Current inspections and reviews
This list includes:
- Inspections and Reviews which have been announced and are in progress
- Inspections and Reviews which have been completed and a report is being prepared
An announced inspection of Bandyup Women’s Prison was conducted between 10 to 15 September 2023.
A draft report is being prepared.
The inspection report is expected to be tabled in the first quarter of 2025.
An announced inspection of Albany Regional Prison was conducted between 5 to 9 February 2024.
A draft report is being prepared.
The inspection report is expected to be tabled in the first quarter of 2025.
An announced inspection of Court Custody Centre’s and the Fiona Stanley Hospital Secure Facility was conducted between September and November 2023.
A draft report is being prepared.
The inspection report is expected to be tabled in the first quarter of 2025.
An announced inspection of Boronia Pre-release Centre for Women was conducted between 24 to 29 March 2024.
A draft report is being prepared.
The inspection report is expected to be tabled in the first quarter of 2025.
An announced inspection of Hakea Prison was conducted between 6 to 15 May 2024.
A draft report is being prepared.
The inspection report is expected to be tabled in the first quarter of 2025.
An announced inspection of Acacia Prison was conducted between 14 to 23 October 2024.
A draft report is being prepared.
The inspection report is expected to be tabled in the third quarter of 2025.
People in custody experiencing acute distress should have access to appropriate crisis care. Mental health disorders affect a significant proportion of the Australian community. It is estimated that approximately 44 per cent of Australians have experienced some form of mental illness within their lifetime (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2022). Consequently, this trend translates into custodial populations with people in custody experiencing high levels of psychological distress and mental illness. The high rate of mental illness can lead persons in custody to be at an increased risk of self-harm or suicide which requires intervention in the form of crisis care.
Many of the larger metropolitan facilities in Western Australia have dedicated crisis care units. These spaces are often in addition to ‘safe cells’ or ‘observational cells’ for those experiencing an immediate threat to self or others. However, smaller facilities including minimum-security and regional facilities may be less equipped to support of the needs and requirements of people in custody experiencing crises. A range of accommodation is needed to support the overall health and wellbeing of this cohort. This includes general accommodation units, step-up and step-down subacute units and more intensive supervision settings with access to appropriate support services.
Previous OICS inspection reports have found the existing physical infrastructure to be anti-therapeutic in design and functionality. This is critical as the physical environment can impact an individual’s social and emotional wellbeing and behaviour (Lopez & Maiello-Reidy, 2017).
Crisis care accommodation should be designed to facilitate recovery and rehabilitation. Environments which incorporate elements of nature and ample natural lighting have been shown to positively enhance psychological wellbeing (Nanda et al., 2013). Wide open spaces with clear sightlines allow for predictability and can reduce psychological stress. Similarly, soft furnishings and the use of specific colours can have a calming effect (Lopez & Maiello-Reidy, 2017).
In recent years, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has recorded an increasing number of self-harm related incidents in adult prisons and youth detention. These include attempted suicides, serious self-harms, and minor self-harms. Between 2018-2023, there was a 113 per cent increase in self-harm incidents. Consequently, this highlights the need for appropriate crisis care support and accommodation.
This review will examine the availability and design of crisis care accommodation in custody and the experiences of people using these facilities. It will be guided by the following terms of reference:
- What is the experience of people in custody who access crisis care accommodation?
- Does crisis care accommodation adhere to therapeutic design principles?
- Is there sufficient crisis care accommodation to meet demand?
A report on this review is anticipated to be available to the public.
All people in custody should be provided the opportunity to practice the religion, cultural or spiritual expression of their choice safely. This includes having the ability to practice any religious beliefs and access worship and faith-based groups and activities. Prison management should facilitate access to multi-faith services, and any artefacts, publications, clothing or foods necessary to allow individuals to maintain adherence to their religious lifestyle requirements.
Additionally, chaplains provide an important role connecting people in custody with faith services. They facilitate multi-faith religious and spiritual services and work with spiritual leaders to meet the needs of people in custody. They also provide pastoral care – offering emotional support to people in need regardless of faith. This often includes prisoners who are grieving or being monitored under the at-risk management system. As such, chaplains are an important element of the prisoner support system. They are also active participants in the prison or detention centre community, building strong relationships and assisting people in custody along their rehabilitation journey.
Consistent with other jurisdictions, the Department of Justice has outsourced the provision of religious and spiritual services, including chaplains. In Western Australia the Council of Churches of Western Australia Inc. (CCWA) provides these services under a five-year contract. As a Christian-based organisation, the CCWA are expected to work with leaders of other faiths as required to meet the needs of all people in custody.
