Fremantle Prison

Accessibility and Inclusion Plan 2023.
AppendicesCover: Tour group looking at the Visible Collection, West Workshops,
Fremantle Prison 2022.
Above: The Rainbow Serpent and Spirit Children, cell E30 - 4 Division,
1991, Peter Cameron.

Contents
Appendix 1

1

John Massey Group Audit
97

Appendix 2
 istorical Research For Accessibility
H
and Inclusion Plan for Fremantle
Prison Physical Disability

148

Appendix 3
Comparative Analysis Report

157

Appendix 4
Materials Palette165

Appendix 5
Consultation Report

174

Appendix 6
Prioritised Action List

Appendix 1
John Massey Group Audit
2

Locations and Tour Routes

5

Legislation: Access to PremisesStandards

6

NCC Volume 1 – Part D3 Accessfor People with a Disability

12 Limitations

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 1

1

Locations and Tour Routes
The buildings and areas which have been analysed in this audit are
noted in the diagram below. Parts of the site are open to the public
for a variety of uses and functions, with others forming private offices,
accommodation or education facilities.

E
B

P
F

A
N
L

H
M

G

J
C

I
O

R
Q

K

D

N

N

2

A

East BankJ

Perimeter Walls

B

East Workshops

K

Reception

C

Female Division

L

Refractory BlockD

The Gatehouse and Entry
ComplexM

Shower BlockE

Hampton Road ReserveN

The Terrace

F

HospitalO

Watch Tower No. 1

GMain Cell BlockP

Watch Tower No. 6

H

New Division

Q

West Workshops

I

Parade GroundR

Wray Gates

Appendix 1 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

The Prison currently hosts five different tours for visitors to the site which include:• Convict Prison;• Behind Bars;• True Crime;• Tunnels Tour; and• Torchlight Tour.
The routes and pathways that each tour experiences are shown in the below diagrams:
E
B

P
F

A
N
L

H
M

G

J
C

I
O

R
Q

K

D

N

N
Convict Prison Tour route

Behind Bars Tour routeA

East BankJ

Perimeter Walls

B

East Workshops

K

Reception

C

Female Division

L

Refractory BlockD

The Gatehouse and Entry
ComplexM

Shower BlockE

Hampton Road ReserveN

The Terrace

F

HospitalO

Watch Tower No. 1

GMain Cell BlockP

Watch Tower No. 6

H

New Division

Q

West Workshops

I

Parade GroundR

Wray Gates

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 1

3

E
B

P
F

A
N
L

H
M

G

J
C

I
O

R
Q

K

D

N

N
True Crime Tour route

4

Torchlight Tour routeA

East BankJ

Perimeter Walls

B

East Workshops

K

Reception

C

Female Division

L

Refractory BlockD

The Gatehouse and Entry
ComplexM

Shower BlockE

Hampton Road ReserveN

The Terrace

F

HospitalO

Watch Tower No. 1

GMain Cell BlockP

Watch Tower No. 6

H

New Division

Q

West Workshops

I

Parade GroundR

Wray Gates

Appendix 1 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

Legislation: Access to PremisesStandards
In 2001, the Australian Government asked the Australian Building Codes Board(ABCB) to develop a proposal that could form a basis of a disability standard in thearea of access to buildings. This was done to address the gap between building
law and the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA), and provide certainty on whatlevels of access to public buildings would satisfy the general non-discrimination
requirements of the DDA.
On 1 May 2011, the Building Code of Australia (BCA) was amended toaccommodate the introduction of the Disability (Access to Premises Standard –Buildings) Standard 15 March 2010 of the DDA.
The purpose of the Premises Standard is to both:• Provide for equitable and dignified access to new buildings and those areas ofexisting buildings that undergo renovation or upgrade that requires a building
approval, and• Provide greater certainty to those involved in the design, construction,
certification and management of buildings in relation to the level of accessrequired in the buildings covered by the Premises Standards.
It is unlawful to contravene a disability standard. If a building complies with thePremises Standards, those responsible for the building cannot be subject to a
successful complaint of unlawful discrimination under the DDA in relation to thematters covered by the Premises Standards.
Notes
It is important to note that complying with the Premises Standard does not mean
those responsible for buildings are fulfilling all their responsibilities in relation
to possible discrimination under the DDA. There are a number of areas wherecomplaints of discrimination may still be made in relation to the use of the buildings,
even if the Premises Standards have been complied with. i.e. it will be possible
for a person with a disability that experiences discrimination because the building
or feature is not accessible, to complain even if the building was built before thePremises Standard, about the inaccessibility of certain fixtures and fittings, or about
the inaccessibility of directional information, not covered by the Premises Standards.
Those responsible for buildings are encouraged to develop policies and proceduresfor emergency egress including, e.g. Personal Emergency Egress Plans (PEEPS) for
occupants with disability.
The codes used for this report are:• National Construction Code (NCC) Volume 1 2019; and,• Australian Standards referenced within the NCC being AS1428.1-2009 andAS 1428.4.1-2009.
These documents do not alleviate the possibility of complaints being lodged under
the DDA where changes may be enforced.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 1

5

NCC Volume 1 – Part D3 Accessfor People with a Disability
D3.1 – General building access requirements
Class 9b – Assembly Building:• To wheelchair seating spaces in accordance with D3.9
• To and within all other areas normally used by the occupants, except thataccess need not be provided to tiers or platforms of seating areas that do notcontain wheelchair seating spaces.
Class 5 – Office Building:• To and within all areas normally used by the occupants.
Class 3 – Accommodation Common Areas:• From a pedestrian entrance required to be accessible to at least 1 floor
containing Sole Occupancy Units (SOU) and to the entrance doorway of each
SOU located in that level.
• To and within not less than 1 of each type of room or space for use in common
by the residents.
• Where a ramp or passenger lift is installed –• Access is required to the entrance doorway of each SOU; and• To and within rooms or spaces for use in common by residents, located onlevels served by lift or ramp.

D3.2 Access to buildings
An accessway must be provided to a building required to be accessible –(i)

From main points of a pedestrian entry at the allotment boundary; and(ii) From another accessible building connected by a pedestrian link; and(iii) From any required accessible parking space on the allotment.
In a building required to be accessible, an accessway must be provided through theprincipal pedestrian entrance, and –(i) hrough not less than 50% of all entrances including the principal entrance;Tand(ii) In a building with a total floor area more than 500m2, a pedestrian entrance
which is not accessible must not be located more than 50m from theaccessible pedestrian entrance.

6

Appendix 1 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

D3.3 Access to buildings to be accessible
In a Building required to be accessible –Every ramp and stairway, except ramps and stairways exempted by D3.4, mustcomply with:(i)

For a ramp, except a fire isolated ramp, clause 1 of AS 1428.1; and(ii) For a stairway, except a fire isolated stairway, clause 11 of AS 1428.1; and(iii) For a fire isolated stairway, clause 11.1(f) and (g) of AS 1428.1; andEvery passenger lift must comply with E3.6; andAccessways must have –(i) Passing spaces complying with AS 1428.1 at maximum 20m intervals on
those parts of an accessway where a direct line of sight is not available; and(ii) Turning spaces complying with AS 1428.1 –(A) within 2m of the end of accessways where it is not possible to continue
travelling along the accessway; and(B) At a maximum 20m intervals along the accessway; andAn intersection of accessways satisfies the spatial requirements for a passing andturning space; andA passing space may serve as a turning space; andA ramp complying with AS 1428.1 or a passenger lift need not be provided to servea storey or level other than the entrance storey in a Class 5, 6, 7, or 8 building –(i)Containing not more than 3 storeys; and(ii) w ith a floor area for each storey, excluding the entrance storey, of not morethan 200m2; andClause 7.4.1(a) of AS 1428.1 does not apply and is replaced with ‘the pile height orpile thickness shall not exceed 11mm and the carpet backing thickness shall not
exceed 4mm’; andThe carpet pile height or pile thickness dimension, carpet backing thickness
dimension and their combined dimension shown in Figure 8 of AS 1428.1 do not
apply and are replaced with 11mm, 4mm and 15mm respectively.

D3.4 Exemptions
The following areas are not required to be accessible:(a) An area where access would be inappropriate because of the particularpurpose for which the area is used;(b) An area that would pose a health or safety risk for people with a disability;(c) Any path of travel providing access only to an area exempted by (a) or (b).

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 1

7

D3.5 Accessible carparking
Subject to (b), must be provided in accordance with Table D3.5 in –(i)

A Class 7a building required to be accessible; and(ii) A carparking area on the same allotment as the building required to beaccessible; andNeed not be provided in a Class 7a building or a carparking area where a parking
service is provided and direct access to any of the carparking spaces is notavailable to the public; andSubject to (d), must comply with AS/NZS 2890.6; andNeed not be identified with signage where there is a total of not more than 5
carparking spaces, so as to restrict the use of the carparking space only for people
with a disability.
Table D3.5 Carparking Spaces for people with a disability.

D3.6 Signage
In a building required to be accessible –Braille and tactile signage complying with Specification D3.6 must –Incorporate the international symbol of access or deafness, as appropriate, in
accordance with AS 1428.1 and identify each –(A) Sanitary facility, except a sanitary facility associated with a bedroom in a
Class 1b building or a SOU ina Class 3 or a Class 9c building; and(B) Space with a hearing augmentation system; andIdentify each door required by E4.5 to be provided with an exit sign and state –(A) “Exit”; and(B) “Level”; and either(aa) the floor level number; or a floor level descriptor; or a combination of
both; or(bb) a floor level descriptor; or(cc) a combination of the aa and bb; andSignage including the international symbol for deafness in accordance with AS
1428.1 must be provided within a room containing a hearing augmentation system
identifying –(i)

The type of hearing augmentation; and(ii) The area covered within the room; and(iii) If receivers are being used and where the receivers can be obtained; andSignage in accordance with AS 1428.1 must be provided for accessible unisex
facilities to identify if the facility is suitable for left or right handed use; andWhere a pedestrian entrance is not accessible, directional signage incorporating theinternational symbol of access, in accordance with AS 1428.1 must be provided todirect a person to the location of the nearest accessible pedestrian entrance; and8

Appendix 1 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

Where a bank of sanitary facilities is not provided with an accessible unisex sanitaryfacility, directional signage incorporating the international symbol of access inaccordance with AS 1428.1 must be placed at the location of the sanitary facilities
that are not accessible, to direct a person to the location of the nearest accessible
unisex sanitary facility; andIn a building subject to F2.9 (Accessible Adult Change Facilities), directional signage
complying with Specification D3.6 must be provided at the location of each –(i)Bank of sanitary facilities; and(ii) Accessible unisex sanitary facility, other than one that incorporates anaccessible adult change facility,
To direct a person to the location of the nearest accessible adult change facility
within that building.

D3.7 Hearing augmentation
A hearing augmentation system must be provided where an inbuilt amplification
system, other than one used for emergency warning, is installed –(i)

In a room in a Class 9b building; or(ii) In an auditorium, conference room, meeting room, or room for judicatory
purposes; or(iii) At a ticket office, teller’s booth, reception area or the like, where the public is
screened from the service provider.
If a hearing augmentation system required by (a) is –(i)

An induction loop, it must be provided to not less than 80% of the floor areaof the room or space served by the inbuilt amplification system; or(ii) A system requiring the use of receivers or the like, it must be available to
not less than 95% of the floor area of the room or space served by the
amplification system, and the number of receivers provided must not be lessthan –(A) If the room or space accommodates up to 500 persons, 1 receiver for
every 25 persons or part thereof, or 2 receivers, whichever is the greater;and(B) In the room or space accommodates more than 500 persons but not
more than 1000 persons, 20 receivers plus 1 receiver for every 33 persons
or part thereof in excess of 500 persons; and(C) If the room or space accommodates more than 1000 persons but not
more than 2000 persons, 35 receivers plus 1 receiver for every 50 persons
or part thereof in excess of 1000 persons; and(D) If the room or space accommodates more than 2000 persons, 55
receivers plus 1 receiver for every 100 persons or part thereof in excess of2000 persons.
The number of persons accommodated in the room or space served by an inbuilt
amplification system must be calculated accordance to D1.13.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 1

9Any screen or scoreboard associated with a Class 9b building and capable ofdisplaying public announcements, must be capable of supplementing any public
address system, other than a public address system used for emergency warning
purposes only.

D3.8 Tactile indicators
For a building required to be accessible, tactile ground surface indicators must be
provided to warn people who are blind or have a vision impairment that they areapproaching –(i)A stairway, other than a fire-isolated stairway; and(ii) An escalator; and(iii) A passenger conveyor or moving walkway; and(iv) A ramp, other than a fire-isolated ramp, step ramp, kerb ramp, or swimming
pool ramp; and(v) In the absence of a suitable barrier –(A) An overhead obstruction less than 2m above floor level, other than adoorway; and(B) An accessway meeting a vehicular way adjacent to any pedestrian
entrance to a building, excluding a pedestrian entrance serving an area
referred to in D3.4, if there is no kerb or kerb ramp at that point, except
for areas exempted by D3.4.
Tactile ground surface indicators required by (a) must comply with sections 1 and 2of AS/NZS 1428.4.1.
A hostel for the aged, nursing home for the aged, a residential aged care building,Class 3 accommodation for the aged, Class 9a health-care building or a Class 9c
aged care building need not comply with (a) (i) and (iv) if handrails incorporating araise dome button in accordance with AS/NZS 1428.4.1 are provided to warn people
who are blind or have a vision impairment that they are approaching a stairway or
ramp.

D3.9 Wheelchair seating spaces in Class 9b assembly buildings
Where fixed seating is provided in a Class 9b assembly building, wheelchair seating
spaces complying with AS 1428.1 must be provided in accordance with the following:
The number and grouping of wheelchair seating spaces must be in accordance with
Table D3.9.
In a cinema –(i)With not more than 300 seats – wheelchair seating spaces must not belocated in the front row of seats; and(ii) With more than 300 seats – not less than 75% or required wheelchair seating
spaces must be located in rows other than the front row of seats.

10

Appendix 1 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

D3.11 Ramps
On an accessway(i)A series of connected ramps must not have a combined vertical rise of morethan 3.6m; and(ii) A landing for a step ramp must not overlap a landing for another step ramp or
ramp.

D3.12 Glazing on an accessway
On an accessway, where there is no chair rail, handrail or transom, all framelessor fully glazed doors, side lights and any glazing capable of being mistaken for adoorway or opening, must be clearly marked in accordance with AS1428.1.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 1

11

Limitations
JMG Building Surveyors advice is given in good faith based upon our technicalexpertise to interpret the provisions of the Access Code. JMG will not be held
responsible for alternative NCC interpretations given by others.
JMG Building Surveyors will not be responsible for the accuracy, appropriatenessor third party review of documents relied upon for the purpose of determining
compliance.
This audit is provided to, and is to be used by, the direct client to JMG Building
Surveyors for the use/ purpose only as detailed in the description and classification
listed in the Building Characteristics section of the report and for the particular
project nominated on the cover sheet. The use of this audit for any other purpose,project or any design changes to the drawings nominated without further
assessment or certification from JMG Building Surveyors will invalidate the content
of and certification associated with this document. Permission to use this report
and the certification by third parties is to be obtained from JMG Buildings Surveyors
before the use can be endorsed and approved by the report author.

Prepared By:
Jonathan Evans
20 April 2020
BSc (Hons) Building Surveying
Senior Building Surveyor
Building Surveying Practitioner Level 1

12

Appendix 1 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

The following includes a detailed analysis of non-compliant buildings
and areas around Fremantle Prison, the recommendations/rectifications
required and the risk classification that they present.
2, 4 and 6 The Terrace
1. Three heritage single storey short stay holiday accommodation houses –Class 1b.
2. NCC requires at least one house to meet the requirements of Part D3, where
house No. 2 has been considered for a person with a disability. Each facility
is generally the same in design apart from House No. 2 has a larger showerroom.
Access Synopsis
External Access1. Due to the site constraints, access to the front door would require a large
unsightly ramp or an external platform lift to allow access to the front principle
entrance. Therefore, access has been provided through the rear side door.
This accessway has restrictions as noted below.
2. No way-finding signage provided.
Internal Circulation

1. Doorways are generally accessible and not impossible to traverse.
High risk
Item 1: External Access1.

One accessible car bay is provided adjacent to No. 6. The Terrace, whichis shared with the adjacent YHA Accommodation. Accessible car bay
identification markings have deteriorated and signage is not provided.

2.

Access path to No. 2 is via a pathway that is less than 1m wide and has
uneven surface and tripping hazards. There is a steep embankment with noprotection if a person lost control of the wheelchair, being quite dangerous.

3.

Gate access into the front garden has a latching device that would be very
difficult for a person with a disability to operate as it is on the inside of the gate.
The threshold of the gate has a step that would make traversing difficult in awheelchair.

4.

Access pathway from the front gate to the rear accessible entry door isgraded in parts with a max grade of 1:14, requiring handrails, TGSIs as
required under AS 1428.1.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 1

13

5.

Front entry steps do not have handrails on both sides.

6.

Steps have risers have a non-compliant difference of 30mm between steps.

7.

Step risers are greater than max required 190mm.

8.

Step treads do not have non-slip luminance contrasting nosings; or TGSIs.

Medium/high risk
Item 2: Internal Circulation

14

1.

Principal entrance doorway threshold has a step not allowing wheelchair
access to the Veranda from within the building.

2.

Door clear opening width is 800mm.

3.

Internal doors to the circulation areas have been removed to allow better
circulation throughout.

4.

Passageway serving bedrooms are approximately 1.08m wide where current
requirements required 1240mm.

5.

Clear opening width of doorways into Bedrooms are only 750mm, where
current requirements are 850mm.

6.

Door furniture is the ball type and should be lever type to assist with gripping.

7.

Switches and controls are not located in positions that would suite a personwith a disability.

8.

