pentridge Unlocked, namely, D Division. This execution was preceded by185 others starting in 1842, but the spread of their occurrence was anythingbut even. The first three decades, the 1840s-1860s, witnessed almost 60% ofthe executions, and a little under 90% of them had occurred by the end of thenineteenth century. Among the list of those executed was the famous nameof Edward (‘Ned’) Kelly, aged twenty-five years, and put to death on 11November 1880.

15

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

GRAVE SITES

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

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

16

families concerned. The 1855 Act stipulated that hanging should be carried outwithin a gaol and that the responsibility for carrying out the execution shouldbe lodged with the Sheriff. The Act provided for an autopsy to be carried outon 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 in1967. Sometimes the Sheriff sub-contracted the actual performance of theexecutions 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 knownsites of multiple burials.

JIKA JIKA (K DIVISION)

How do you manage the most unruly and aggressive prisoners? In formertimes the answer, as we have seen, was to attempt to break the spirit of suchpeople by inflicting physical and mental punishment. In recent decades, withhuman rights a major issue of concern in many countries, prisoners haverevolted against inhuman prison regimes and related their cause to the widerhuman rights movement.

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

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

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

17

most difficult prisoners. The results speak for themselves: relatively trouble-free regimes in the European systems mentioned; embittered graduates ofKatingal who went on to commit heinous crimes; and five prisoners who diedin 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 ofradiating spines. The provision of useful industry remained a problem thatwas never really solved. The other major problem was the number of staffneeded to administer the unit. The electronic doors, closed-circuit TV andremote locking were all intended to keep staff costs to a minimum. Thefurnishings were sparse and prisoners exercised in aviary-like yards. In 1983four prisoners escaped from ‘escape proof’ Jika Jika (in the 1970s a prisonerhad also escaped from ‘escape proof’ Katingal, in Sydney). When two prisonofficers 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 prisonersin Jika Jika on 29 October 1987 was concluded on 28 July 1989. In the findingsthe 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, JikaJika must be seen as an idea whose time had certainly passed. Oppressive,isolating regimes do nothing to ease the task of prison officers; they certainlydo nothing for the community except return to our midst even moredangerous and embittered people.

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

18

Visiting room in Jika Jika

Unit 4 accommodated up to twenty prisoners undergoing programs, with anemphasis on literacy and numeracy to enhance their employment prospectsboth in prison and post-release. Unit 5 accommodated up to twenty prisonersundergoing a drug and alcohol treatment program. Units 4 and 5 were alsoable to be used as an initial placement option for HIV-positive prisonerspending their further integration into the prison system, and providedprograms designed to assist this group. A small number of longer-term,mature prisoners were also accommodated in Unit 6 to provide a stabilisinginfluence and to assist in providing peer support to prisoners with a lowerlevel of functioning.

METROPOLITAN REMAND PRISON (D DIVISION)

The gates are open!

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

19

case. Others are remanded in custody and account for a significantproportion (currently ...%) of Victoria’s prison population. However, in mostcountries, including Australia, some regard is had to the fact that whileremandees are being held in an environment where order and discipline mustbe preserved in the interests of staff and detainees, the person held is yet tobe found guilty of an offence. Indeed, some individuals have been held onremand for substantial periods before being discharged by the courts. Abalance must be struck between the need for good order and security and thepreservation of the rights of the unconvicted detainee, a balance furthercomplicated in many Australian jurisdictions by the fact that remandprisoners frequently share the same institutions with sentenced prisoners. In the modern era, new arrivals at the Metropolitan Remand Prison receiveda booklet which explained the way the prison operated. In accordance withcontemporary ideas on prison management, inmates were reminded thatthey should consult officers, particularly their case manager and members oftheir unit’s staff, on any matter of concern. Ways of addressing staff (Sir orMiss) were described and the prison routine for D Division was outlined:

7.00 a m Wake-up bell; breakfast in cells8.00 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 cells4.30 p m Final muster5.00 p m Close of prison

The frequent reference to musters is a reminder of one of the most basicfunctions of any prison, whether it be for remandees or sentenced prisoners,namely, to ensure that inmates are where they are supposed to be. Withregard to dress standards, detainees were reminded “modesty is expected andenforced”. Inmates were advised that they were able to use the prisoncanteen located in D Division on a once-a-week basis.

20

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 beenremoved. Your rights and responsibilities are still protected by an Act ofParliament. 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 effectivepreparation of their court cases. Many would, therefore, have read withparticular interest about the attendance at the prison each weekday ofrepresentatives of the Legal Aid Commission. They were also informed that,subject to the nominated parties being willing to accept their calls and thetransfer of the necessary funds to cover costs, they would be able to maintaintelephone contact with friends and loved ones. A reasonable amount ofwritten correspondence would also be permitted. Income could be increasedby working in the Metropolitan Remand Prison, mainly in the form ofproviding prison services like cooking and cleaning. Sentenced prisoners weretold they must work when it was offered; remand detainees were told theymight work if work were available Performance in such duties could be afactor 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;

21

• access to reasonable medical attention, including a private medicalpractitioner (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 OfficialVisitor 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 ona confidential basis;• to take part in educational programs in the prison.

Prisoners’ PrivilegesThe 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 importantwith 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 toprisoners. There were penalties of up to two years imprisonment forbringing, or attempting to bring, unauthorised items into the prison. Wherean offence was committed during a contact visit the prisoner was unable toparticipate in such visits for three months or longer. Prisoners were informedthat they would be required to undergo personal searches, and searches oftheir 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.

22

F DIVISION

F Division: The original women’s penitentiary

On 5 December, 1850, sixteen prisoners were marched from Melbourne Gaol totake up residence in a building virtually on the site of the original PentridgeStockade. Thus began F Division, which was to become known as the ‘DormitoryDivision’, capable of accommodating 200 prisoners sleeping in hammocks. It wasa low security section of Pentridge with workshops located nearby. In the 1850sthere were allegations of gross sexual immorality among the residents of FDivision and the 1870 Royal Commission recommended its closure. Shortlyafterwards it was decommissioned as a gaol and became an industrial school. Inthe 1880s a riot took place and a Board of Inquiry again recommended the closureof 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’sprison away from Pentridge in the 1850s, F Division was pressed into service toprovide accommodation for male vagrant prisoners, who slept in double-deckerbunks. 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)

23

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

Observation cell In G-Division (Psychiatric)

With the transfer of female prisoners to Fairlea in 1958 the Divisioncommenced operation as a psychiatric unit for male prisoners. In 1987 part ofthe Division was converted to operate as the state’s first drug treatment unitfor male prisoners, but this was later relocated. From 1990 G Division wasagain 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 treatmentprograms for prisoners who were mentally ill. The Acute Assessment Unitprovided short-term assessment facilities for those thought to be sufferingfrom psychiatric disorders. The Psycho-Social Unit provided longer-termrehabilitation programs for the mentally ill. The average age of the inmateswas thirty-five and the average length of sentence was two years and sevenmonths, two-thirds of the prisoners being unemployed prior to reception intocustody. The average length of stay was three to four weeks.

IN CONCLUSION...

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