Recent reporting of alleged misconduct at the AMC shows the need for a root-and-branch inquiry to determine if the allegations are a campaign of nasty rumour mongering or are well founded, writes HUGH SELBY.

As everyone knows, we have a world-class prison here in Canberra. It’s world class because no one escapes. 

This is unlike the situation in some parts of the US where on the roads near prisons there is this helpful sign, “Do NOT stop for hitchhikers”.

Our prison is called the Alexander Maconochie Centre, or AMC for short, named after a famed prison reformer whose noble efforts led to his ruin.

To take the expression “turn in his grave” literally, I hazard that the following frequently make allegations would have him do just that.

Readers will recall that recently I called for the abolition of our Integrity Commission, giving as one reason the years that it took the commission to investigate a straightforward, repeated failure by a corrections officer (CO) to carry out a cell check as required. That failure was clear from the CCTV. To cover up that failure the officer created a false written record of checks.

To my surprise, that article led to contact from readers making claims of systemic failures within the AMC. From different sources I was being given the same kinds of information.

In this article I share the general nature of those allegations because, if true, they are one or more of criminal, disciplinary, corrupt conduct. The focus is identifying and solving a problem. It is not to throw mud.

No one should jump to the unjustified conclusion that these allegations besmirch the reputation of all those working in ACT Corrections, or even many of them. 

Rather these allegations demonstrate that the present policies and systems are not adequately protecting either prisoners or staff.

Doubtless there are many of us whose first response would be: “I don’t care, just as I don’t care if a well-known major criminal gets shot dead. It’s their just deserts”.

Hold that thought while considering that:

• A primary purpose of imprisonment is to detain. It is not to inflict further punishment;

• Imprisonment is very expensive, at a daily cost in excess of a good hotel;

• Rehabilitation through the appropriate mix of skill training, medical and mental health support, can lead to post-release crime-free lives; and,

• To turn a blind eye to misconduct by those employed in Corrections is to be hypocritical. If there was a report of animal cruelty at an animal shelter it would be front-page news that would be followed by prompt action to stop the misconduct.

Bashing to instil fear

Behind the fences and walls of prisons there are opportunities to intimidate prisoners by the improper use of physical force and the disciplinary rules.

Prisoners have various privileges, such as the use of computers, and the cell conditions in which they are housed. These privileges can be revoked where a CO alleges that a prisoner has breached the rules.

It’s a simple matter for a CO to write up charges against a prisoner that will entail a significant loss of privileges.

It’s also a simple matter to have a prisoner understand that a plea of guilty will shorten that time. Such a plea also reinforces the power gap between the CO and the prisoner.

Here’s an example. Two officers are checking a cell block. One says to the other: “You hear that noise. We’d better enter the cell and check the prisoner”. 

The other says: “Don’t you want to contact the central ops room first”. 

The reply is: “No time, could be a suicide attempt”. 

There is only one prisoner in the cell. In they go. The instigating officer bashes the prisoner. Both officers leave. The basher knows three things for certain: the prisoner is not going to complain, the companion officer is going to keep quiet, and the log notes will record: “Entered cell to check welfare of distressed inmate following loud noise. Observed bruising for which no explanation was offered. Prisoner repeatedly bad-mouthed attending CO’s and made threats of assault. Prisoner charged”.

Being able to assault prisoners with impunity is a necessary tool in the corrections misconduct playbook. If officers had to wear body cameras, as police do, then that would take the tool away. It would also reduce prisoner complaints because the evidence of good conduct or bad conduct by any of those involved is recorded for all to see and hear.

Dealing in contraband

A CO can earn a lot of tax-free cash by being a courier taking drugs and phones into the prisoners. There’s a non-stop demand for contraband, especially since the “powers that be” banned tobacco. 

The drug suppliers had a big bang party when that was enforced: the price of a smoke went sky high. I’m told it can be as much as $30 for a single cigarette. It’s cheaper to buy other nasty stuff.

A contraband phone costs, it is claimed, several thousand dollars. Readers may remember media stories of “notorious” prisoners interstate who “managed” their criminal enterprises from their prison cell by the use of contraband phones.

Searches of cells by COs may find such phones, which are then confiscated. This, naturally enough, means that the prisoner is anxious to buy another phone.

But prisoners don’t have the ready cash to make these purchases, so they build up sizeable debts.

The AMC is backward when it comes to “value adding” prison industries that let the prisoners build up a tidy bank account for when they are released.

Prisoners who are being paid for the real work that they do during their time “inside” would be better able to pay the inflated amounts for essential contraband.

If they are paying those debts then there will be fewer burned out cars, garages and homes because there will be no need for the creditors to intimidate the debtor prisoners or their families.

Obviously it would be better if there was no contraband market; however, that’s to dream the impossible dream.

Much of this could be put right

Recent reporting of alleged misconduct at the AMC shows the need for a root-and-branch inquiry to determine if the allegations are a campaign of nasty rumour mongering or are well founded.

Such an inquiry should be made by an inquiry under our Inquiries Act with three people appointed to do the job. All three must be independent of the ACT Corrections, police and legal system. Their combined expertise must cover corrections, criminology, and “being a former prisoner who has made good”.

To flush out any hard evidence about misconduct there must be an amnesty given on specified terms so that useful lines of investigation are quickly identified from people with first-hand knowledge of misconduct.

The commissioners will need the help of a counsel assisting, that being a lawyer of the calibre of those who assisted Walter Sofronoff KC in his inquiry into the Drumgold allegations arising from the Higgins Lehrmann saga.

The report of the inquiry should address whether there are any failures in the policies and practices at the AMC. If so, what are they? How are they to be corrected?

Where evidence is gathered that might support any of criminal, disciplinary or corruption labels, then that information is to be provided to the appropriate agency (be that the AFP, Corrections or the Integrity Commission) as quickly as possible. Hence, some such information may be provided before the inquiry gives its final report.

If there’s a will then there is a way. Let’s honour the memory of Alexander Maconochie by getting on with a job that needs to be done.

Hugh Selby, a former barrister, is the CityNews legal affairs commentator. His free podcasts on “Witness Essentials” and “Advocacy in court: preparation and performance” can be heard on the best known podcast sites.

Official: we lead the nation in locking up Aboriginals