Latching device to side accessible entry is located higher than 1100mm.

Appendix 1 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

Low risk
Item 3: Accessible Shower Room
1.

Door clear opening width is only 800mm.

2.

Latching device is higher than 1.1m.

3.

No drop down seat provided to the shower.

4.

Shower head support pole is required to be a grabrail type.

5.

Shower head water outlet is located significantly higher than 700mm, where
the shower head length is affected for use.

6.

Stainless steel shower tray rim causing a tripping hazard and restriction forwheelchair access.

7.

Shower screen restricts wheelchair access to the door on the latched side.

8.

Coat hooks in the incorrect position.

9.

Bottom of the mirror is greater than 800mm off the floor.

10. No shelf provided adjacent to the wash hand basin.
11. Grabrails serving the toilet should be one continuous rail and be set back toallow a person to reach the vertical portion.
12. Centre of toilet pan to be 450-460mm from side wall.
13. Front of pan to be 800mm from back wall.
14. Toilet flushing controls do not meet the requirements of AS 1428.1.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 1

15

Women’s Prison/West Workshops – Youth Hostel Association (part)
1. Single and two storey heritage building used for short stay accommodation– Class 3.
2. NCC requires that if the building or group of buildings contain 41-60 Sole
Occupancy Units (SOU’s) then 3 SOU’s are required to be accessible. It
was noted that only two were provided in the rear single storey modular
buildings.
Access Synopsis
External Access1. There is an accessible parking bay provided to the principle entrance thatappears to be shared with The Terrace Buildings (noted earlier) managed by
the YHA.
2. Generally access is available between buildings by ramps. There are multiple
floor finishes and parts have tripping hazards and voids that would impact onwheelchair circulation and safety. Note: The max vertical rise on an accessway
is 3mm or 5mm if the edges are rounded or bevelled.
3. No wayfinding signage provided.
Internal Circulation

1. Circulation to the accessible accommodation is provided by a ramp, whichallows acceptable access. The ramps may not be compliant with AS 1428.1,
but are deemed fit for purpose.
2. Access to Common Areas is restricted in parts having doors less than 850mm
clear opening width.
Medium risk
Item 1: Principle Entrance and External Areas

16

1.

One accessible car bay is provided adjacent to No. 6, The Terrace, which isshared with the adjacent YHA Accommodation. The car bay accessible carbay identification markings have deteriorated signage is not provided.

2.

Thresholds at door have non-compliant upstands and should be levelled.

3.

Threshold ramps to doors provide some restriction to wheelchairs.

4.

Ramp serving the entrance gate when leaving the courtyard does not have alanding at the top of the ramp for a wheelchair to stop and access the door
without rolling back.

5.

Services covers located throughout the courtyard have projections above thepaving causing tripping hazards in multiple locations.

6.

Door into Reception has an 860mm clear opening width, but paving has sunkand the threshold ramp has a vertical rise greater than 5mm.

7.

Door into Office, similar issue as above, but door clear opening width is lessthan 850mm (approx. 750mm). Rear entrance door has a step and the door
clear opening width is the same (1st photo).

Appendix 1 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

8.

Reception desk is 1.3m above the floor. Telephone is 1.6m above the finishedfloor, both being too high for a person with a disability.

9.

Principle entrance and egress from the main part of the facility has a door
served by a ramp shown in 2nd photo, does not have a landing on the internalside of the door and the grade of the ramp is non-compliant at 1:11, making it
difficult to open for a person in a wheelchair. Door handle is higher than 1.1m.
Timber threshold has deteriorated to allow a vertical rise greater than 5mm,being a barrier for wheelchair and a tipping hazard. Gate serves as an exit
and the door should open out in the direction of egress. (Signage should be
provided stating that the door opens inward).

10. Door entry to Dining Area, Laundry and Sanitary Facilities, has a reduced
latched side clearance of 530mm. The door is set back approx. 300mm which
was acceptable prior to 2 April 2012.
11. Handrail serving internal stair is higher than 1m, but fit for purpose.
12. Kerb rail to internal ramp is 40mm to low.
13. Threshold steel-plate ramp serving the opening between central courtyard
and side courtyard does not cross the full width of the door and does nothave any upstands to prevent the wheelchair from running off.

High risk
Item 2: Main Entry to Accommodation Building
1.

Ramp serving access to the main entry door into the accommodation building
does not have a compliant landing at the top of the ramp to open the door.
Ramp Grade approx. 1:14. Ramp is not wide enough to allow a wheelchair
access to the latched side of the door. Handrail to the ramp is 25mm to low,
but fit for purpose. Kerb rail is 10mm to low. Gate when open restricts accessto the handrail on that side.

2.

Main entry door at the top of the ramp is also an exit door and opens inwards
against the direction of egress. Signage should be provided on the back of
the door to inform people that the exit door opens towards them.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 1

17

High risk
Item 3: Internal Walkway
1.

Walkway grade 1:19.

2.

Kerb rail is non-compliant with AS 1428.1. Height is 40mm to low.

High risk
Item 4: Rear Door from Main Accommodation leading to the 2 ASOU’s.
1.

Door is served by a threshold ramp being and acceptable for wheelchairtransition.

2.

Door clear opening width is restricted by the door weather bar fixed to theface of the door.

3.

Door is held open, but not sure on whether the door is close at times. Dooris a nominated exit door and opens inwards against the direction of egress.
Signage should be provided on the back of the door to inform people that theexit door opens towards them.

4.

Door latched side clearance is not compliant with current requirements. Not
applicable when the door remains open.

Low risk
Item 5: Access into Common Area (Rooms 101 – 109)
1.

18

Both entry doors clear opening widths are less than 850mm, but fit for
purpose at 830mm.

Appendix 1 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

High risk
Item 6: Universal Accessible Toilet/Shower Room (Rooms 101 - 104)
1.

Sliding door clear opening width is less than 850mm being only 740mm.

2.

Door rebate is 500mm making it difficult for a person in a wheelchair to open
the door effectively.

3.

Circulation within the room is non-compliant with AS1428.1.

4.

Access to Rooms 101 – 104 + UAT is non-compliant from the courtyard. (doorwidths, circulation, steps and thresholds)

Low risk
Item 7: Internal Stairs
1.

Risers are greater than 5mm difference between successive risers being noncompliant.

2.

Stair tread going is less than 250mm being non-compliant.

3.

Stair handrail only to one side of the stair and is not compliant with AS 1428.1.
(projection at the top and bottom of the stair, height higher than 1m.

4.

Stair is nominated as an exit and is less than 1m clear opening width, being
non-compliant with current NCC.

5.

Balustrade has openings that allow a sphere of 125mm to pass through being
non-compliant with current NCC.

6.

Stair should have emergency lighting for egress.

7.

Gate at the top of the stairs is to be not lockable and should be fixed/lockedin the open position.

8.

Shoes should not be located in the path of travel to the exit door as it willcause a tripping hazard in an emergency.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 1

19

Women’s Prison – Fremantle Prison Tour
1. Single storey heritage building used as part of the prison tours.
2. A publicly used building being a Class 9b building, requiring access to allareas used by the occupants.
3. Class 9b Buildings also fall under the Health (Public Buildings) Regulations
1992, where the Health Regulations over-ride the NCC, being a public building.
4. No way-finding signage provided.
Access Synopsis
External Access1. This building is only accessed through the main Fremantle Prison Entry Gates
that are also subject to this report.
2. Restricted access to within the Women’s Prison Tour building as noted below.
3. Internal Circulation
4. Internally access compliant within the open area outside the cells.
5. No wheelchair access is available to within the cells or office.
High risk

20

1.

Ramp grade through security gates is approx. 1:5 and non-compliant forwheelchair access and as an exit path. No landing at the gates for wheelchair
to stop on a level surface to open the gate. It is to be noted that this security
gate will be managed and only an able bodied person can open it as thelatching devices are non-compliant also.

2.

Steel bar across the gated entry threshold provides a barrier for wheelchair
access and causes a tripping hazard.

3.

Clear opening width of gate is compliant.

4.

Wheelchair access is not available into the Prison Corridor. Two steps form abarrier entry and the threshold is also raised on the internal part.

5.

Wheelchair access into the cells is not available, but a person can access thedoor and view inside to gain the experience.

Appendix 1 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

West Workshops – Used as Museum, Gallery and Store/Workshop
1. Single storey heritage building located within the walls of Fremantle Prison.
Visual Storage or Exhibition Spaces accessed from the Entry Forecourt
adjacent to the Gallery’s, Tailors Workshop can also be accessed off the
Parade Ground by staff only.
2. Predominantly a public building with workshops. The West Workshop (BootShop) is part of the Youth Hostel Association, forming the Dining Area/
Laundry and Sanitary Facilities (separated).
3. Sanitary facilities are only available in the Prison Entry Courtyard.
Access Synopsis
External Access

1. Access is provided for wheelchairs from the Prison Main Gate Courtyard to theprinciple entrance (Museum).
Internal Circulation

2. Wheelchair access is provided from the principle entrance of the Museum,through the Gallery and into the Workshop.
Low risk
Item 1
1.

Secondary entrance and nominated exit has a ramp externally, which has a
non-compliant grades varying from 1:3 to 1:6 for wheelchair access, has a
step at inner door threshold. No handrails fitted etc. Generally not required
to be compliant for wheelchair access, unless access is not available throughfrom the Museum and Gallery.

2.

Ramp grades are non-compliant as an exit also.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 1

21

Low risk
Item 2
1.

Access for staff into Museum Display Rooms was not available, but door leaf
measurement would achieve the required 850mm and be compliant.

Low risk
Item 322

1.

Some doors appear to not provide luminance contrast of not less than 30%.

2.

Controls buttons to open doors should be not higher than 1.2 and should be
not less than 25mm wide.

3.

Where signage is provided, signs should be in braille and tactile for people
with visual impairments.

Appendix 1 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

Low risk
Item 4
1.

Sliding auto-door threshold has damaged concrete surface where it meets thestone flags causing a restriction for wheelchair and tripping hazard.

High risk
Item 5
1.

Door opening between rooms is only 815mm, but fit for purpose.

Low risk
Item 6
1.

Floor mats to not cause restriction to wheelchair access and possibly tripping
hazards.

2.

Signage is not provided to allow a person with a visual impairment to identify
the Museum and Gallery etc.

3.

Hearing Augmentation was not identified to assist people with a hearing
impairment.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 1

23

Workshops East – Tunnel Tours, Function Rooms and Storage
1. Split level single storey building that has multiples of uses - Tunnel Tour– Class 9b, Function Rooms – Carpenters, Blacksmiths and Automotive
Workshops - Class 9b.
2. Tunnel Tour and Function Rooms are publically used and also fall under the
Health (Public Biuilding) Regulations 1992.
3. Liquor Licencing approvals will also apply where alcohol is available.
External Access - Tunnel Tours and Function Rooms

1. This building is located within the grounds of the Prison and access from themain entrance to the Function Room and Tunnel Tour have grades that areexcessive for a person with a disability.
2. The pathway from the main gate includes tripping and wheelchair barriers thatwould affect access.
3. Door thresholds are non-compliant for access for a wheelchair restricting
access.
4. Now way-finding signage provided.
Interernal Circulation –1. Function Rooms (Automotive and Carpentry)
2. Access has restrictions within and throughout.
3. No sanitary facilities for people with a disability or ambulant disability.
Tunnel Tour (Stores and Well)

1. Non-compliant restricted access to within as noted and also from the entrance
door to the internal floor area and no access down to tunnel tour. Accessdown to the tunnel could fall into the NCC D3.4 Exemption for access as thearea could pose a health and safety risk to a person with a disability. Premises
standard has provision to apply for ‘Unjustifiable Hardship’, but unfortunately inWestern Australia there is no facility to grant this provision.
2. No UAT or Ambulant Toilets provided for people with disabilities.
Carpenters, Blacksmiths and Automotive Workshops-

1. Non-compliant access to all areas including split levels.
2. No UAT or Ambulant Toilets provided for people with disabilities.

24

Appendix 1 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

Function Rooms
Medium risk
Item 1
1.

Inspection and Drain Covers uneven bitumen where repairs have been made.
Constant incline (grade) providing restrictions for a person with a disability.
Resurfacing and managing access for people with a disability would alleviate
the problem. Altering grades and levels would require heritage approvals andlikely not be supported. Grade is generally compliant at 1:20 as a gradedwalkway.

High risk
Item 2
1.

Principle entrance sliding door does not have a compliant latching handle toopen and close the door.

2.

Threshold ramp is also non-compliant to allow a person in a wheelchair to becapable of opening the door.

3.

Door opening force is greater than 20N.

4.

Sliding door runner/channel is a physical barrier for wheelchair access and ahazard for able bodied people.

5.

Steel plate ramp landing does not lie flat and true to the sub-floor causing
vertical upstands significantly greater than 3mm or 5mm if rounded orbevelled.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 1

25

Low risk
Item 3
1.

Internal sliding gate between entrance passage and the main function area
has a sliding door channel where the sliding door runs causing a physicalbarrier for wheelchair access and a hazard for able bodies.

2.

Floor finishes within the function rooms are uneven in areas where cracks
have appeared, also there are non-compliances between transitions of rooms
and steel plates rising above the concrete finish.

Low risk
Item 426

1.

Stairs leading to the sanitary facilities and exit, do not have compliant risersand goings in accordance with AS 1428.1. Successive risers and goings
should have a tolerance of only 5mm.

2.

Non-slip, luminance contrasting nosing’s are not provided.

3.

Stairs require handrails to both sides in accordance with AS 1428.1.

4.

TGSIs to be provided to the top and bottom of stairs.

Appendix 1 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

High risk
Item 5
1.

Male and Female sanitary facilities required to have an Ambulant Toilet
Cubicle in accordance with AS 1428.1.

2.

No UAT provided for people with a disability. Note where showers areprovided for able bodied people, a showering facility for a person with adisability is required to be provided.

Low risk
Item 61.

Ramp serving the toilets and exit at the rear side of the building does not meetthe requirements of AS1428.1.

2.

Grade is acceptable for use.

3.

Width of ramp is less than compliant 1m.

4.

Vertical upstands unprotected causing hazards for a wheelchair.

5.

No kerb rail fitted.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 127

Tunnel TourLow risk
Item 1
1.

Access road grade is steeper than 1:20 walkway, generally requiring handrails
etc. in accordance with AS 1428.1.

2.

Threshold ramp external to Principle entrance door is non-compliant with
AS1428.1.

3.

External threshold ramp is non-compliant at 1:5.

4.

Signage is not provided to allow a person with a visual impairment to identify
the Tunnel Tour.

Low risk
Item 228

1.

Internal ramp does not have a trafficable surface that allows a wheelchair totravel over freely. Openings in the grates are greater than 13mm in diameter/wide. Non-compliant with AS 1428.1.

2.

Ramp kerb rails are non-compliant with AS 1428.1.

3.

No TGSIs are provided at the top and bottom of the ramp.

4.

Vertical upstand greater than 3mm at the door threshold and the bottom of
the ramp. Ramp grade is compliant at approx. 1:14.

Appendix 1 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

High risk
Item 3
1.

Two handrails in compliance with AS 1428.1 are not provided. Note: current
clear opening width is less than 1m and additional handrail will make the exit
width compliance worse.

2.

No TGSIs provided.

3.

Clearance between handrail and wall should be not less than 50mm.

Medium risk
Item 4
1.

Access down to the Tunnels is not available for people with a disability.

2.

Access walkways have non-compliant surfaces or circulation for people with adisability in accordance with AS 1428.1.

3.

No UAT or Ambulant Toilet provided for people with a disability.

4.

Hearing Augmentation was not identified to assist people with a hearing
impairment.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 1

29

Store – (Carpentry)
Low risk
Item 1
1.

Entrance door does not have a compliant door latching system for a personwith a disability.
2. Floor level is graded and restrictive for a person with a disability.
3. Access into the Office is non-compliant for a person with a disability.
4. No Handrails to steps.
5. No TGSIs provided.
6. No non-slip luminance contrasting nosings to treads and landing.
7. No Ramped access.
8. Door clear opening width into internal offices are non-compliant for access.
9. Grade of ramp between split levels is non-compliant and does not have
handrails, kerb rails TGSIs etc.
10. No UAT or Ambulant Toilet.
11. Risk is currently low as it is not used. If area is to be accessed by the publicthen the risk is high.

Store – (Metal Workshop)
Medium risk
Item 1
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

30

Gate access does not comply for people with a disability.
Gate is located on a ramp without level landing to access the gate latch.
Grade of ramp between split levels is non-compliant and does not have
handrails, kerb rails TGSIs etc.
Gate latching device is non-compliant for a person with a disability.
Internal room access doors are non-compliant for wheelchair access.
No UAT or Ambulant Toilet.

Appendix 1 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

8 The Terrace – Vacant Office Use Building
1. Two storey heritage building used as an office – Class 5.
2. NCC requires the ground floor to be accessible from the boundary to andwithin the ground floor. Also, the second storey to be accessible if the total
floor area is greater than 200m2.
Access Synopsis
External Access1. Although there are some minor non-compliances, generall access to and within
the building can be made compliant/acceptable with some minor remedial
works.
Internal Circulation

1. Restricted access to and within all rooms to GF and no access to upper floors.
Medium risk
Item 1
1.

Gate latch is located 100mm above the required max height of 1100mm.

2.

Pathway at gate threshold and where it meets the veranda is uneven anddifficult for wheelchair transition.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 1

31

High risk
Item 2
1.

Principle entrance door has a threshold that would make wheelchair traversing
difficult.

2.

Door furniture is located at 1400mm above the finished floor, where 1100mm
is the max allowed.

3.

Door furniture is not compliant with AS 1428.1.

High risk
Item 3
1.

Light switches etc. are located 1450mm above the finished floor being noncompliant with AS 1428.1.

High risk
Item 432

1.

