An independent review has been unable to rule out “systemic” mistreatment of inmates in Queensland youth prisons because its scope was limited to a “small number” of cases.
The inquiry, which found those cases were “particularly distressing”, has prompted a sweeping overhaul by the Queensland government, including a new independent inspector of youth prisons.
The government will also ban the use of restraints to “hogtie” youth inmates and security dogs as a way to “discipline” them.
Staff will be forced to record and justify use of handcuffs and regard use of “ground stabilisation” – pinning inmates to the floor – as a “last resort”.
CCTV footage, which the review found was lacking in some cases, will be retained for three years after a youth turns 18 in view of personal injury claims.
Surveillance cameras will be installed in all areas where force, violence, restraint or isolation have taken place.
The attorney general, Yvette D’Ath, said the government would enact all 83 recommendations from the independent review of youth detention, headed by barrister Kathryn McMillan and academic Megan Davis.
Through this the government would “ensure youth detention centres are well placed to deliver improved outcomes for young people”, D’Ath said.
She said “any allegations of mistreatment of young people must be thoroughly and appropriately investigated”.
The inquiry was prompted by allegations of potentially unlawful force, prolonged isolation and use of guard dogs by private security at the Cleveland youth detention centre in Townsville from 2013 to 2015.
They were revealed in an Amnesty International report detailing concerns about mistreatment at Cleveland and Brisbane youth detention centres.
The inquiry also examined the use of a head device, which a barrister claimed was a “spithood”, fitted to a 17-year-old Indigenous youth in an adult prison in 2013.
The reviewers were tasked with examining whether there were systemic issues of mistreatment in youth detention.
The report said the specific incidents were “particularly distressing” and that it was “grieving” to note similar issues of mistreatment identified by the 1999 Forde inquiry “remained unresolved”.
Details of findings about six incidents involving seven youths were kept secret for legal privacy reasons.
The reviewers noted there were apparent cases of overreliance on mechanical restraints, unreported incidents of harm, and nurses unable to give medication to youths in locked rooms.
D’Ath said: “Critically, the report found no evidence of systemic mistreatment of young people in Queensland youth detention centres.”
The report said: “The review is unable to conclude that there is no systemic mistreatment of young people in Queensland youth detention centres.”
It notes the inquiry was limited to examining a “small number” of incidents “yet the review was tasked with identifying if there were systemic issues”.
It was also limited by “insufficient time” to conduct hearings with witnesses to test facts of the incidents, with nine staff members not providing information.
Despite its limitations, the review team’s findings were “based upon the best available evidence”, the report said.
“It is a time for courage and leadership within government. It is a time to design and implement a 21st century solution to a century-old problem,” it said.
The review recommended Queensland replace its youth detention inspectorate and office of the chief inspector, which sit under the attorney general’s department, with an “independent statutory office of the inspector of custodial services” akin to that in Western Australia.
It called for the inspector to retain “an ongoing record of all complaints” by youth inmates to check prisons were appropriately dealing with them.
Guardians and parents should be notified of all incidents where children may have suffered harm or were subjected to use of force, restraint or separation.
The conditions of using these powers, along with behaviour management and discipline, will be written into the Youth Justice Act so the department’s “overarching power is subject to parliamentary oversight and legislative restriction”.
Staff handling incidents should ensure they not obscure CCTV cameras, the report said.