This review will examine the delivery of chaplaincy and faith services for people in custody in Western Australia to assess for equity and effectiveness.
Banksia Hill Detention Centre and Unit 18 at Casuarina Prison were last inspected in February 2023. That inspection found young people, staff, and a physical environment in acute crisis. As such, the Inspector made the unusual decision to produce his findings in a truncated and expedited report to focus on the immediate concerns challenging youth custody.
A second report was intended in the following months focussing on welfare and other supports available and accessible to the young people. However, this plan was undone by a major riot at Banksia Hill. The riot resulted in significant infrastructure damage and was a further setback leading to restrictions to the daily regime that negatively affected the services expected to be considered in the second report. The situation deteriorated further culminating in the tragic suicide of Master Dodd in October 2023. During this period, the intended objective of the second report could not be achieved with many services not consistently delivered.
Throughout 2023 and 2024 OICS has continued to closely monitor service delivery and out of cell hours with regular visits and data monitoring, tracking and analysis. Some signs of improvement were observed with better staffing numbers and a return of services like education, psychology, case management support, community in-reach, recreation, and other supports. However, our most recent visits and data analysis note some slippage.
This review will examine young people’s access to services since the last inspection focussing on young people’s time out of cell attending education and programs, as well as their access to available welfare and support services. The terms of reference are:
- Has adequate progress been achieved in service accessibility for young people since the OICS inspection in February 2023?
- Has any deterioration in progress been mitigated to the best it can by appropriate departmental contingency planning?
People in custody should be provided the opportunity to address their primary health, mental health, and social care needs through access to appropriate services. They must also be supported to change their behaviours and attitudes through tailored programs and services which address their needs and support desistence. These services and supports are delivered by non-custodial staff working within the custodial facility. They are often professionals who work in the areas of health, mental health, rehabilitation, reintegration, education, and vocation. And as qualified experts in their respective fields, they are integral to ensuring incarceration is an opportunity to address needs and change behaviours.
Our work frequently highlights staffing pressures within non-custodial business areas. These pressures often arise due to short- and long-term vacancies, population changes that have been not accounted for in Service Level Agreements, and other funding arrangement limitations. The result of such pressures means inadequate, limited, or a lack of services and programs for people in custody.
This review will examine the chronic shortage of non-custodial staff across the custodial estate. The terms of reference are:
- What are the Department of Justice’s service level agreements for non-custodial staffing for each facility, including current vacancies and any long-term vacancy trends?
- Has the Department of Justice conducted needs analyses for its facilities or population, and identified the most common areas of non-custodial staffing shortages?
- Is non-custodial resourcing adequate to meet the needs of people in custody, as per best practice literature?
Contact with and connection to family and friends are key factors to maintaining the wellbeing of people in custody and their rehabilitation prospects. In this Office’s 2018 review examining this contact, we found the Department of Justice was struggling to meet its legislative and policy requirements for family and social visits, due to overcrowding within the prison system. This was further compounded by staff shortages. Since that time the daily average population has increased by approximately 10 per cent from 6,873 to 7,581, staff shortages have continued to be a challenge, and the effect both of these problems have had on social visits remains considerably pronounced.
Since our last review, we have also found in-person social and family visits have been severely impacted by departmental responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. At the height of the pandemic, visit capacities were reduced to allow for space restrictions and other measures were implemented, such as the installation of acrylic screens and the banning of food and drinks. Many of these measures, while seeking to mitigate the spread of COVID-19, diminished the visits experience for prisoners and their family and friends. Furthermore, post-pandemic, we have continued to find some of these measures remain in practice at various prisons.
The pandemic compelled the Department to fast-track the installation of e-visit technology to ensure contact with friends, families, and official visitors could be maintained. While they should not replace in-person visits, e-visits can supplement social contact and can also help provide people in custody with a connection to friends and family who are a considerable distance away. This has been a positive, and largely successful investment by the Department. However, issues including a lack of staffing to facilitate and supervise e-visits and technological issues have been found to be ongoing concerns.
Challenges also exist for those whose primary contact with family and friends occurs through the phone system. While it is the most frequent form of contact, our inspection work continues to find unequal access and competition for phones are ongoing issues. For example, in 2022 we recommended the Department increase the number of phones at Greenough Regional Prison to mitigate the high demand. In response, the Department outlined a business case to replace the Prisoner Telephone System as part of its Long-term Custodial Technology Strategy. To date, the replacement has not occurred.
This is a follow-up review assessing progressing by the Department to our 2018 review. There is only one Term of Reference:
1. Has the Department of Justice made adequate progress since the 2018 review to ensure prisoners are maintaining contact with their family and others.
Page last updated: 17 Dec 2024