All doorways internally do not meet the requirements of AS 1428.1 for door
width, door circulation and door furniture.

2.

Steps in the floor prevent wheelchair circulation to all areas of the ground floor.

3.

Rear door into rear yard is non-compliant as noted also.

Appendix 1 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

High risk
Item 5
1.

Three showers are provided in the external buildings. One toilet pan isprovided to serve the whole building.

2.

Bathroom with toilet pan and WHB located on the 1st floor.

3.

No UAT with showering facility provided for people with a disability.

High risk
Item 6
4.

Stairs serving 1st Floor are non-compliant for access.

5.

Stair does not have handrails to both sides.

6.

Existing Handrail is non-compliant profile with AS 1428.1.

7.

Stair width is only 850mm wide, making a stair lift difficult to fit.

8.

Stair tread going is less than 250mm.

9.

Handrail does not extend as required by AS1428.1

10. TGSIs not fitted.
11. Non-slip stair nosings with a luminance contrast of not less than 30% notprovided.
12. Balustrade height is non-compliant to stair and landing. JMG recommendthat the balustrade height be made compliant and not be less than 1m.
Safety Issue.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 1

33

10, 12 and 14 The Terrace – Fremantle Prison Main Administration and
Security Buildings
1. Two storey heritage buildings used for administration and security of theFremantle Prison.
2. NCC requires the ground floor to be accessible from the boundary to andwithin the building. Also, the second storey to be accessible if the total
floor area is greater than 200m2.
3. Ground floor access between buildings requires a person to exit one
building and re-enter the other building from a separate door. Access isavailable between buildings over the Main Entrance Arch via non-compliant
stairs for able bodied people only.
Access Synopsis
External Access

1. Access to within the buildings is from within the Main Entrance Courtyard,
where access can be provided from the boundary to within each builingdirectly. Access is not fully compliant and ramps will be required in most
instances.
Intrernal Circulation

1. Restricted access to and within all rooms to GF and no access to upper floors.
High risk
Item 134

1.

Gate latches is located 100mm above the required max height of 1100mm.

2.

Pathways at gate threshold throughout have uneven surfaces difficult forwheelchairs to traverse. Some gate thresholds have non-compliant surfaces.

3.

Several doorways located on the external walls of the building require ramps
to be fitted for wheelchair access.

4.

Two access gates from the side of the front gardens have gravel paved parts
that are non-compliant for wheelchair access, if pathway was required to be
used for access for the public.

5.

Access through the Main Archway to the internal Courtyard has some unevensurfaces but generally acceptable.

Appendix 1 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

High risk
Item 2
1.

All entrances into the Admin and Security parts of the building do not havecompliant ramps to allow wheelchair access to within the buildings.

2.

Entry door clear opening width are not compliant with AS 1428.1. Doors are
required to be not less than 850mm clear opening width.

High risk
Item 3
1.

Female and Male Staff toilet does not have any signage for people with avision impairment.

2.

No UAT provided for staff other than leaving the building and travelling to theother side of the courtyard or use the public UAT external to the building.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 1

35

Medium risk
Item 4
1.

Internal doors do not have compliant clear opening width, door circulation on
the latched side of the door and door furniture on some doors, being knobs
and at a non-compliant height.

High risk
Item 5: South Stairs (from 14 The Terrace) - non-compliant for people with adisability.

36

1.

Only one handrail provided. Handrail is not continuous throughout the flight.

2.

Balustrade height is non-compliant to stair, being less than 865mm. JMG
recommend that balustrade be made compliant for safety reasons.

3.

Stair width is less than the required minimum for an exit, adding additional
handrails would reduce the width further.

4.

No non-slip nosings with a minimum luminance contrast of 30% provided tothe tread nosings.

5.

A ‘required’ exit stair should not have winders within the design. A ‘nonrequired’ stair should have not more than 3 winders. The stair has 4 winders
and the handrail is not fitted to assist with transition through the noncompliant mid-winder section of the stair. Note: non-compliant winders in two
sections of the total stair.

Appendix 1 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

Medium risk
Item 6: 1st Floor
1.

Door clear opening width, door circulation, door furniture height and type are
not compliant with AS 1428.1. Passage width are also non-compliant forwheelchair access.

2.

Note: Lift would be required under the current NCC is the 1st Floor area isgreater than 200m2.

High risk
Item 7: North Stair (10 The Terrace)
1.

Only one handrail provided. Handrail is not continuous throughout the flight.

2.

Stair risers greater than max 190mm (220 - 240mm). Safety Issue.

3.

Successive risers have a difference greater than 5mm.

4.

Tread going is less than 250mm.

5.

Stair width is less than the required minimum for an exit, adding additional
handrails would reduce the width further.

6.

No non-slip nosings with a minimum luminance contrast of 30% provided tothe tread nosings.

7.

Bulkhead height is required to be not less than 2m (1.612mm measured).

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 1

37

Low risk
Item 8:
1.

Changes in the floor levels between rooms are highlighted with chevron tapeand signage to warn people of the level changes. Wheelchairs can transit but
may be difficult to a person with weak upper body strength.

High risk
Item 9: Ground Floor UAT and Accessible Shower and Store Props for Tours.

38

1.

Sliding door has a clear opening width of 800mm (850mm required)

2.

Door furniture is non-compliant for a person with a disability.

3.

WHB is located in the toilet pan free circulation space.

4.

Grabrails are non-compliant to allow a person to transfer effectively.

5.

WHB height is 765mm (800mm minimum required)

6.

Mirror is fixed 100mm above compliant height 900mm.

7.

Shower does not have a fixed drop-down seat for a person with a disability.

8.

Passage width to enter UAT is only 1.050mm (1280mm required)

Appendix 1 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

High risk
Item 10
1.

Door threshold into 10 The Terrace from 12 The Terrace, is non-compliant forwheelchair transition.

2.

Door clear opening width is only 750mm, being non-compliant for wheelchairpassage.

3.

Door furniture height being higher than 1100mm (1350mm measured).

4.

Internal door clear opening widths are approx. 740mm, being non-compliant
for wheelchair access.

5.

Knob type door furniture is non-compliant for a person with a disability to
grasp and operate.

High risk
Item 11: Toilet
6.

No UAT or Ambulant Toilet provided for people with a disability and ambulant
disability.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 1

39

High risk
Item 12: Stairs to 1st Floor - 10 The Terrace.
1.

Only one handrail provided. Handrail is not continuous throughout the flight.

2.

Handrail does not serve the full stair flight and not continuous.

3.

Tread going is less than 250mm.

4.

Stair width is less than the required minimum for an exit, adding additional
handrails would reduce the width further.

5.

No non-slip nosings with a minimum luminance contrast of 30% provided tothe tread nosings.

6.

Balustrade height is non-compliant to stair, being less than 865mm. JMG
recommend that balustrade be made compliant for safety reasons. Safety
Issue.

7.

Balustrade allows a sphere of 125mm to pass through being non-compliant
and should be made compliant for safety. Safety Issue.

Medium risk
Item 13: 1st Floor

40

1.

Door clear opening width, door circulation, door furniture height and type are
not compliant with AS 1428.1. Passage width are also non-compliant forwheelchair access.

2.

Note: Lift would be required under the current NCC is the 1st Floor area isgreater than 200m2.

Appendix 1 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

Gatehouse Buildings – Managed and used as part of the Fremantle Prison.
1. Multiple heritage single storey buildings with different uses being Class 6
Café, Class 6 Shop, Class 9b Museum (x2) and Prisoner Reception and
Search Tour, Class 5 First Aid, Class 10a Plant Room.
2. Each Class 6, 9b and 5 Building is required to be accessible for people witha disability. Class 10a Plant Room can be exempted due to the health andsafety implications.
Access Synopsis
External Access

1. Wheelchair acess retrictions apply to several of the buildings.
Internal Circulation

1. Internal circulation is restricted to all areas in the Shop, Prisoners Reception
and Search, First Aid.

First Aid RoomHigh risk
Item 1
1.

Door clear opening width is 810mm and acceptable for a person in awheelchair being managed.

2.

Door stepped threshold provides a barrier for the wheelchair to cross.

3.

External mat is loose and forming a potential tripping hazard.

4.

Internal door circulation is non-compliant with AS 1428.1.

5.

Doors do not provide a minimum luminance contrast of 30% with frame orwall for a person with a vision impairment.

6.

Door furniture is non-compliant for a person with a disability.

7.

Internal light switches are located greater than 1100mm.

8.

Signage is not provided to allow a person with a visual impairment to identify
the First Aid Room.

9.

Hearing Augmentation was not identified to assist people with a hearing
impairment.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 1

41

Plant Room – Pump
Low risk
Item 1
1.

Access is not required to Plant Room due to the risk of injury to a person witha disability.

Café
High risk
Item 142

1.

Principal Entrance into the Café is 790mm clear opening width and required to
be not less than 850mm to be compliant with current AS 1428.1.

2.

Signage is not provided to allow a person with a visual impairment to identify
the Cafe.

Appendix 1 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

High risk
Item 2
1.

Internal ramp grade is approx. 1:9 being non-compliant with AS1428.1 for a
step ramp.

2.

Handrails are located approx. 100mm outside the ramp free circulation space,
restricting the use of the handrail in some instances.

3.

Decals on the entry glass door do not provide a solid transparent contrasting
line, being not less than 75mm wide for the full width of the door.

4.

Loose mats to the ramp are non-compliant being a material that can cause atripping hazard.

Gift Shop
High risk
Item 11.

Principle Entrance into the Shop is 800mm clear opening width.

2.

Door threshold has a 40mm vertical upstand restricting access to within the
shop for a person with a disability in a wheelchair.

3.

External mat is loose and forming a potential tripping hazard.

4.

Internally there is a threshold ramp providing ramped access of the threshold tothe finished floor of the shop. Lip from within to traverse the ramp is severe andshould be reduced to not more than 5mm with a rounded or bevelled edge.

5.

Internal carpet mat is loose and forming a tripping hazard.

6.

Signage is not provided to allow a person with a visual impairment to identify
the Shop.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 1

43

Low risk
Item 2
1.

Switches, telephone, Fremantle Feedback Portal etc. are located above
1100mm (1300mm - 1400+mm measured).

Medium risk
Item 3
1.

Internally there are is a part of the floor that there is exposed concrete where awheelchair would find it difficult to traverse and forms a tripping hazard.

High risk
Item 4

44

1.

Access to the office and toilet is not compliant for wheelchair access.

2.

No ramp and door width and circulation on the latched side of the door is
non-compliant.

3.

No UAT provided for staff other than sharing the public use UAT.

4.

Width of access to area behind counter is 690mm being non-compliant forwheelchair access. Transition between timber floor use and carpet is also a
potential barrier for wheelchair access.

Appendix 1 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

Visitor Centre
High risk
Item 11.

Principal Entrance into the Visitor Centre is 840mm clear opening width and fit
for purpose.

2.

Door threshold has a 60mm vertical upstand restricting access to within thecentre for a person with a disability in a wheelchair.

3.

External mat is loose and forming a potential tripping hazard.

4.

Internally there is not a threshold ramp allowing ramped access over thethreshold to the finished floor within.

5.

Internal carpet mat is loose and forming a tripping hazard.

6.

Signage is not provided to allow a person with a visual impairment to identify
the Visitor Centre.

7.

Hearing Augmentation was not identified to assist people with a hearing
impairment.

Medium risk
Item 2
1.

Second Entrance into the Visitor Centre is 740mm clear opening width andnon-compliant for wheelchair access. Only one of the entrances is to becompliant for access.

2.

Door threshold has a 60mm vertical upstand restricting access to within themuseum for a person with a disability in a wheelchair.

3.

External mat is loose and forming a potential tripping hazard.

4.

Internal carpet mat is loose and forming a tripping hazard.

5.

Door circulation between doorways in the porch area do not provide compliant
circulation for a wheelchair and the width of the internal door is only 745mm.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 1

45

Convict Depot
Medium risk
Item 11.

Ramp providing access to the Convict Depot entry door does not have acompliant landing and grade of approx. 1:6 and also non-compliant as an exit
path.

2.

External mat is loose and forming a potential tripping hazard.

3.

Internal carpet mat is loose and forming a tripping hazard.

4.

Signage is not provided to allow a person with a visual impairment to identify
the Convict Depot.

5.

Hearing Augmentation was not identified to assist people with a hearing
impairment.

High risk
Item 2
1.

46

Balustrade within the viewing area is less than 1m in height. JMG recommendthat the height be made compliant.

Appendix 1 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

New Prisoner Arrival/Search TourHigh risk
Item 11.

Principal Entrance door to Administration is 790mm clear opening width being
non-compliant with AS 1428.1.

2.

Door threshold has two separate vertical upstands greater than 5mm
restricting access to within the part of the building for a person with adisability in a wheelchair.

3.

External mat is loose and forming a potential tripping hazard.

4.

Internally there is not a threshold ramp allowing ramped access over thethreshold to the finished floor within.

5.

Internal carpet mat is loose and forming a tripping hazard.

6.

Signage is not provided to allow a person with a visual impairment to identify
the Prison Tour.

7.

Hearing Augmentation was not identified to assist people with a hearing
impairment. Compliant signage to be provided if available.

High risk
Item 2
8.

Internal circulation for wheelchair is non-compliant as there is a step at thedoor threshold between the reception part and the showers, the path of the
tour. Door clear opening width is 800mm and can be managed if a landing
and ramp provided.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 1

47

High risk
Item 3
1.

Rear door from showers to the inner courtyard, has a compliant clear opening
width greater than 850mm. Door circulation on the latched side is noncompliant but door is managed by the Tour Guide.

2.

Door threshold drops off approx. 120mm, a landing and ramp is required toensure compliant access is available to the early part of the tour.

Public Toilets
Medium risk
Item 1: Male and Female Toilets

48

1.

Braille and Tactile Signage to be provided identifying the sex of each facility.

2.

No Ambulant Toilet provided in each facility.

3.

External loose mats can be a tripping hazard.

Appendix 1 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

High risk
Item 2: UAT
1.

Entry door to the airlock has a threshold that restricts wheelchair access andshould not have a vertical upstand greater than 5mm is rounded or bevelled.

2.

External loose mats can be a tripping hazard.

3.

UAT Sliding door allows 840mm clear opening width, but has non-compliant
door circulation on the latched side of the door from both sides.

4.

Door handle and latching device are located above the required 1100mm.

5.

Centre line of UAT pan is required to be fitted no greater than 460mm fromthe side wall to allow a person in a wheelchair to reach and grab the grabrail.
Existing pan centreline is 510mm from the side wall.

6.

No back-rest provided to the toilet pan.

7.

Toilet paper dispenser is located in a non-compliant location.

8.

Grabrails should have no objects located with 600mm above the grabrail.

9.

Toilet Cistern control buttons to project above the cistern.

10. Toilet seat to be capable of withstanding 150kgs.
11. WHB is less than 800mm but fit for purpose.
12. Mirror height is non-compliant but fit for purpose being angled.
13. No shelf provided adjacent to the WHB.

High risk
Item 3: Baby Changing Facility
14. Door serving access into the Baby Changing Facility is only 780mm clear
opening width with no door circulation on the latched side of the door, being
non-compliant.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 1

49

New Division – Fremantle Prison Tour
1. Three storey heritage building used as part of prison tours and functions.
2. The building is classified as a Class 9b building, requiring access for people
with a disability to all areas able bodied people have access.
3. Class 9b building falls under the Health (Public Buildings) Regulations 1992,
where the Health Reg’s over-ride the NCC, being a public building.
4. No way-finding signage provided.
Access Synopsis
External Access1. Prison Tours access the whole perimeter of this builiding and approach from
the Main Gate and from upper levels, where there are restictions on access forpeople with a disability.
2. Tour access would need to be managed when the tour includes access to the
New Division from the East Bank, Hospital, Tunnel Tour and East Workshops.
Discrimination is to be considered.
Internal Circulation

1. Ground floor areas outside cells are generally compliant for access.
2. No lift access to upper levels and all stairs have restrictions for people with adisability and safety aspects as noted.
3. UAT located in a separate building.

External Areas
High risk
Item 150

1.

Principal entrance ground surface where there are a mixture of materials,
provide uneven surfaces and tripping hazards. Wheelchair transition will beaffected.

2.

Ramped access into the building has a grade of 1:6 and non-compliant as anaccessible ramp and an exit path.

3.

Ramp does not have any kerb rails or sides to prevent a wheelchair fromrunning off the ramp.

4.

Upstands where the metal ramp sheeting abuts the floor finish provide
upstands greater then 5mm if rounded or bevelled. Ramp upstands cause
tripping hazards as do the gate stop/bolt receiver in the floor.

Appendix 1 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

Low risk
Item 2
1.

Stair going has a difference between steps of 35mm where 5mm is the
maximum allowed as a tolerance in the NCC.

2.

No luminance contrasting nosing strips provided to the stair treads.

3.

Only one handrail provided – Health Reg’s require two.

4.

Gap between concrete and chequer plate part of ramp has a hazard that
could allow a high heel to be trapped, causing an injury and preventing theexit ramp from be effective in an emergency.

Medium risk
Item 3
1.

Pathway from rear steps includes service covers that do not fit correctly
and protrude above the finished surface causing wheelchair restriction andpedestrian tripping hazards.

2.

Chained off part should be provided with a luminance contrast of not lessthan 30%, to prevent people walking into them.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 1

51

High risk
Item 452

1.

External Stairs leading up to East Bank, Hospital, Tunnel Tour and East
Workshops

2.

First riser ascending, is approx. 100mm, and the next riser is approx. 140mm
being significantly greater than acceptable 5mm between successive stairtreads.

3.

Stair nosings do not have non-slip luminance contrasting nosings of not lessthan 30%.

4.

No TGSIs are provided.

5.

Handrails are not in line with the stair minimum width where a person requiring
to use the handrail has to reach/stretch, losing support and confidence insome respects.

