A man on remand at a privately-run prison in Victoria was “punched in the face” by a supervisor and then blocked from accessing a medical appointment, the state Ombudsman has found.

‍

The Victorian Ombudsman this month released a report on its investigation into the alleged incident at the Ravenhall Correctional Centre, raising significant concerns with how it was handled and a lack of transparency within privately-run facilities.

‍

The Ombudsman concluded that the man, dubbed Kyle in the report to protect his identity, was assaulted by the supervisor, and then had his access blocked to the system used to book medical appointments, and that both were in breach of the law and Kyle's human rights.

‍

It found that the supervisor in question continued working on the frontline for two months after these allegations were first raised, and eventually resigned without facing any disciplinary process.

‍

“Kyle was a relatively young man in prison for the first time, not convicted of anything and being held on remand as he awaited court proceedings,” the Victorian Ombudsman report said.

‍

The incident occurred in mid-August 2022. The Ombudsman report is primarily based on CCTV footage from inside the prison on the day, and first-hand accounts from those involved and other people in prison.

‍

On the morning it took place, Kyle talked to his father on the phone about his charges, and then demanded a call with his lawyer, which was denied by prison staff. He then swore at the officer and returned to his cell, before being directed to the supervisor’s office, which did not have CCTV, the Ombudsman found.

‍

Once he entered the room, Kyle alleges he was punched in the face by the supervisor, who has consistently denied using any violence against the inmate, the report said.

‍

Kyle then left the office and walked back to his cell, and he is seen in the video footage holding the back of his right hand to the left side of his face, and inspecting parts of his face.

‍

Upon return to his cell, Kyle tried to seek medical help but was unable to as the supervisor had already cut his access to the InCell device used to do so, the Ombudsman found.

‍

A peer listener later attended Kyle’s cell and said he had been crying and had a swollen lip.

‍

The Ombudsman found that while the supervisor denied striking Kyle, he was unable to explain why Kyle was touching his face after leaving his office.

‍

The Ombudsman found that the supervisor did strike Kyle, and that this was “unnecessary and avoidable”, and unlawful under Victoria’s Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities.

‍

The report also found that the supervisor “misused his position” in restricting Kyle’s access to InCell.

‍

The Ombudsman report  raised concerns about the levels of scrutiny on the providers of private prisons, and their ability to investigate their own operations.

‍

Ravenhall prison is privately-run by American multinational GEO Group on behalf of the Victorian government.

‍

An investigation by GEO into the incident did not substantiate the claim of assault, but a separate investigation by Corrections Victoria found that an “assault by staff on a prisoner” did occur, as did the Ombudsman.

‍

“This highlights some pitfalls of self-scrutiny by private prisons, and raises concerns about the suitability of the system in Victoria where operators can mark their own homework,” the report said.

‍

In response to the report, GEO said there must be “sufficient and cogent evidence to support disciplinary action”, and that the additional testimony from other inmates was not available to it when its investigation was undertaken. 

‍

While many other states and territories have made efforts to move away from private prisons and bring some facilities back into public hands, Victoria still has three privately run prisons.

‍

The Victorian Ombudsman found that there is an “inherent conflict of interest” for private prison operators when investigating incidents.

‍

“In public prisons, adverse events or issues can be more flexibly dealt with than in private prisons,” it said.

‍

“An inherent conflict of interest exists where any private prison operator conducts its own investigation into events behind prison walls.

‍

“Private prison employees work for a company that is ultimately driven by a profit motive. An investigation that finds fault by the prison or prison staff can directly hit the company’s bottom line..the overarching profit motive of prison operators raises a conflict of interest that seems incurable.”

‍

Despite finding it “difficult to get a complete picture” of how many serious incidents had occurred at Ravenhall, the Ombudsman did discover that there have been two “charge events” for serious professional misconduct since the prison opened, but both were downgraded to isolated professional misconduct.

‍

Since the incident, Corrections Victoria and GEO Group have taken steps to improve information-sharing between the two parties, while GEO has updated its processes for higher-level oversight to “provide for consistency, independence and integrity” during investigations.

‍

Corrections Victoria also confirmed that disabling InCell devices is not an endorsed policy, but said that adjustments to the system to stop them being disabled were not needed.

‍

Corrections Victoria and GEO also said they had worked to develop a “probity framework” aligned to the contract to run Ravenhall.