Extract from Hansard Legislative Council 6 July 1999
Ian Gilfillan Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council	ADELAIDE REMAND CENTRE	Parliament Index
		1999 Budget Session Index Browse by Subject About the SA Parliament Hansard on line

Leave granted.

The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: Today's copy of the City Messenger quotes extensively from a Supreme Court judgment of His Honour Justice Robin Millhouse. Indirectly quoting the judge, it states that, when the Adelaide Remand Centre was opened in 1986, it was for the purpose of housing prisoners who were on remand, and by definition that means prisoners who have not been convicted—that is, those who are awaiting trial and are therefore presumed, by our legal system, to be innocent. However, these people are being housed alongside convicted prisoners: sometimes convicted prisoners and remandees are housed in the same cell. This is occurring for periods of time which are not brief.

His Honour was delivering judgment in a case involving a convicted prisoner, Robert Wayne Collins. Collins had been in the Adelaide Remand Centre for two years when, in 1997, he applied to have a cell alone, not shared with a fellow inmate. His application was rejected, but in rejecting it Justice Millhouse's view (and I quote the Messenger report of his judgment) was as follows:

. . . this treatment of accused persons, not yet convicted, makes a mockery of one of the cornerstones of criminal law—the presumption of innocence.

Doubling up two prisoners to a cell, especially when one is a convict and one is not, was `undesirable, even wrong'. He said:

There is a reason, I suggest, for real concern about the effects of `doubling up' at the Remand Centre:

× an increase in the assaults on staff;

× at a time when non-smoking is encouraged, non-smokers are made to share with smokers or are punished if they refuse;

× any rape or assault of any person is absolutely unacceptable.

The report continues:

He [Justice Millhouse] said it was a breach of the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners under the United Nations congress on the prevention of crime and the treatment of prisoners.

I believe that the judge, and the Messenger report, is slightly in error and that the document to which reference was made was the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners which, at article 8, states:

The different categories of prisoners shall be kept in separate institutions or parts of institutions taking account of their sex, age, criminal record, the legal reason for their detention and the necessities of their treatment. Thus...

(b) Untried prisoners shall be kept separate from convicted prisoners;

The judge also rejected the view that the doubling up of inmates in this fashion was merely a temporary measure because he observed that in 1996 renovations were made to increase the capacity to double up in cells. My questions are as follows:

1. Does the Attorney-General agree that this practice is in contravention of the United Nations standard rules to which I have referred?

2. Does the Government share Justice Millhouse's view that this practice is contrary to a presumption of innocence?

3. Why are convicted prisoners housed at all in the Adelaide Remand Centre?

4. What, if any, plans does the Government have to alleviate this situation?

The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: I will take the questions on notice and bring back a reply. They will be referred to the Minister for Police, Correctional Services and Emergency Services, because these matters are directly his responsibility.

The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: As a supplementary question, does not the Attorney agree that, as Minister for Justice, he should determine whether there is compliance with the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, as I referred to in the question?

The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: Not necessarily. United Nations decisions are not enforceable under domestic law. They are matters which obviously we all take into consideration but they are certainly not part of South Australia's law. As Minister for Justice, I am happy to answer questions about those and other issues, but they are issues upon which I will need to take some advice.

Read the Government's reply:  19 October 1999

[Home]    [SA Party Office]    [SA Branches]    [What's Hot in SA]    [Mike Elliott]    [Sandra Kanck]    [Ian Gilfillan]
   [SA Senators]   [SA Parliament]    [Contact Us]    [News Releases]    [National Site]    [Election]
    [Support Us]    [S.A. Links]     [Newsletter]     [Browse by Subject]