6.

Timber handrails have not been maintained, where splinters can cause injury
and harm.

7.

Gate at the top of the steps does not have a compliant landing.

8.

Surface water drain cover has openings that will cause a tripping hazard forpeople with high heels (approx. 18mm wide).

Appendix 1 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

High risk
Item 5
1.

Rear Gate forming part of the New Division Tour has a padlocked gate that is
managed by the Tour Guide.

2.

No landing provided at the door.

3.

Ramped access through the gate is provided, but the ramp is narrow on thelatched side of the gate and a wheelchair could run off the edge easily.

4.

Ramp has metal fatigue and should be replaced with a compliant ramp.

5.

No signage provided for wayfinding.

6.

Door circulation on the other side of the gate is non-compliant, but acceptable
if the gate is managed. Discrimination is to be considered.

High risk
Item 6
1.

Access through the door is not available for a person with a disability in awheelchair as there is a step down. It is assumed that this door is not part of
the tours. Discrimination is to be considered.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 1

53

High risk
Item 7
1.

Rear Exercise Yard includes service covers that do not fit correctly andprotrude above the finished surface, some grids have openings causing
wheelchair restriction and pedestrian tripping hazards.

2.

Access under the covered area has wheelchair upstand greater than 5mm
rounded or bevelled.

High risk
Item 81.

Wheelchair access through the central access door from the exercise yard
has a threshold with no ramp. Access for people with a disability may be
managed. Discrimination is to be considered.

Internal Circulation
Low risk
Item 1
1.

54

Principal Entrance door clear opening width is 800mm, but Tour Guide canopen the second door to ensure compliant access is provided as a managed
situation.

Appendix 1 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

High risk
Item 2: Multiple Stairs serving each level of the building.
2.

No lift access provided for people with a disability to Level 2 and 3, NCC
requires access to all areas normally used by the occupants.

3.

Stair risers are required to be opaque for vision impaired people.

4.

Stair riser greater than 190mm (215mm measured) at the upper landing.

5.

Risers are greater than 5mm difference between successive risers being noncompliant.

6.

Stair treads are less than 250mm going in several locations.

7.

Stair handrails are greater than the max require of 1m, and do not extend incompliance with AS 1428.1.

8.

Stair is nominated as an exit and is less than 1m clear opening width, being
non-compliant with current NCC.

9.

Balustrades to stairs and balconies have openings that allow a sphere of
125mm to pass through being non-compliant with current NCC. Safety Issue.

10. Balustrades have horizontal climbable rails on upper level allowing a child toclimb the balustrade and fall more than 4m. Safety Issue.
11. Balustrade height on stair is less than 865mm. Safety Issue.
12. TGSIs not provided.

High risk
Item 3: Sanitary Facilities
1.

There is no UAT located within the building for people with a disability. A UAT
is located in a nearby building, but it is discriminative to not have a facility
within the building as able bodied people. Discrimination is to be considered.

2.

No Ambulant Toilet provided for a person with an ambulant disability.

3.

Compliant Braille and Tactile Signage is not provided to the sanitary facilities.

4.

Way finding signage to be provided from within to the UAT in a separatebuilding.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 1

55

Canteen
1. Single storey buildings used for the temporary contractors undertaking
building repairs within the Fremantle Site. Building has a UAT that is usedfrom other buildings in the area.
2. Principally the building Classification is Class 5 offices, but part is being
used as a store for the builders when on site.
3. Access into the building is not available for people with a disability as there
are no ramps serving the entrance doorways.
High risk
Item 1: Universal Accessible Toilet (UAT)1.

Door clear opening width is 780mm, being difficult to allow a wheelchair toaccess the room.

2.

WHB is located within 300mm of the door leaf, but fit for purpose.

3.

Top of WHB less than 800mm off the finished floor, but fit for purpose.

4.

Mirror height is non-compliant, but the provision of a separate mirror and thebottom of the mirror to be not higher than 900mm off the finished floor.

5.

Centre of the toilet pan is 500mm form the side wall, an offset wast may set
the pan back to 450-460mm.

6.

Front of the toilet pan is greater than 800mm from the back wall, but is fit for
purpose.

7.

Grabrails are non-compliant where a single continuous grabrail should be
provided.

8.

No back rest provided to the pan.

9.

Door does not have luminance contrast to the frame/architrave or the wall fora person with a visual impairment.

10. Office internal door width and door circulation for wheelchair access is noncompliant with the current standard AS 1428.1. Door opening widths are
750mm only.

56

Appendix 1 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

Main Cell Block – Fremantle Prison Tour
1. Four storey heritage building used as part of the prison tours.
2. A publicly used building being a Class 9b building, requiring access to allareas used by the occupants.
3. Class 9b Buildings also fall under the Health (Public Buildings) Regulations
1992, where the Health Reg’s over-ride the NCC, being a public building.
4. No way-finding signage provided.
5. No lifts provided to upper levels, if a lift were to be provided wheelchaircirculation on upper levels is restricted and circulation would be noncompliant and therefore the benefits to provide a lift would be low.
Access Synopsis
External Access• Prison Tours access Main Cell Block from the Main Gate and access for people
with a disability has restrictions as mentioned previously, in relation to services
and finished surfaces on accessways, but also to within the building at different
parts.
• Wheelchair access would need to be managed to the Main Cell Block Exercise
Yards and Gallows. Discrimination is to be considered.
• Access to within the Gallows Building is not compliant for a wheelchair.
Internal Circulation• Circulation throughout the ground floor between each Division is generally
acceptable, but access to and from the rear yards is restricted and should beconsidered for people with a disability.
• There is no lift access to upper levels of each Division, where there are different
use rooms that are not provided on ground floor such are Crown Theatre,
Chapels (1st and 2nd floor), Library Office and Workroom. This could beseen as discriminative and should be considered further to reduce the risk oflitigation, as the person with a disability does not get the same experience asothers.
• Stairs leading to all levels of the building do not meet the requirements fora person with a disability and compliance with the NCC for safety, having
balustrades lower then the minimum measure of the NCC.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 1

57

High risk
Item 1: Stair to Commissariat
1.

Tripping hazard at the top landing. Safety Issue.

2.

Isolate stair riser greater than 190mm (205mm measured) at the upper landing.

3.

Risers are greater than 5mm difference between successive risers being noncompliant.

4.

Stair treads are less than 250mm going in several locations.

5.

Handrail required to both sides of stairs in accordance with AS 1428.1.

6.

Stair nosings to have non-slip luminance contrasting strips.

7.

No TGSIs provided at the top and bottom.

8.

Door threshold into the Commissariat have upstands that restrict wheelchair
access, but it is to be noted that there is no lift provided to allow a person witha disability in a wheelchair access to this lower level.

External Areas around Main Cell Block
High risk
Item 1
1.

58

Surface areas of the bitumen is in poor condition in isolated areas throughout,especially so where service trenches have been excavated, backfilled andpatched with bitumen or other materials.

Appendix 1 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

High risk
Item 2
1.

Ramp serving one western entrance (north) into the building, used for tours,
has a non-compliant grade and no landing at the door. Access is available
when assisted, but the person assisting could be injured where a larger
person is being assisted.

Medium risk
Item 31.

Ramp serving access to the GF Office part of the Main Cell Block does nothave a landing at the top of the ramp.

2.

Door threshold approx. 100mm upstand, restricts wheelchair access throughthe door.

Medium risk
Item 4
1.

Additional western entrance (south) into the gf part of the building, has alarge raised inspection chamber cover restricting access for a person with adisability and also forming a tripping hazard.

2.

Door has a threshold ramp that does not meet the current AS1428.1
requirements.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 159Medium risk
Item 5
1.

South Elevation Kitchen accessway has a door clear opening width of 825mm.

2.

Approx. grade of 1:5, non-compliant for access and as a required exit.

Low risk
Item 61.

Surface water grating, has excessive openings that will be a hazard for any
person throughout this area.

Main Entry to Main Cell Block and Division Exercise Yards
Medium risk
Item 1: 3 Division Main Entry (North)2.

60

Loose mats form wheelchair transition barriers and tripping hazards for ablebodied.

Appendix 1 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

Medium risk
Item 2
1.

Internal gate width is less than 850mm, but second gate can be managed toallow wheelchairs to pass through.

2.

Passage through the rear door to the Exercise Yard has a raised threshold,restricting access over the threshold.

Low risk
Item 3
1.

Access between 4 Division Yard and 3 Division Yard is restricted to a 670mm
clear opening width doorway and a raised step.

High risk
Item 4: Special Handling Unit Yard and 4 Division Yard
1.

Multiple areas throughout Exercise Yards have a number of Inspection
Chamber covers, surface water drainage channels and a mixture of finishingmaterials that have differing levels of finish and projection when abutting eachother, causing tripping hazards and restrictions

2.

Threshold access into Division has tripping hazards and wheelchair transition
restrictions. No door circulation on the latched side of the door. Cage opening
less than 850mm. Assumed managed and discrimination to be considered.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 1

61

High risk
Item 5: 3 Division Yard
1.

Chequered plate ramp only 810mm wide and having no sides allowing awheelchair to run off the side. Assumed managed access.

Low risk
Item 6: Door between 3 Division Yard and Arts Centre Yard
1.

Clear opening width when the door is fully opened is 830mm andmanageable. Also a nominated exit path.

High risk
Item 7: Access between Art Centre and Gallows Refractory

62

1.

Gate clear opening width is less than 850mm for wheelchair access.

2.

Door circulation on the latched side is less than 530mm.

3.

Grade of ramps down to the gate and at threshold on the Gallows side allow
access, but only managed access.

4.

Metal Stormwater cover has horizontal openings of 34mm, where AS 1428.1
restrict this to only 13mm where the gratings are orientated so that the long
dimension is transverse to the dominant direction of travel. Grating is also a
Safety in Design issue for people with heels.

Appendix 1 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

Low risk
Item 8: Door from Arts Centre Yard to Rear of 2 Division Yard
1.

Door clear opening width only 780mm.

2.

Threshold step at the door restricting wheelchair access.

Low risk
Item 9: Main Entry to Art Centre
1.

Door clear opening width is 840mm and fit for purpose.

2.

Paving does not extend past the door on the latched side to allow wheelchair
access to the door handle.

Note: It is assumed that the door is managed by the Tour Guide and all Tour
Guides have to be able bodied to undertake their duties. Fremantle Prison
Management to assess for discrimination against staff.

High risk
Item 10
1.

Wheelchair access to within the rooms is not available due to the restrictive
door widths.

2.

Access through to Cells is part of the tour and the doorway through although
not accessed has a step restricting wheelchair passage.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 1

63

High risk
Item 11
1.

Rear entry and tour exit door is only 760mm door leaf restricting wheelchair
access.

Low risk
Item 12: Door between Arts Centre Yard and 2 Division Yard
1.

64

Clear opening width of the door when in the fully openable position is 820mm
and manageable. Also a nominated exit path.

Appendix 1 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

High risk
Item 13: Gallows Entry (East)
1.

No landing at the bottom of the door when the door is closed. Note: Door ismanaged. Room is not accessed until the door is open.

2.

When the door is open the bottom landing width does not meet therequirements of the NCC and required to be not less than 750mm. Externalarea can be raised to help resolve all ramp, stair level changes and resolve theopen grating.

3.

Stair risers are greater than 5m tolerance in successive steps being 15mm
approx.

4.

Stair goings are greater than 5m tolerance in successive treads being 20mm
approx.

5.

No handrails provided and required to each side.

6.

No TGSIs provided.

7.

Non-slip luminance contrasting strip at the landing is confusing to a personwith visual impairment.

High risk
Item 14: Gallows Entry (West)
1.

Loose mat internally provides a tripping hazard.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 1

65Medium risk
Item 15: Door from Gallows to 3 Division (Tour path)
1.

Door circulation on the latched side of the door does not meet therequirements of AS1428.1. It is assumed that the door is managed by the
Tour Guide.

2.

Door threshold has a change in level that is restrictive to a person with adisability.

Low risk
Item 16: Access to 3 Division and 2 Division (High Security) Yards

66

1.

Most door width do not meet the requirements of AS 1428.1 and restrict
wheelchair access. Door from Gallows walkway provides 840mm clear
opening width that is fit for purpose, but stepped landing provides restrictive
access, but can be resolved to allow access to provide the experience if partof a tour.

2.

Stepped thresholds restrict access between yards in some instances.

Appendix 1 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

Medium/High risk
Item 17: 2 Division Main Entry (South)
1.

Inspection Chamber cover and differing material finished, provide tripping
hazards and wheelchair restricted transition into the building.

2.

Threshold ramp grade does not met the requirements of AS1428.1. Max
grade 1:8, actual 1:5.7approx.

3.

It is assumed that the doors are managed.

High risk
Item 18: Access from 2 Division to 2 Division Yard
1.

Access for people with a disability is not available through this doorway
is non-compliant. Stepped threshold being restrictive and gate width issignificantly less than 850mm, door circulation between doorways is restricted
and latched side clearance is less than 530mm.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 1

67

High risk
Item 19: 2 Division Yard
1.

Open channels run throughout the 2 Division Yard and are restrictive anddangerous for a person with a disability including able bodied people. Severe
drop off zones from Inspection Chamber covers.

2.

Bitumen has deteriorated in isolated areas providing restrictive access andtripping hazards.

High risk
Item 20: Openings in the security wall between 2 Division Yard and 1 Division
Yard – Division 1 Yard 1 and 1a1.

Openings have restrictive access less than 850mm being only 680mm.

2.

Non-compliant ramps provided between each area and non-compliant
landings.

3.

No handrails or upstands to prevent a wheelchair from running off the sides.

4.

Grades are 1:6 and not acceptable as an accessible pathway.

Medium risk
Item 21: Division Yard Ablutions
1.

68

Access to the external Ablutions Facility is not compliant for a person witha disability. Gate opening width is less than 800mm, and no turning spacewithin.

Appendix 1 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

Low risk
Item 22: Kitchen Access to 1 Division Yard
1.

Kitchen has a restrictive width of 760mm through the single door, but second
door can be opened as a managed process.

2.

Door furniture is non-compliant and at the incorrect height.

Medium risk
Item 23
1.

Access to Office is restrictive being only 760mm clear opening width. Office
opposite has a lesser opening of only 680mm.

High risk
Item 24: 1 Division1.

No protection or indication (TGSIs) to identify the hazard of the stair for a
person with a disability.

2.

Original stone pavers are uneven but acceptable for wheelchair access, frail
person would likely require assistance.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 1

69

High risk
Item 25
1.

Stepped threshold restriction for wheelchair access to the 1 Division Yard
from 1 Division.

High risk
Item 2670

1.

Stair handrails do not meet the requirements of AS 1428.1 and NCC D2.17 as
noted below.

2.

Handrail profile is not circular or elliptical to allow a person with a disability to
grab.

3.

Handrails do not extend and provide support and protection for an ablebodied person using the stairs.

4.

Handrails do not extend past the last tread as required in AS1428.1 to provide
support and guidance for a person with a disability.

5.

Handrail is also the balustrade and both do not met the minimum
requirements of 865mm off the stair nosing to the top of the handrail/balustrade. Safety Issue.

6.

Stair risers are not opaque allowing a person to become disorientated.

7.

Stair and landing treads are required to be non-slip luminance contrasting of
not less than 30%.

8.

TGSIs are required at the top and bottom of the stair flight.

9.

Stair width should be not less than 1m as an exit and for people to pass.

Appendix 1 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

Low risk
Item 27: Internal Access to Ground Floor Offices
1.

Door serving access from 3 Division to Offices does not have door circulationon the latched side of the door for wheelchair access to open the door. It
is assumed that the door is managed by the Tour Guide and therefore
acceptable.

High risk
Item 28: External Access to Ground Floor Offices
1.

Threshold has an upstand of 200mm restricting wheelchair access throughthe door. 200mm threshold rise is excessive and non-compliant with the NCC
D2.15.

2.

Internal mat has tripping hazards and restrict wheelchair transition overdiffering floor finishes.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 1

71

High risk
Item 29: Ground Floor (part) stairs between 1st Floor Chapel
1.

Handrail and side wall should not have a space between less than 50mm toprevent injuries.

2.

Only one handrail is provided, two are required for circulation.

3.

Handrail do not extend past the last tread as required in AS1428.1 to provide
support and guidance for a person with a disability.

4.

Stair and landing treads are required to be non-slip luminance contrasting of
not less than 30%.

5.

TGSIs are required at the top and bottom of the stair flight.

6.

Stair width should be not less than 1m as an exit and for people to pass.

7.

Door into the stair from ground floor is only 740mm wide.

8.

Note: To be read in conjunction with following comments for 1st Floor Chapel.

High risk
Item 30: Crown Theatre

72

1.

Stairs providing access to either side of the stage non-compliant risers greaterthan 190mm and successive riser’s difference greater than 5mm.

2.

Thread measured at 190mm wherethe minimum requirement for DtS
is 260mm (280mm for a Public Building under the Health Regulations).
Difference of successive treads is significantly greater than 5mm.

3.

No Handrails provided to the stairs.

4.

Stair and landing treads are required to be non-slip luminance contrasting of
not less than 30%.

5.

Stair risers are not opaque allowing a person to become disorientated.

Appendix 1 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

High risk
Item 31: 1st Floor 1,2 and 3 Division
1.

Doorways separating Divisions would not allow a wheelchair to pass throughif a lift were provided. Landings do not have compliant turning spaces for awheelchair. Access into the cells is not available for a person in a wheelchairon any level.

High risk
Item 32: 1st Floor Access to Anglican Chapel
1.

Door opening entry to the Anglican Capel is only 580mm clear opening widthand served with stairs directly at the door without landings. Wheelchair
access is not available to within the Anglican Chapel.

2.

Door furniture to the door is non-compliant for a person with a disability.

3.

Stair treads are required to have 30% luminance contrast non-slip nosing’s
fitted. Stair treads have a significant amount of wear evident.

4.

Stair risers are non-compliant and have a difference in successive risersof 35mm. Top riser is 235mm high. NCC allows 190mm max and publicbuildings 180mm max.

5.

Stair treads also have a significant difference in successive treads greater than
5mm.

6.

Handrails should be provided to assist a person down the stair flight.

7.

Steps are not to be provide within the width of the door leaf.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 1

73

Low risk
Item 33
1.

Access to side rooms in the Chapel have restricted wheelchair access being
reduced door widths and no door circulation on the latched side of the doors.

2.

Door furniture height is not to be higher than 1100mm.

High risk
Item 34
1.

Balustrade height is required to be not less than 1m off the finished floor.
Balustrade measured 910mm, JMG recommend that the balustrade height bemade compliant for public safety or restrict access.

High risk
Item 35: Chapel Stairs to Ground Floor Offices - non-compliant for people witha disability.

74

1.

No handrail provided part of the upper stair flight between winders. Only one
handrail provided on the lower section to ground level.

2.

Stair width is less than the required minimum for an exit, adding additional
handrails would reduce the width further.

3.

No non-slip nosings with a minimum luminance contrast of 30% provided tothe tread nosings.

4.

A ‘required’ exit stair should not have winders within the design. A ‘nonrequired’ stair can have 3 winders in each quarter landing.

Appendix 1 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

High risk
Item 36: Access to Library - 2nd Floor
1.

Reduced door width of 710mm restricting wheelchair access.

2.

Doorway has a ramp within the width of the door leaf and the grade of theramp is non-compliant for wheelchair access.

High risk
Item 37
1.

Stair to 3rd Floor has restricted access it is assumed due to the treads thatare dangerous for the public to use. Safety issue.

High risk
Item 38: Level 3 Chapel Balcony access.
1.

Door clear opening width is not 850mm for wheelchair access and nolandings provided for a wheelchair to access gain experience and make a
180 degree turn to exit.

2.

Tiered seating to the balcony does not require handrails but one may be goodpractice to assist people with an ambulant disability to reach the balustrade. If
a handrail is to be considered, it would be good practice to provide 1m eitherside to allow a person with a weak hand to descend with strong hand andascend back up with the strong hand.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 1

75

High risk
Item 39: Smaller Chapel Access1.

Door has a raised threshold that would restrict wheelchair access.

2.

Access through to altar will not allow a wheelchair to pass through.

Special Handling Unit
1. Single storey part of the Main Prison Cell Block that also connects down to
the Commissariat Basement Level.
2. Part of the floor area has been cordoned off, as the floor has a structuralissue and the area is deemed as dangerous.
3. This part of the building generally has compliant access for people with adisability apart from a couple of minor issues.
Low risk
Item 1

76

1.

Entrance door furniture is non-compliant for a person with a disability. It is
assumed that the door is managed and only the Tour Guide opens and closes
the door.

2.

There is an upstand at the threshold between Gallery and the Meeting Roomthat can restrict wheelchair transition.

3.

Rear entrance to 1 Division Yard has a step down that is significantly greaterthan compliant 180mm and a person with high heels risks trapping the heel inthe stormwater grate.

Appendix 1 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

Hospital (Non-residential part)
1. The building is single storey with a veranda to three sides protecting thebuilding from the elements.
2. Wheelchair access onto the veranda is only available through the building.
3. The building initial use was a hospital, but at some point its use changed
to a Literacy Centre teaching facility with what is believed to be Caretakers
Accommodation being Class 4. The building also has other rooms withsleeping accommodation and it is assumed that they form part of the Class
4 Caretakers Use.
4. Classification of the original building as a health care facility would havebeen Class 9a, but for many years the building has been used as a teachingfacility being a Class 9b Public Building as predominantly all buildings on
the Prison site.
5. The building is single storey with a veranda to three sides protecting thebuilding from the elements.
6. Wheelchair access onto the veranda is only available through the building.
Access Synopsis
External Access• Access is provided to the building through the prison wall double gates on thenorth – eastern side of the Prison Site, access off the inclined road to a level
pathway and then through the gates to an accessible ramp to the internal area.
From here there is only one accessway that could allow a wheelchair into thebuilding and that is the nominated entrance.
Internal Access• The residential side of the building were not inspected, but assess is achievablethrough the nominated external door to within the class room and to the sanitaryfacilities.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 1

77

Low risk
Item 11.

Ramped access has a compliant grade of 1:14.

2.

Kerbrail, is installed too low and the top of the rail should be not less than
150mm off the finished ramp.

3.

Ramp should be slip resistant being not less than P4 or R11.

4.

TGSIs are not provided at the top and bottom of ramp and steps.

5.

Steps have open risers and required to be opaque.

6.

Handrails to steps are above the max 1m. Handrail extends greater than
300mm at the bottom of the steps but fit for purpose.

7.

90 degree turn at the bottom of the ramp is tight to make the turn over
the open gulley. The gulley cover plate does not have any sides to stop awheelchair from running of the grid.

8.

Bitumen finish abutting the gully cover is not flush and causes a barrier for awheelchair to cross.

Medium risk
Item 2

78

1.

Access onto the veranda for a wheelchair can be provided only by travellingthrough the nominated entrance door of the Literacy Centre and throughthe rear door onto the veranda. From there, no ramped access down to thegarden areas.

2.

Multiple steps around the building do not have handrails to assist people
ascending and descending. Handrails should be compliant with AS 1428.1.

3.

No non-slip nosings with a minimum luminance contrast of 30% provided.

4.

Risers and goings have a difference greater than 5mm in succession.

5.

TGSIs are not provided.

6.

Open gulleys cross accessways causing hazards to pedestrians.

Appendix 1 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

Low risk
Item 3: The Literacy Centre
1.

Door clear opening width is 800mm. It does not meet the current
requirements but was compliant prior to the DDA changes in the NCC in 2011
under the old AS 1428.1-2001. The door width is acceptable and where alarger chair is required that person can be managed through the door. It is tobe noted that a motorised chair may not fit.

2.

The threshold has an upstand that would restrict wheelchair transition throughthe door.

3.

Door furniture is not compliant for people with a disability, where lever handles
are a better solution.

4.

Other areas of the building were not accessed but circulation throughout was
restricted due to level changes.

Low risk
Item 4: Universal Accessible Toilet (UAT)1.

Door clear opening width is compliant.

2.

Door locking snib is fit for purpose, but should be 40mm long from thespindle, to assist with operation.

3.

Grabrail on the side wall of the toilet pan is fixed approx. 150mm to far
forward, making grabbing the upright difficult when a person is on the toilet
pan.

4.

Toilet paper dispenser is located in the incorrect position and restricts the useof the grabrails a clear space of 600mm is required above the grabrail.

5.

Internal room dimensions do not meet the current requirements but are fit for
purpose.

6.

Wash hand basin does not meet the current requirements.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 1

79

16 The Terrace
1. Two storey former residence building currently used as an Office building
being Class 5 use. There is a basement that is accessed by a stair (notassessed for compliance).
2. NCC requires access to and throughout the ground floor and also the upper
floor if the floor area is greater than 200m2.
Access Synopsis
External Access• There are access constraints to get to the building and enter through theprinciple entrance in a wheelchair as noted below.
Internal Access• Internal circulation through doorways is not compliant and circulation isrestricted as noted below.
Medium risk
Item 1: External and Internal Access and Circulation

80

1.

Threshold of the gate at the boundary is not flush and would cause difficulty
for wheelchair transition.

2.

Pathway up to the property has a grade of 4o (1:14) and classified as a ramp,that should have handrails, kerb-rails TGSIs. The pathway is less than 1mwide and the ground abutting the sides of the path should be a firm and levelwith the walkway extended horizontally for 600mm.

3.

Accessway between 68 and 18 The Terrace is not suitable for a person in awheelchair being part grass and part paver.

4.

Principle entrance door way has two doors to operate, the flyscreen that
opens outwards and then the main door that opens inwards, which isdifficult for a person in a wheelchair to manage. Door has a raised threshold
additional restriction to traverse in and out of the building.

5.

Loose external mats can become tripping hazards.

Appendix 1 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

High risk
Item 2: Internal Circulation
1.

Internal doorway clear opening widths are only 730mm and not acceptable forwheelchair circulation.

2.

No UAT provided for a person with a disability.

High risk
Item 3: Stairs to upper 1st Floor
3.

Only one handrail provided.

4.

Stair width less than 1m and difficult for people to pass.

5.

Existing handrail does not extend past the last riser as required by AS1428.1.

6.

Handrail profile is not as required by AS 1428.1, but is fit for purpose.

7.

Height of the handrail and balustrade to the stair is less than 865mm and only
730mm. Safety Issue.

8.

Handrail is not continuous throughout the flights.

9.

Balustrade at the mid landing is loose and could become dangerous. Safety
Issue.

10. Stair riser at the top of the flight is 210mm and should be not more than
190mm. The risers have a difference greater than 5mm tolerance insuccessive risers. Safety Issue.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 1

81

18 The Terrace
1. Two storey former Surgeons residence currently used as an Office building
being Class 5 use.
2. NCC requires access to and throughout the ground floor and also the upper
floor if the floor area is greater than 200m2.
Access Synopsis
External Access• There are access constraints to get to the building and enter through theprinciple entrance in a wheelchair as noted below.
Internal Access• Internal circulation through doorways is not compliant and circulation isrestricted as noted below.
High risk
Item 1: Principle access gate
1.

Joint between bitumen and concrete path at the boundary gate threshold is
not flush and would cause difficulty for wheelchair transition.

2.

Path leads to the principal entry of the building but step restricts access theveranda.

Item 2: Secondary access gate.
1.

Joint between bitumen and concrete path at the boundary gate threshold is
not flush and would cause difficulty for wheelchair transition.

2.

Travel from the nominated Accessible Car bays to the gate is longer than forable bodied people where a complaint under the DDA could be made.

3.

Transition across from the concrete path onto the timber veranda has an
upstand that would cause a wheelchair difficulty to cross.

4.

Access grades other than noted in 1 and 3 are compliant for wheelchair access.

Item 3: Principal entrance

82

1.

Principal entrance door way has two doors to operate, the flyscreen that
opens outwards and then the main door that opens inwards, which is difficult
for a person in a wheelchair to manage. Door has a slight raised threshold
additional restriction to traverse in and out of the building.

2.

Loose external mats can become tripping hazards.

Appendix 1 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

Item 4: Accessway between 16 and 18 The Terrace
1.

The accessway used by staff between both buildings not suitable for a person
in a wheelchair being part grass and part paver.

High risk
Item 5: Internal Circulation
1.

Internal doorway clear opening widths are only 750mm and not acceptable forwheelchair circulation.

2.

Passage width between wall and stair is only 870mm and required to be 1m,but fit for purpose. Door circulation is non-compliant on the latched side ofthe doors in many situations.

3.

Outside of the UAT there are two level changes that may affect a person in awheelchair depending which way the person is travelling. The turning spacedoes not meet the current requirements of AS 1428.1, but access is possible
with difficult manoeuvring.

4.

There are additional level changes on the ground floor that restrict access to
those rooms.

5.

Access externally to the rear yard and an additional office room has barriers,
being reduced door width, turning circulation and threshold barriers to theoutside and then there is a step up at the threshold into the office room.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 1

83

High risk
Item 6: UAT
1.

Toilet pan is 410mm from the side wall, being 40mm to close, but fit for
purpose.

2.

Not backrest provided to toilet pan.

3.

Grabrails are non-compliant being two piece and should be one full piecegrabrail.

4.

Toilet paper dispenser is too large to accommodate compliant grabrails.
Dispenser height and position is compliant.

5.

WHB is located in the toilet pan circulation zone and should be 1.4m away.

6.

Signage to the toilets is non-compliant, as the UAT is not identified and brailleand tactile signage should be used.

High risk
Item 7: Stairs

84

1.

Handrail height is greater than 1m in height but for for purpose.

2.

Handrail does not extend past the last riser as required by AS1428.1.

3.

Handrail does not allow a hand to hold the handrail for the full length.

4.

Only one handrail provided to the stairs and two are required to meet the DDA
requirements and AS 1428.1.

5.

Nosings do not provide compliant luminance contrast of 30%.

6.

Balustrade to landing is out of level and at one point less than 1m in height.
Safety Issue.

7.

Wires forming balustrade are not tight and allow a sphere of 125mm to passthrough. Safety Issue.

Appendix 1 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

High risk
Item 8: 1st Floor
1.

Exit sign has the ‘running man’ pictorial removed.

2.

Step down to a small non-compliant size landing then step down again
without handrail for the full transition between levels.

3.

Non-slip nosings with min luminance contrast of 30%.

4.

Steps provided within the door leaf is non-compliant with the NCC.

5.

Step riser height being 200mm is non-compliant as 190mm is maximum
height.

6.

Grabrail assists but not compliant for the full length of travel when ascending
and descending.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 1

85

Watch Tower 1
1. Watch Tower has recently been refurbished and in a good state of repair.
2. The classification of the Watch Tower would be Class 5 use being
professional use.
Access Synopsis
External Access• Watch Tower is situated on top of Western Workshop building part andaccessed through a dedicated door off the main central yard.
Internal Access• Access is via a spiral stairway within the building not being compliant for a
person with a disability.
High risk
Item 1

86

1.

Access to the Watch Tower for a person in a wheelchair is not available as
there are no lifts provided and it could be possible to apply ‘unjustifiablehardship’ for not providing a lift.

2.

Stair only has one handrail and the profile does not meet the requirements of
AS 1428.1.

3.

Stair treads do not have non-slip nosings with a luminance contrast of notless than 30%.

4.

Internal stair balustrade at the landing has openings that allow a sphere of
125mm to pass through and a climbable rail between 150mm and 760mm ofthe floor. Safety issue.

5.

External walkway balustrade is to have infill that does not allow a person to
get a foothold between 150mm and 760mm and not allow a sphere of 125 topass through for safety. Safety issue.

Appendix 1 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

Watch Tower 2
1. Watch Tower is in a poor state of repair and likely to have asbestos
materials within.
2. The classification of the Watch Tower would be Class 5 use being
professional use.
Access Synopsis
External Access• Watch Tower is situated on top of the perimeter wall and accessed through a
dedicated door located near the Hospital Building.
Internal Access• Access is via straight stairway within the building.
High risk
Item 1
1.

Access to the Watch Tower for a person in a wheelchair is not available as
there are no lifts provided and it could be possible to apply ‘unjustifiablehardship’ for not providing a lift.

2.

Stair only has two handrails but does not extend as required by AS 1428.1
and being tight up to the wall less than 50mm.

3.

Stair treads do not have non-slip nosings with a luminance contrast of notless than 30%.

4.

Stair extends to the hatch in the Watch Tower floor, being hazard whenentering the Watch Tower.

5.

Height of floor to the stair is only 1.2m where it should be not less than 2m.

6.

No handrails provided to ascend or descend the stair through the hatch part.

7.

There is no protection of the opening (trap door) when the trap door is open.
Safety Issue.

8.

External walkway balustrade allows a person to get a foothold between
150mm and 760mm and allows a sphere of 125 to pass through. Safety
Issue.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 1

87

Watch Tower 3
1. Watch Tower is in a poor state of repair and likely to have asbestos
materials within. Access through the hatch to within the Watch Tower was
not recommended due to the poor state of repair.
2. The classification of the Watch Tower would be Class 5 use being
professional use.
Access Synopsis
External Access• Watch Tower is situated on top of the perimeter wall and accessed through a
dedicated door located near the Eastern Workshops.
Internal Access• Access is via a straight stairway within the building.
High risk
Item 1

88

1.

Access to the Watch Tower for a person in a wheelchair is not available as
there are no lifts provided and it could be possible to apply ‘unjustifiablehardship’ for not providing a lift.

2.

Stair has one handrail only.

3.

Stair treads do not have non-slip nosings with a luminance contrast of notless than 30%.

4.

Stair extends to the hatch in the Watch Tower floor, being hazard whenentering the Watch Tower.

5.

Height of floor to the stair is less than 2m.

6.

No handrails provided to ascend or descend the stair through the hatch part.

7.

There is no protection of the opening (trap door) when the trap door is open.
Safety Issue.

8.

External walkway balustrade is not to be less than 1m and allows a person to
get a foothold between 150mm and 760mm and allows a sphere of 125mm topass through. Top of balustrade is required to be not less than 1m from the
top of the balustrade to the finished floor. Safety Issue.

Appendix 1 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

Watch Tower 4
1. Watch Tower and walkway has recently been refurbished and in a goodstate of repair.
2. The classification of the Watch Tower would be Class 5 use being
professional use.
Access Synopsis• Watch Tower is situated on top of First Aid building part and access wasprovided through the First Aid Room and can be accessed through a dedicateddoor off the main central yard. The spiral stair terminates and then accessthrough an external door onto a platform and then up a set of stairs to the
Watch Tower Walkway.
High risk
Item 1
1.

Access to the Watch Tower for a person in a wheelchair is not available as
there are no lifts provided and it could be possible to apply ‘unjustifiablehardship’ for not providing a lift.

2.

Spiral stair only has one handrail and the profile does not meet therequirements of AS 1428.1.

3.

Stair treads do not have non-slip nosings with a luminance contrast of notless than 30%.

4.

Stair, landing and walkway balustrade allow a sphere of 125mm to passthrough and a climbable rail between 150mm and 760mm of the finished floor.
Safety issue.

5.

Dangerous transition when descending where there is a quarter landing at thedoor threshold. Safety Issue.

6.

No barrier to stop people climbing on the roof. Safety Issue.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 1

89

Watch Tower 5a, b and c
1. Watch Tower and Toilet and walkway has recently been refurbished and in agood state of repair.
2. The classification of the Watch Tower would be Class 5 Toilet Class 10a use
being professional use.
Access Synopsis• Watch Tower is situated on top of the boundary wall and access was provided
through YHA (Women’s Prison) grounds and can be accessed through a
dedicated door.
High risk
Item 190

1.

Access to the Watch Tower for a person in a wheelchair is not available as
there are no lifts provided and it could be possible to apply ‘unjustifiablehardship’ for not providing a lift.

2.

Spiral stair only has one handrail and the profile does not meet therequirements of AS 1428.1.

3.

Stair treads do not have non-slip nosings with a luminance contrast of notless than 30%.

4.

Bulkhead of floor is only 1730mm off the stair nosing and forms a hazard.
Safety Issue.

5.

Walkway balustrade is less than 1m in height and allows a sphere of 125mm
to pass through and a climbable rail between 150mm and 760mm of thefinished floor. Safety issue.

6.

Ramped transition from steel plate to timber forms a tripping hazard andshould be no steeper than 1:8.

Appendix 1 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

Watch Tower 6
1. Watch Tower is accessed by the general public as part of the tour. It wasnoted that the Watch Tower only forms part of the tour when all people areable bodied.
2. The classification of the Watch Tower would be Class 5 use being
professional use, but as it is accessed by the public, the Watch Tower woldhave a Class 9b classification.
Access Synopsis• Watch Tower is situated on top of the boundary wall adjacent to the Tunnel Tour
access.
High risk
Item 1
1.

Access to the Watch Tower for a person in a wheelchair is not available as
there are no lifts provided and it could be possible to apply ‘unjustifiablehardship’ for not providing a lift.

2.

Spiral stair only has one handrail and the profile does not meet therequirements of AS 1428.1.

3.

Stair treads do not have non-slip nosings with a luminance contrast of notless than 30%.

4.

Walkway balustrade is less than 1m in height and allows a sphere of 125mm
to pass through and a climbable rail between 150mm and 760mm of thefinished floor. Safety issue.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 1

91

South Knoll - Vegetable Gardens, Games Area Maintenance Compound/
Shower Block
1. Garden and Maintenance Compound areas are restricted from publicaccess currently. The area has been used for multiple of uses during prison
occupancy
2. Based on JMG’s assessment non-compliance elements are repetitive andgeneral issues are referenced below. The area is not suitable for publicaccess, and is in a poor state of repair where retaining walls appear tobe failing, tripping hazards to walkways, steps and ramps and the lack ofhandrails to these parts and balustrades being less than 1m in height beinga safety matter.
High risk
Item 192

1.

Widths are less than 1m restricting passing on the stairs ramps and pathways.

2.

No balustrades where there is a difference in floor levels of more than 1m ataccessway through the gate into the games nets. Safety Issue.

3.

Transition to the landing is not compliant and a safety issue.

4.

Ramps with the non-compliant grades, no handrails, no TGSIs and surfaces
having restrictions for wheelchair transition.

Appendix 1 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

High risk
Item 2: Maintenance Building Compound
1.

Access to the compound should only available to authorised personnel thatare able bodied and not people with a disability due to the nature of use andthe health and safety risks.

2.

Access between each building has non-compliant accessways, either
horizontally or vertically. Similar issues apply as listed above, but there aresome balustrades provided but essentially non-compliant, being less than
1m in height and openings greater than 450mm with no lower rail (required tobe compliant with AS1657 as the area is restricted access). If the area is tobe eventually accessible for other uses or the public then the balustrades are
not to allow a sphere of 125mm to pass through the balustrade openings tolandings or stairs.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 1

93

Low risk
Item 3: Shower Block1.

Grade of ramp is fit for purpose/compliant for access to this building for the
public.

2.

Existing ramp handrail is 900mm high and compliant for height, but requires akerb rail to prevent a wheelchair from hitting the posts.

3.

Additional handrail is required on the opposite side and extend as per
AS1428.1.

4.

Leading opening door into the building is 740mm wide restricting wheelchair
access, therefore it is acceptable and managed to open the second door
when a person in a wheelchair is on a tour.

5.

Door latching devices should be reviewed for compliance as a Barrell Bolt isfitted and should be locked in the open position.

6.

Internal circulation is generally compliant, but access into the store has
restricted door width, but acceptable.

East Terrace/Reservoir
1. This area is an access area to the East Workshop, Tunnel Tours andinterconnection between New Division Tour.
2. The roadway as noted earlier in the report has services protruding above
the road finishes causing walking and wheelchair hazards. The grade
and length also does not meet the requirements for a person with adisability. But the area could be accessible by other means if the area is an
informative part of the tour.
High risk
Item 1: East Terrace Area

94

1.

Accessway from lower areas being Eastern Workshop to the Tunnel Tour
Entrance and Eastern Terrace/Reservoir is not suitable for a wheelchair
access unless that person is assisted and then due to the length of travel that
person could themselves could become injured.

2.

Generally on the top there are accessways to the Day Watch Towers, some
restrictions of steps, grass growing onto the paths reducing their widths and thedeterioration of the bitumen finish or changes of materials finishes not marrying
up flush. Again there are some services that become hazards to the public.

3.

Tripping hazard when accessing the steps down to the Lower sections of thesite.

Appendix 1 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

Item 2: Reservoir Access
1.

Step hazard onto stair landing, luminance contrasting non-slip nosing to beprovided for identification.

2.

No balustrades around walkway where the level changes are greater than 1m.

3.

Non-slip nosings with a luminance contrast of not less than 30% should be
fixed to the landing and treads.

4.

Handrails to the sides of the stair are less than 865mm in height being noncompliant.

5.

Risers are greater than 190mm being 210mm. Tour Guide to ensure that
handrails are used when ascending and descending.

6.

Bottom tread is 60mm less than the successive tread and should be madecompliant as it is a hazard.

7.

Handrails do not extend as per AS 1428.1 at the top or bottom of the stair.

8.

No wheelchair access possible without a lift.

9.

Door to the Reservoir has a barrel bolt fitted that should be locked in the open
position when occupied as a Management Plan.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 1

95

Stables
1. Single storey building being used by a specialist Model Train Club.
Access was not available within and could not determine the extent ofaccess and facilities for people with a disability.
Low risk
1.

96

Door entry width and threshold appears to be accessible.

Appendix 1 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

Appendix 2
Historical Research For Accessibility and Inclusion Plan forFremantle Prison Physical Disability
Fremantle Prison was built to house transported convicts between
1852 and 1859 using the convicts themselves for the ardous work ofconstruction. By the time transportation ceased in 1868, over 10,000
convicts had passed through its walls.
In the 1880s, following the closing of Perth Gaol, Fremantle Prison became thecolony of Western Australia’s primary gaol, confining men, women and juveniles
within its walls.
Prisoners in Fremantle Prison, like prisoners the world over, were vulnerable
because they were out of sight and could, potentially, be treated with impunity. Theirvulnerability also extended beyond their physical person to their character, ‘because
as soon as a sentence is passed, their credibility disappears, since dishonesty,
the community believes, now infects everything they do or say. Finally, they arevulnerable because the public attitude tends to be that even if they are being illtreated, they probably deserve it’.1 Once locked inside the walls of a prison, thosewithin can only be protected through the enforcement and good guidance of law orpolicy and the dedicated commitment of administrators in whose hands these rules
and regulations are entrusted. Overall, a sense of humanity must prevail.
In this way, from the outset of the Convict Era in Western Australia, until the closingof Fremantle Prison in 1991, we can see how the most vulnerable of all prisoners;
those suffering disability, disadvantage or disempowerment, have either fought tobring their needs to the fore or had the benefit of benevolence and good governanceto define their experience of incarceration.
As Thomas and Stewart so eloquently put it, when people are locked up:
there must be a strong, intelligible, administrative framework designed toachieve certain ends. The first is to make clear to prisoners what their rights andobligations are. The next is to offer staff of all ranks, in all departments, clear
unequivocal direction about their duties, how they are to be carried out, howfailure or success is to be judged, and what is to be defined as unacceptable
treatment of prisoners. Next, the whole must be subjected to incessant scrutiny
by those senior prison administrators who do not work in the prison. And finally,
the whole must be inspected by impartial observers representing the community,in whose name the organisation is being called into being.2

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendices97

Introduction
Research has so far revealed that during the time the prison operated from 1854 to
1991, there was no written policy or instructions on how to manage prisoners withdisabilities. Likewise, there appears to be no legal obligation to provide access orservices for inmates or staff with disabilities.
During the Convict Era, the Imperial Government held the financial responsibility
for transported men until their death. Thus, Invalid Depots were established for
prisoners who were disabled while under sentence or became invalids with nomeans of support. One Invalid Depot was established at North Fremantle which
later was moved into the Knowle and later again, into the hospital in the grounds ofFremantle Prison. There was another at Freshwater Bay. Later, invalids were moved
into the Old Men’s Home in Fremantle.
Within the prison system, ‘servile labour’ was intended to foster ‘industrious habits’.3
And yet Prison life itself ‘disabled’ the prisoners in a physical sense; through solitaryconfinement, lack of substantial diet, and crippling corporal punishment. Thesesame punishments and practices also impacted prisoners’ mental health. Prison
medical officers were in a difficult position of conflicting responsibilities. On the
one hand, the prison required inmates to suffer as punishment for their crimes.
Prison doctors, for example, were called on to determine the maximum physicalstress a prisoner could be subject to as part of prison labour programs, which wereintentionally punitive. However, physicians were also responsible for rehabilitatingand healing their patients, which would benefit from improved conditions andprisoner wellbeing.4
In the first years of Fremantle Prison, Doctor George Attfield arrived from Englandin 1854 to take up the position of colonial surgeon to the Convict Establishment.
Attfield’s approach was, in policy if not in practice, to exempt unwell or disabledconvicts from work and excuse the mentally or physically ill from solitaryconfinement and flogging. His recommendations were often, but not always,
followed. Through the 1860s, up to 75% of convicts were located away from
Fremantle at convict depots or work camps. The Prison was used for those not yet
trusted for remote work or as punishment for reoffenders.
As early as 1858 it became obvious to the Prison’s medical officers that the small
prison hospital would need to be extended to provide another six wards; twothree-bedded and four separate wards; ‘the three bedded wards for patients underobservation and the separate cells for cases of bad diarrhoea and scabies variola
and for other contagious disorders and malingering etc’.5 Temporary disability
due to illness was a constant presence in prison life. However, there was also an
inclination to view prisoners’ accounts of their ailments as attempts to avoid workduties or untruths due to an innate criminal disposition to lie. In Fremantle during theconvict period, prisoners were debarred from getting redress for wrongs, howevergrievous, by a rule which stated that any complaint made to a visiting justice orother authority, ‘if either frivolous or groundless’, would lead to severe punishment.
The prisoner could be ‘assaulted, handcuffed, ironed, starved, and confined in dark
dungeons without redress’.6 The Prison’s Medical Officer wielded considerable
power over all matters to do with health. It was in the interest of the prison officials

98

Appendices • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

to keep the men fit and well so that they could perform the tasks for which they
had been sent to Western Australia and thus for ‘the smooth implementation of
the ideology behind the establishment of Fremantle as a public works prison’.7 If aprisoner was considered to have a mental disability, he or she was sent, in principle,
to an Asylum. ‘Lunatics’ demanded special attention and separate accommodation
as their ‘irrational’ tendency to escape and their despairing cries were unsettling for
prison discipline. For a period, they were confined in the refractory cells behind theMain Cell Block until the Lunatic Asylum was completed for them in 1865.8 However,a lack of written guidelines or policy meant that not all inmates who needed help for
their condition, were sent where they could receive proper medical treatment. This is
the most salient failing of the system.
Disability was considered a medical matter rather than a social policy concern
until the 1970s. The medical model conceived of individuals with disabilities asabnormal, with pity, care and charitable handouts as appropriate responses.
This ‘deficit model’ assumed people with disabilities needed to change to be
included and, if they could not, they could legitimately be excluded. They weregenerally marginalised and ostracised from mainstream society. From the 1970s,
it was increasingly accepted that all persons had a human right to enjoy the same
opportunities for a full life regardless of their level of actual or perceived ability.
Limitations on opportunities were understood to result from social constructs andassumptions rather than the actual impairment of any individual. Thus, existing
environments, both physical and social, are seen to place barriers in the way offull participation by disabled individuals. The way forward, therefore, is throughrestructuring society to be inclusive of all abilities. The 1981 United Nations
International Year of Disabled Persons was an important turning point in attitudes,
policies and legislation relating to disability. It was followed by the Decade for
Disabled Persons (1982-1993) which consolidated many of the initiatives sparked
during 1981, including urging the development of legislation around the world toprotect the rights of persons with disabilities.9
Legislation to prevent discrimination is a relatively recent development in Australia.
South Australia passed the first anti-discrimination laws in 1966 (relating to racial
discrimination). Commonwealth legislation, also relating to race, was introduced in
1975.
The first antidiscrimination legislation to include disability was in New South Wales,in 1981. Broad antidiscrimination provisions commenced in Western Australia with
the Equal Opportunities Act (1984). However, this legislation did not include disability
as a ground for unlawful discrimination until it was amended in 1988 to include‘impairment of body or brain’. Further protections against discrimination, including
proactive requirements to prevent against indirect discrimination, were enactedwith the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act (1992).10 This was followedin Western Australia by the Western Australian Disability Services Act (1993) which
required that all Western Australian Government departments develop Disability
Access and Inclusion Plans. However, by this time, Fremantle Prison had ceased
operations.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendices99

Disability is defined in the Disability Discrimination Act (1992)11 as:(a)total or partial loss of a person’s bodily or mental functions; or(b) total or partial loss of a part of the body; or(c)the presence in the body of organisms causing disease or illness; or(d) the presence in the body of organisms capable of causing disease or illness; or(e)the malfunction, malformation or disfigurement of a part of the person’s body; or(f) 	a disorder or malfunction that results in the person learning differently from aperson without the disorder or malfunction; or(g) a disorder, illness or disease that affects a person’s thought processes,
perception of reality, emotions or judgement or that results in disturbed
behaviour.
and includes a disability that(h) presently exists; or(i)previously existed but no longer exists or(j)may exist in the future; or(k)is imputed to a person.

Additionally, HIV/ AIDS has been legally found to be a disability in Western Australia,
including assumptions (whether accurate or not) that someone may now or in the
future be HIV positive due to factors such as homosexuality, intravenous drug use or
sex work.12
Although fine-grained definitions distinguish between impairment and disability,
in general usage the two terms are largely interchangeable.13 Age and disability
are often intertwined as sources of discrimination, as advancing age can reduce
physical or mental abilities.14
The Disability Discrimination Act (1992) allows exemptions to the provision of fully
accessible services where a premises was ‘so designed or constructed as to beinaccessible to a person with a disability’ and alterations to rectify this deficiency
would ‘impose unjustifiable hardship’ on the agency responsible for access.15
Fremantle Prison is clearly a physical space not designed for accessibility. The
threshold for ‘unjustifiable hardship’ is undefined in the legislation, which in any casedates from soon after the prison closed.
For the purposes of this historical examination, and in the absence of almost any
extent data relating to prisoners with physical disability, the notion of ‘disability’ will
be broken into two segments; physical disability due to illness, or punishment andaddiction. This report will also consider legislative change pertinent to the subjectof physical disability and penological reform. As the subject is of such current
significance, and is of such substantial historical import and due to the constraintsof time and accessibility to historical documents, mental health and illness andjuvenile prisoners is out of scope of this report. This report will recommend forfurther research that includes mental health and illness and juvenile prisoners.

100

Appendices • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

Physical Disability Due to Illness or Punishment
Illness, General Health and Diet
Analysis of convict deaths from 1850 to 1877 found 802 convict deaths, including
164 at Fremantle Prison. The leading cause of death was respiratory tuberculosis(29%). Other fatal ailments of significant number were non-tubercular respiratory
conditions (14%), digestive system diseases (9%) diarrhoea and dysentery (9%),
circulatory system conditions (8%) and fevers (7%). While rates of most of thesedeclined across the period, particularly after the prison opened in 1855, deaths
from diarrhoea, dysentery and digestive diseases all increased between 1857 and
1877. This likely resulted from contaminated water or the proximity of privies tothe cookhouse at the prison. Respiratory causes of death, including tuberculosis,
increased in the initial years at the prison, probably due to overcrowding in theunfinished complex coupled with dietary changes that significantly reduced calorie
intake. However, with the exception of a spike in the mid-1860s, fatal respiratory
illness mostly declined through the 1860s and 1870s as sanitary conditions
improved and ward accommodation ceased. In the 1870s, liver disease emerged asa factor in prisoner deaths, particularly reconvicted prisoners who had spent timeoutside the prison, probably due to the prevalence of alcohol in the community andparticularly its use as a work incentive for labourers.16 More inmates of Fremantle
Prison died of infectious diseases inside it than ticket-of-leave men did, outside of it.
Gregory and Marshall suggest that the ‘disparity in mortality rates between ticketersand Fremantle inmates was most pronounced for infectious diseases such as
tuberculosis and other respiratory illnesses, enteric fevers, diarrhoea and dysentery,and stemmed from their lesser exposure to crowded living conditions, unhygienic
toilet facilities and monotonous diets’.17 Indeed, they refer to tuberculosis as ‘themost significant killer of convicts in Western Australia’.18
Convicts received different rations depending on their status within the prison
system. In some periods there were more than 1000 calories per day difference
between the most meagre diets (reconvicted prisoners) and the most generous(workers in heavy labour). Sick prisoners were punished with half rations in the
1850s and 1860s and continued receiving less than full rations even after the halfmeasure sentence ceased. Convicts able to obtain their ticket-of-leave had accessto a more varied diet, although not always at greater quantities than those within
the prison. In 1898, following a series of serious complaints by prisoners, a Royal
Commission of Inquiry into the Penal System of the Colony was appointed byPremier John Forrest. Megahey writes that the Commission “took the unusual stepof inviting any prisoner who so wished to give evidence”, whether they wished togive evidence on personal grounds of complaint or to make suggestions for thegeneral welfare of all prisoners. 171 prisoners gave evidence.19 The Commission
closely examined the diet of the prisoners, as evidence about food came from“almost every witness”. And although the Commissioners noted that many longsentence men had developed dyspepsia “in various aggravated forms”, theCommissioners reported that there was “no ground for complaint”.20 They did,
however, concede that there was a need for a greater variety of food, but stated:“In our opinion the dietary scale is altogether too generous, both in quantity andquality, for the requirements of any but long sentence prisoners”. They thereupon
set out precisely the amounts of food for each category of prisoner, but such was

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendices101the emotion generated by the question, that in a report which is in many respects
notably humane, they ignored the simple plea of the Asian prisoners for a dietwhich was consonant with their religious requirements. This was a need which wasrecognised even by the Superintendent and supported by him.21
On the subject of food Doctor Hope ‘expressed the view that the cooking was thesource of complaint not the ingredients. When prisoners lost weight in prison, Hopebelieved that the explanation was not that the food was short or unsatisfactory, but
because they no longer had access to beer’.22 Prisoners employed on public works
had higher rates of respiratory disease than those employed indoors or within theprison. This may have been because their rigidly maintained prison rations provided
insufficient calories for the additional energy that manual labour required.23 Aftertransportation ended in 1868, depots and camps were gradually closed, bringing
almost all remaining convicts back to Fremantle by the mid-1870s.24 After thistime, accusations of ‘malingering’ populate prison medical records. Megahey writes
that during Doctor Hope’s long tenure as Medical Officer, he could not ‘accept
off-hand the prisoners’ own statement as to his alleged malady’. If there were no
obvious symptoms and the prisoner’s complaint could not be verified by warders,then a report of malingering was likely to be made. For one prisoner, this was
fatal. According to the evidence of two inmates, prisoner McColl had complained
to Doctor Hope of feeling unwell, was reported for malingering and died shortly
afterwards. Doctor Hope, in his evidence, ‘did not deny this account’.25
Non-fatal illness was common; dysentery and scurvy were a constant presence.
Eye diseases such as ophthalmia and nyctalopia were so common among convicts
that an ophthalmia ward was added to the prison hospital.26 Ophthalmia was usedgenerically in the nineteenth century to refer to a wide range of conditions causing
eye inflammation. Dry winds and exposure to sun glare were believed to contribute,but an analysis of hospital records indicates eye complaints were most common in
winter, suggesting vitamin A deficiency may have been a more significant cause,
which is certainly attributed to diet and most likely due to the inadequacy of wintercrops.27 Exposure to the sun also caused skin ailments. In 1857, Doctor Attfield
wrote in the Medical Journal that he had ‘inspected the men on parade this morning,several of them affected with desquamation of the cuticle on the face evidently
from the effects of the sun as it was limited to the parts exposed to its influence.
There were also many prisoners with eyes, nose or lips affected by the glare ofsand’.28 Where they could, prison doctors tended to protect the more severe casesby keeping them from the outdoor labour, giving them work within the prison
instead. Prisoners were recommended to be placed in the Tailor’s shop or on otherlight work, when ‘suffering from an affliction of the skin of the face which invariably
becomes worse when exposed to the sun’.29
Through the 1870s, after convict transportation ceased, the average age of theconvict population increased, as there were no new younger convicts arriving.
Where in 1870, convicts aged 15 to 29 made up 20% of the Fremantle inmate
population, by 1877 this had reduced to 1%. Although the 30 to 44 age groupstayed relatively stable, the over 45 group increased from 15% in 1870 to 41%
in 1877. Older prisoners were likely to experience reduced immune function,
therefore making them vulnerable to illness. However, mortality rates declined
across the period, suggesting prison conditions had improved. Tuberculosis cases

102

Appendices • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

plummeted and there was a 68% reduction in musculoskeletal disease between
the periods 1868-1872 and 1873-1877. Ending the use of leg irons, easing thephysical workload of convicts and reducing overall convict numbers (and therefore
the likelihood of transmission in close quarters) likely all contributed.30 Presumably
older prisoners were also more likely to live with acquired disability, having had more
years of potential accidents and infections. Thomas and Stewart suggest that ‘theprevalence of disease and illness was hardly a matter for surprise, since prisoners
were not given a routine medical examination upon arrival at the prison and at
all times it was incumbent upon them to draw the attention of the doctor to any
illness’.31 It took the insistence of a Royal Commission in 1899 to require the Medical
Officer, Doctor Hope, to separate, ‘the venereal from the syphilitic when bathing’.32
Servile Labour and Hard Labour
Labour shortages had been a main driver in colonists calling for the introductionof convict transportation. The Imperial authorities had been requested to sendconvicts suitable for labouring works, to support the needs of the colony. However,
although many met this criteria, Sir Joshua Jebb admitted that convicts selected fortransportation were not always as fit in mind and body as they should have been,
but argued he had little other choice.33 Convicts arriving in Western Australia had
already served at least nine months in separate confinement in England, mostly atPentonville, the 1842 London prison designed as the model separate imprisonment.
After serving the ‘separate’ term, prisoners moved to a public works prison before
being selected for transportation.34
The Comptroller-General of Convicts, E.Y.W. Henderson, acknowledged in 1861 thatconvicts frequently arrived in ‘a very deteriorated condition’, particularly those from
Ireland. He claimed the diet and Western Australian air soon restored them to being
vigorous workers.35
During the 1850s, probation prisoners at Fremantle Prison were housed in‘association wards’, where up to one hundred men were accommodated in two tiersof hammocks. These hammocks were brutally cramped, hung only ‘with an intervalof one foot and six inches between each hammock, and three feet between thetiers’.36
From the 1860s, after the prison was completed, all prisoners had cells. The tiny,
poorly-ventilated cells were designed based on prisons where inmates worked
during the day and were only in their cells at night. However, many Fremantle
prisoners from the outset spent the majority of their time in their cells.37 An 1860s
surgeon of Fremantle Prison described the inmates as ‘by no means robust-looking’but relatively free of disease. Given this surgeon’s reports were inclined to give arosy depiction of prison life (‘never any damp’, ‘always free ventilation’, ‘never any
overcrowding’) and also claimed the prison did not cause mental ill-health, ‘notrobust-looking’ likely refers to convicts of very poor physical health and stamina.38
Private employers were able to secure more of the able-bodied convicts, leaving
the Convict Establishment to house and occupy those ‘unfitting instruments’ with‘physical or other incapacity for anything like constant or laborious work’, largely‘small boys and sickly or infirm men’. This included men with their ticket-of-leave
who, unable to secure employment, remained as prisoners.39

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendices103

As the labour of convicts was a major reason for the entire Convict Establishment,
it might be expected that overseers would prioritise maintaining a physically able
workforce and as such aim to uphold convict health. However, the parallel agendaof punishing convicts for their crimes undermined this consideration, leading tocoercive labour systems and ‘deliberately gruelling’ work that reduced healthoutcomes for prisoners.40
During the nineteenth century, Victorian ethics placed a high moral value on
productivity.
Occupations within the prison included tailor, shoemaker, harness maker, hammockmaker, mat maker, printer, bookbinder, washer, cleaner, hospital orderly, messenger,clerk/ writer, storeman, boatman, gardener, cook, baker, barber, lamplighter andbutcher. Men in these jobs were admitted to the prison hospital a quarter as often
as men in ‘unskilled’ physical work (e.g. labourers, quarrymen) and less than half
as often as ‘skilled’ workers on public works (e.g. carpenters, blacksmiths). Whenpublic works increased under Governor Hampton in the 1860s, the percentage
of prisoners assigned to physical labour almost doubled.41 Prisoners could earn‘marks’ for industrious labour. While unskilled labourers could earn only fourmarks a day, those with skilled jobs could be awarded with five, reducing the time
taken to achieve remission of their sentence.42 On this basis, being exempt fromphysical work duties may have improved health outcomes for those with disability.
The lighter work of jobs within the prison is likely to have seen more men withdisability assigned there. Favoured convicts within the system were selected for lessphysically arduous work, based on their behaviour, perceived trustworthiness andefficiency. Particularly sought-after positions were as prison clerks or messengers,
or jobs with access to the prison stores. 43 Later, when Superintendent George, took
up his position in 1898, he recommended that all employment outside the prison
should cease. Yet Fremantle Prison had been designed merely to house prisoners
who worked outside the walls on public works, the cells were much too small formen to spend long periods inside them. Under Superintendent George’s instruction,
workshops were added within the Prison to enable prisoners to be kept inside
during the day.
Convicts were often set to dangerous work, resulting in injuries. Quarrying, blasting
and timber-felling were particularly prone to accidents.
The years prior to the prison opening had the highest rates of accidents and injuries
for convicts. This period included extensive use of convict labour in blasting andquarrying stone, acknowledged at the time as particularly dangerous work. It wasmade more dangerous for men whose movement was inhibited by wearing leg
irons. Cullity writes that leg irons, apart from their use outside the prison to prevent
escapes, ‘were worn by convicts undergoing punishment for 24 hours a day,sometimes for months on end, causing great pain and discomfort for the prisoner’.44
Additionally, punishment weights were used, weighing 25 pounds or about
7.5 kilograms, these, writes Cullity, ‘would have been secured to a convict using aleather belt’.45

104

Appendices • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

The use of shackles as punishment was a source of disagreement amongst the
management of the Establishment’.46 Cullity cites Lieutenant Wray ‘“I am of theopinion that the punishment of irons is in no way beneficial on its effects on theprisoners”’.47 She continues that ‘The [negative] effect of leg irons on prisoners’
health and well-being was acknowledged by the supervisors and doctors alike’. She
cites, for example, of the medical doctor’s description of one prisoner; ‘the skin overboth hipbones and in the groins is black and blue in consequence of the weight of
the irons bearing on the strap around his loins, it appears to me (medically) that hecannot carry 28lbs irons and be employed at the pump without physical injury”.48
Cullity also writes that ‘the number of objections to the consequence of using heavy
irons prompted the authorities to fit the convicts with ankle protectors, used as abuffer between the men’s ankle and the leg-irons to minimise damage’.49
Solitary Confinement
The first major legislation relating to prison administration in Western Australia
passed in 1848 and was in force for over fifty years. It included provision for silent,separate and solitary imprisonment. The first allowed prisoners to work together
but in silence. The second kept them separated from each other but with continued
interaction with prison warders and officials. Solitary, the most severe, did not permit
interaction even with staff and was often accompanied by a bread-and-water diet
and, at Fremantle, frequently a dark cell. It was generally used as a punishment foroffences within the prison, where silent or (more commonly) separate imprisonment
was normative for many sentences.50
A prevailing attitude in British prisons and those in Australia’s eastern colonies wasthat imprisonment was intended to cause suffering, as suffering was believed toreform character. Suffering was not simply code for inflicting physical pain, suchas through corporal punishment. It had a more wide-ranging sense of physical andpsychological suffering that would, it was thought, lead prisoners to reflect on andmodify their criminal behaviour.51
Punishment such as solitary confinement also had a significant impact on prisoners’
physical health. Marshall writes that ‘the bread and water ration enforced in the cells
may also have increased susceptibility to disease’.52 An 1858 Prison Medical Journal
supports this view, exemplified in just one of Doctor Attfield’s many notations on thissubject:
I this day inspected all the probation and hard labour prisoners on parade, theirappearance and general state of health was highly satisfactory. I then visited thesolitary cells, these prisoners (the solitary) are decidedly more pale and have avery dejected air and this, I think, depends more on the deprivation of light and air
coupled with the great uncertainty about the duration of their sentence than upon
the scale of diet which is 4 oz of uncooked meat, 6 oz bread and 4 oz of potatoes
less than for the probation prisoner.53
Marshall quotes convict James Roe as describing those emerging from theFremantle refractory block as ‘famine-stricken’.54

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendices105

Prison discipline in the mid-nineteenth century moved away from physicalpunishments to psychological, resulting in less flogging and more solitaryconfinement. Viewed as a humane reform, the transition to punishment by isolation
at Fremantle Prison was arguably more damaging to overall well-being. The
1850s prison buildings were designed to allow for separate housing of prisoners.
Reconvicted men were issued a mandatory one quarter of their sentence as
separate confinement, to a maximum of a year, with sentences under three months
served entirely in isolation from other prisoners. Those separated were supposed to
be in strict silence, although prison officials found it difficult to enforce this measure.
Marshall; ‘While official regulations for separate confinement prisoners depicted
a regime of oppressive control and surveillance – one particularly draconian ruleordered that ‘no prisoner is upon any account to look out of his cell window’.55
The principle of separating prisoners into small cells continued to dominate prison
design and administration, but practical considerations such as overcrowding
led to strict application of separate confinement becoming less common, except
as a deterrent or additional punishment for prison misdemeanours.56 At the timeFremantle Prison was established, in the 1850s, the ‘separate system’ was thedominant and largely undisputed model of imprisonment in Britain and the colonies.57
Governor Hampton’s period (1862-1867) oversaw extreme punishments including
separate confinement for longer than the legally permitted nine months and the useof dark cells.
In a petition written by the convicts themselves, the prisoners noted that underHampton’s Governorship, although ‘an act of parliament restricted imprisonment indark cells, on bread and water, to seven consecutive or twenty-eight alternate days,
during which time there is at least one hour per dium allowed for exercise, the usual
custom at Fremantle is twenty-eight consecutive days and has been carried as far
as 30, 40 and 50, without light, air or exercise’.58
Cullity writes that according to Henderson’s ‘General Rules for Prisoners’, Rule
Seven identified that punishments would be established by the Superintendent andmight include being confined to a ‘dark or light cell’ while being fed on bread andwater (only or both) for a maximum of seven days. Separate confinement of up to 28
days could be ordered by the Superintendent, and a longer sentence determined by
the Magistrate.
Prisoner rights included ’every prisoner in separate confinement shall be furnishedwith the means of employment and moral and religious instruction’ (Rule 8) and‘Prisoners will have the privilege, if well conducted, of having the perusal of any of
the Books in the Establishment library…will also enjoy the advantage of one half-day
per week, for instruction in the schools’ (Rule 12).59

106

Appendices • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

Marshall writes that hospitalisation rates suggest that separate confinement had
a detrimental impact on convict health. ‘During 1858-61, morbidity rates among
separate treatment convicts were twenty per cent higher than the remainder of theFremantle Prison population. They also exceeded the elevated disease rates of theprison’s unskilled labour gangs’.60 He concludes that time spent in the refractory
cells was the most important predictor of mortality for convicts under sentence(probation and reconvicted men). Every day spent in the refractory cells increased
the odds of death under sentence by a remarkable 4.1 per cent. It is possible thatthe deficient living conditions in the cells contributed to this. A board of justices
visiting the refractory cell block shortly after its completion commented on the“extreme want of ventilation and consequent most offensive effluvia” emanatingfrom within. The cells were also so damp “as to render it necessary to have thebedding exposed to the open air every morning to dry”. The latter problem likely
persisted until 1863 when Superintendent Lefroy finally ordered that the floors beraised in order to prevent the usual flooding after heavy rains. Refractory prisoners
also used waste buckets at night, which may have increased their chances ofcontracting diseases such as dysentery and enteric fevers.61
Doctor Attfield repeatedly drew attention to the physical effects of solitaryconfinement on the prisoners. For example, on 2 March 1857 he made the following
note in the Medical Journal:
Today I inspected on parade the probation prisoners and the hard labour men,
their general appearance and condition was satisfactory. On visiting the prisoners
in solitary confinement I was particularly struck with the pallor and want of energy
in the aspect of 4276 James Crix. I consider that much of this state depends on
the solitary confinement and therefore recommend that he be at once released
from this discipline.62
Prisoners were so described by the doctor in his Medical Journals with monotonousreiteration. Due to their weakened state these prisoners had to be placed onalternative labour plans. The prison doctors carried out this policy, even for theprisoners they considered malevolent. For example, in April 1858 Doctor Attfield
wrote:
with reference to 3867 Michael McShane, to whose insubordinate conduct
my attention was again directed yesterday by the Superintendent, I should
recommend that he be again transferred to one of the Refractory cells and kept
under strict observation. I do not screen this prisoner from the punishment hedeserves on account of any doubts as to the state of his mind, but because I
know him to be suffering from an incurable pulmonary complaint which would bemuch aggravated by deprivation of diet.63

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendices107

And again in May:
It was yesterday recommended that prisoner Michael McShane who is now
located in one of the refractory cells should be employed in breaking stones in
the adjoining yard. This prisoner’s weak state of health precludes him from doing
the work required from an ordinary probation prisoner and his peculiarly vicious
disposition and insubordinate conduct prevent his being kept at any Invalid
Depot.64
Solitary confinement continued as long as the Prison was operating. Marshall writes
that ‘scholars have found that the mental and physiological impacts of solitaryconfinement on prisoners have remained relatively consistent over the last 200
years. It increases the likelihood of suicidal impulses and can induce a ‘panic state’in prisoners. Social segregation, sensory deprivation and physical restrictions canlead to “a feeling of abandonment, a back to the wall, dead-end desperation, an
intolerable emptiness, helplessness and psychological distress’’.65 This important
topic is out of scope of this report, and it is recommended that further research isundertaken on mental health.
Corporal Punishment
Olimpia Cullity describes an item, 129 pages long, of the 1862 Rules andRegulations for the Convict Establishment signed by Henderson and dated between
1859 and 1862. The document sets out rules on all aspects of penal life, including
the quantity of food to be served to prisoners (scales of rations), how punishment
should be administered, how both staff and prisoners should behave within the
Establishment and towards one another.
Henderson’s rules reveal that officers were expected to treat prisoners fairly and toact as role models. Rule Two, for instance, declared that ‘it is the duty of all Officers
to treat the prisoners with kindness and humanity’. And yet corporal punishment
issued at the Prison defies that notion.
A ‘return of corporal punishments’ was prepared in 1862 in response to theprisoners’ complaints about their treatment. The return records the frequency andextent of flogging as a punishment. One example shows Prisoner ‘2354 Thomas
Maughan given 36 lashes for attempting to abscond from the Convict Establishment
on 16 February, 1859; 100 lashes for Absconding from Public Works on 18
August, 1859 and again 50 lashes on 10 October, 1864 for Absconding from North
Fremantle’.66
Certainly, flogging was unpopular among Fremantle local residents, which foundvoice in the local papers of the day. In 1897 one newspaper reported that a
prisoner had been awarded ‘thirty-six lashes and a month’s confinement in irons forescaping’ yet for the people in the vicinity when the flogging was being carried out,
described ‘the screams which emanated from inside the prison walls as the mostfearful and unearthly they ever heard during their lives’.67 The same paper, had, years
earlier called for the brutal corporal punishment to cease; ‘the present ‘system’ if it
can be dignified by such a name, is purely punitive and nothing more and must be
fraught with evil effect to many. This is unworthy of a progressive and enlightenedcommunity and it is to be trusted that reform is near at hand’.68

108

Appendices • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

Physical injury resulting from flogging could render a man useless for physicalwork. Cullity describes the ‘leather belt with broad arrows stamped on, [which] may
have been a kidney belt used to protect vital organs during the damaging processof being flogged with the cat’o’nine tails’. She asks whether this protection was toprotect the ‘resource’ of the working convict or for more humanitarian concerns.69
Similarly, Marshall suggests that ‘as convict labour was a prime function of theprison, it is possible economic rather than humane motivations led away fromflogging as a regular punishment.70
The Western Australian Commission into the Penal System in 1899 recommended
the abolition of flogging ‘for all prison offences’. The approach of the Commission
was a mixture of humanity and pragmatism, as the following excerpt regarding thetreatment of one particular prisoner shows:“A recent case in this colony forced this point upon my attention. On the trial it
was proved that no less than five previous convictions for a like offence had beenrecorded against the offender. Long terms of imprisonment had been imposed.
On every previous occasion the lash had been awarded, the total stripes on
the live convicts amounting to 70, 50 of which he had actually undergone, theremaining being countermanded solely because of the danger to his life theirinfliction would have entailed. Up to this time his only plea had been one of “notguilty.” On this being determined against him his punishment followed as a matterof course. To an ordinary observer there was nothing in his appearance or manner
to indicate insanity of any kind; but of the fact of the commission of the offencein each case there could be no doubt whatever. At the last trial his friends raised
the plea of insanity. The Crown Law officers very properly had him examined by
the medical men who preside over the asylums here, and independent medical
testimony was also called, and his insanity upon this particular point wasestablished to the jury’s satisfaction; the most startling feature of the medical
evidence being that men afflicted with this particular kind of insanity are almost
invariably among the purest-minded and purest-living during their lucid intervals,
and they suffer intense mental torture for what they have done when their mentalbalance is restored. If this afflicted man was insane on the last it is fair to infer that
he was on the previous occasions. Had the prisoner in the case mentioned been
so treated from the first, much suffering on his part, much annoyance to his fellow
men, and much expense to the country would have been spared.”71
However, it offered no objection to retaining the ‘birch’ for juvenile offenders citing
the acceptance of the practice across Europe; ‘the birch or whipping of children ispermitted by the criminal laws of England, Ireland, Scotland, Norway and Denmark’.72
However, as Thomas and Stewart write, ‘the Royal Commission was valuableapart from anything else because it initiated discussion, above all they suggested
the elimination of much that was vicious and cruel in the existing system. They
recommended the abolition of flogging for all prison offences, the abolition of thedark cells, a ‘relic of barbarism’, the use of irons and the use of the crank’.73
Cullity writes that ‘the experience of incarceration at Fremantle was shaped
successively by the often, competing agendas of reform and punishment’.74 ‘1863,
saw the re-emphasis on deterrence as a penal principle, it nevertheless saw also thecompulsory introduction of a surgeon and chaplain into every prison’.75

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendices109

A real step in the direction of showing kindness to prisoners and in improving thequality of their life in prison, came with the Royal Commission of Inquiry in 1911,
under the Chairmanship of Captain Robert Pennefather. As a result of that inquiry,
the Commissioners made the following recommendation:
In Queensland, prisoners are allowed to play chess and draughts in their leisurehours and are provided with the necessary boards and men. This has been foundto have a very good effect and I would recommend they be allowed the same
privileges here.76
The Comptroller General of Prisons ensured that the games were allowed, writing
to the Acting Superintendent, ‘in future, well conducted prisoners are to be allowed
to play Chess and draughts. The Storekeeper should, therefore, obtain a supply of
the necessary boards and men. We could later on, perhaps, make some boards andmen in the Prison’.77
He also reached out to the Superintendent regarding the female inmates, housedin their own section of the Prison; ‘I shall be glad if you will let me know whatrecreation is afforded the female inmates of the prison and what proposals, ifany, you have for their amusement etc., during recreation hours’.78 The new
Superintendent replied, ‘I am glad this has come up, it is one of those things which
an intelligent matron should have brought to notice’.79 He later confirmed, with theComptroller General that there were no forms of recreation for female prisoners.
Books were changed once a week and that seemed to be all the amusement theprisoners were allowed. He therefore introduced the following; ‘they dine together
under the supervision of an Officer; Books to be changed as often as may benecessary; Educational books are now issued; drafts and Solitaire are now provided
and can be played during recreation hours and they can exercise in the grounds’
and finally ‘I will get a box of dominoes, this I think should be sufficient, in any case
it is an improvement’.80 The Comptroller General replied to the Superintendent
rather ominously for the Matron; ‘I trust the Matron will not be off duty again on mynext visit – I am particularly curious to have a lengthy interview with her, next Friday
morning’.81
In April the following year, the Comptroller General was pleased to be able to passon the following comment from a Visiting Magistrate, ‘it is pleasing to note thepleasure that some of the men derive from the simple games that are provided fortheir recreation’.82
Following the Pennefather Commission, the new Superintendent Hugh Hann,‘inherited a fairly traditional system which had just been examined by a royalcommissioner and it seemed to him that the system could be improved’. Thomas
and Stewart write that ‘he emerged as a committed reformer who, to judge from hiscomments in Annual Reports, was not much given to restraint’.83 ‘It was up to Hann
and the new Comptroller-General to see which of the recommendations of the Royal
Commission should be accepted. Their views on the report are not recorded, but
Drew, the Colonial Secretary, regarded the report as ‘the finding of a disciplinarianrather than a prison reformer’.84

110

Appendices • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

Other developments during the tenure of Hann, with the support of the newComptroller-General, F. D. North, included the establishment of a preventative
detention committee, aimed at habitual offenders and a strong Prison Gate
Committee.
Thomas and Stewart write that Hann’s first Annual report of 1912 shows the
direction in which he intended that Fremantle should go. A vegetable garden wasestablished, to combine therapy with profit and another garden was created where
the prisoners could sit, and talk and read’.85 He had very definite views about suchordinary matters as prison clothing, insisting on the ‘total abolition of any outward
and visible sign of prison marking on clothes’. He introduced collars, ties and asmarter jacket. They continue, ‘it is worth noting that these simple but effective
reforms were not introduced into England until some ten years after Hann had
insisted upon them in Fremantle’.86 ‘During his period as Superintendent, Hann
never lost his impetus, nor did North fail to support him. “Fremantle Prison” the
new Comptroller-General noted in 1913, “is our criminological centre and it is here
the main activities of prison reform find vent”.87 The authors argue that ‘Hann wasprobably the most important figure in the history of Western Australian prisons since
the convict period’.88

Addiction
Inebriates (Female)
In March, 1905, when William George, Superintendent of Fremantle Prison, wasasked to provide comment on the classification of prisoners and the possible‘contamination’ of the younger or more innocent female prisoners, he respondedwith dispassionate candour:I am afraid that there is no classification required among the female prisoners,
as it is quite an exception that any other than prostitutes and habitual drunkards,
who are also nearly all prostitutes, are received. 89
He did then further elaborate that on the rare occasions it was necessary to keepa girl or woman separate from the other women, it could be done and he further
suggested that if:‘any one of the younger prisoners expresses any desire to reform she could be
separated from the others’. On the day of writing, there were twenty-four female
prisoners in Fremantle Prison, and of those, he wrote, ‘only 2 or at the most 3 are
not reputed prostitutes’.
Leigh Straw writes that the majority of women charged and convicted in the Western
Australian courts at this time, ‘were arrested for offences against good order. The
police and the courts had little tolerance for offences against good order’ [which]had a 95% conviction rate, thus women charged with offences against publicorder were almost guaranteed’ to end up in Gaol. In general, they were sentenced
to between three and six months gaol with hard labour.90 Since the opening ofFremantle Prison, female prisoners had been a subject of criticism. In 1881 it wasrecounted how the female prisoners were ‘of the most abandoned class and utterly
depraved’.91 Throughout the nineteenth century the women were generally confinedin the same prisons as the men, although they were kept separate from them.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendices111

This was necessary because of the problem of transporting them to a central
institution, because their sentences were short and because they were, as they
always have been, a relatively small proportion of the prison population. In 1875
for instance, 1153 men and 194 women were committed to prison. The respective
figures in 1895 were 1464 and 153.92 The female inebriate posed a particular
dilemma for society. Degenerate theories of the late nineteenth century identified
heavy drinking as ‘part vice, part disease’.93 However there was as yet still no
inebriate’s home or institution to which to send female inebriates. Thus, they were
locked inside Female Prison and branded criminals.
Commenting on the same problem he was experiencing in his own gaol,
Superintendent George’s counter-part in New South Wales declared in 1904 that
habitual drunkards constantly passed ‘from the street to the prisons and back again
under a system as incomprehensible as it is useless’.94
In 1908 the Superintendent George put the average number of females in Prison at
47, although a small bump at that time put the number up to 57. Due to there being
only 38 cells, ‘19 of the women have to sleep on the floor of the day room, less a
few occupying beds in the infirmary’.95 Considering the increase in female prisoners,
he wrote ‘I feel compelled to ask for additional accommodation’.96
By 1914, the Superintendent of Fremantle Prison, Hugh Hann had been working
for some time with the Preventative Detention Committee and the Prison Gate
Committee, pressing for this reform for female prisoners, and most especially forthe establishment of a Female Inebriates Home. The authorities almost opened ahome for this purpose at Guildford, but the commencement of the Great War putthat on hold. In October, hearing that a Female Inebriates Home was not going to
be opened, Hann decided to tackle the issue from another angle. Hann undertook
a comprehensive review of the female prisoners under his charge, the report ofwhich he sent to his superior, the Comptroller General of Prisons, Frederic North.
The report reviewed the incarceration of 25 women from Fremantle Prison goingback for the previous 18 years. Hann used alphabetical letters to refer to each of theprisoners, instead of using numbers or names, ‘to prevent publicity being called toany particular individual ’.97 He kept the corresponding names in his possession but
thought it best to keep them confidential. He wrote to the Comptroller General:
I began enquiring into matters and felt so impressed with the results, that I
determined to go through the Fremantle Prison Records, of all women who weknow to be regular habitues of this prison.
With one exception, all these sentences have been given in the Minor Courts, andrange from 24 hours to 6 months, with or without fines.
It proves the inefficiency of the short sentence, repeated year after year.
It proves that drunkenness is at the bottom of the degradation, assisted, in agreat many cases, by domestic unhappiness and not as a result of crime, whichhardly exists amongst the Females.
It shows the direction in which the Police Act and the Inebriates Act should be
amended.

112

Appendices • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

These women, without exception, are women of weak will, and what they require
is something that will strengthen their weakness.
How is it to be done? I do not believe in drugs for these people; but I do
know they absolutely dread the thought of being deprived of their liberty for alengthened period; that is, I believe, their only chance.
The percentages of the offences and their bearing on the position are as follows:• ‘Assumed to be result of drink 93%’
• Drunkenness is responsible for 45% of Imprisonment• Disorderly conduct 22%• Vagrancy 18%• Prostitution 6%• Obscene Language 2%• ‘Crimes which may or may not be due to drink 7%• Stealing 2%• Damaging Property 1%• All other offences 4%
Having now completed the statistical part of my investigations, I think the mattercan well be left to abler pens than mine, to draw conclusions from the facts
disclosed.98
However, he did add some further analysis of the return and his interpretations:
The average number of women in Fremantle prison is 30, this keeps fairly
constant; so the 25 women can be taken as fairly representative of the lot, more
especially so, as it covers a long period, viz. 19 years; and the individuals are, tothis day, still going the monotonous round of in and out.
It should not be supposed that prison treatment is absolutely futile; it has someeffect on first offenders. For instance, during the four years 1910-1913, wereceived in Fremantle Prison, 102 females as first offenders, of these, 97 havebeen on discharged expiry of sentence, 37 of these women have since beenreconvicted; ‘these are failures’ and represent 38.14% of the whole, leaving 60 or
61.38/% who so far as we know, have profited by their lesson.
This shows the majority can look after themselves and it is the minority that
requires attention; very few of these women have any other home (except prison)than the streets, public places and brothels. They often make real hard attempts
to keep off the drink, but their wills are too weak to withstand their temptations
and environment.
Many women beg to remain in prison after their time is expired, in hopes of theCommittee being able to get them work. For very obvious reasons, it is almost
impossible to place them, but we try and even get partial successes at times.99

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendices113

Hann’s claim that ‘many women beg to remain in prison after their time is expired’
was not mawkish or fanciful. One example in 1916 saw the Superintendent go tosignificant lengths to protect a young prisoner from re-entering the life that had
placed her in Fremantle Prison in the first place. He wrote the following letter to theComptroller General in October, 1916:
I have the honour to ask assistance of the Government on behalf of an exprisoner by name Beatrice Armstrong, who was sentenced on the 2nd June last,to 6 months imprisonment as an idle and disorderly person, together with hermother.
The case is a sad one and I think deserves sympathetic treatment. She isnineteen years of age and on arrival here was suffering with a certain disease, of
which she has been quite cured, [by this Hann is referring almost certainly, to avenereal disease] and has a medical certificate to that effect from Doctor Williams.
She dreads renewing the life and knows if she leaves prison and joins her mother,or may be some of the ex-prisoners, in Town, her fate will again be the same.
She desires to make a new bid for life but she cannot do so with no home orfriends to stand by. At present, though a free woman, I am allowing her to stayin the prison and I have promised to help her so far as I am able, and the Prison
Gate Committee are also interested in the case and desire I should ask authority
to spend from Public Funds, the cost of her fare from here to Melbourne,£16.15.0. The Salvation Army have promised to look after her on arrival and tohelp her in her attempt.
The Committee will fit her out with all that is necessary, but having no funds cannot
defray the cost to Melbourne without begging, and that we do not care to do.
If you will kindly bring this case under the notice of the Hon. The Minister, with theview of assisting this young woman, I should be glad’.100
Beatrice’s fare to Melbourne was approved and paid for from the Outdoor Relief
fund, the Colonial Secretary approving the amount of £16.15 on 4 November, 1916.101
Hann and North both concurred that the deductions to be drawn from the figures
tabulated by Hann, clearly showed that the existing method of sentencing had‘no tendency to reformation, either as a deterrent or otherwise’.102 In advising
the Colonial Secretary, fellow prisoner reformer J. M. Drew, North wrote that ‘Mr.
Hann believes that the Female inebriate Home will act as both a deterrent and as a
Reformative and Curative’ and strongly urged for such a scheme to be established.
North also suggested to the Colonial Secretary, ‘you may feel disposed to submit
these interesting, though pathetic, returns for the information of the Hon. T. Walker,
who takes so deep an interest in this question.103 Drew did forward the report to the
Attorney General, adding a rare personal note to the official correspondence, noting‘For your perusal. The returns and remarks will interest you I know’. Two days later,
Walker noted on the file, ‘I think the returns so instructive and interesting as to bedeserving of publication’.104 Hann agreed, noting ‘I think it would educate the Public
to what is done, its faults and remedies’. The Colonial Secretary’s remarks hinted ata real optimism for change.

114

Appendices • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

I have read these returns and report with a good deal of interest. Mr Hann, in myopinion, conclusively proves that the gaol is valueless as a reformative agency
in the treatment of inebriates. I had long since come to this conclusion fromgeneral observation, but here we have something concrete on which to form ourjudgement.105
Hann’s return was also forwarded to Doctor D. E. Williams, the medical officer forthe gaol as well as District Medical Officer in Fremantle, for his review. His reply,
providing such an insightful picture, is worth repeating here in full:I thank you for the opportunity afforded of expressing the opinion that the present
method dealing with delinquents of the type depicted in your ably compiled
statistics, is ineffective.
As you will know, for years past it has been my ambition to see a system inoperation that would give a fair chance of reclaiming a percentage of the worst
types and offer a complete recovery to all the early types.
As District Medical Officer, outside the Prison, I have the opportunity of knowing
what lives these poor women are, sooner or later, forced to live. A squalid room
called ‘Home’, the Public House Bar, the pavement and gutter, the drink Victim
madly fighting against the Law’s grim grip, dishevelled, tern, all semblance of
woman gone; the Lockup cell, the Police Court and Prison.
The prison received them unclean in the last degree, both in body and clothing,often no more than a skirt, blouse and pair of boots, nothing else absolutely.
Black eyes, bruises, sores, cuts, vermin and the ghastly aftermath of mental andphysical disorganisation that King Alcohol imposes upon all his subjects.
On arrival at the prison these women are bathed, their hurts attended to, andclothed in dresses from which, as far as possible, all suggestion of prison isremoved; they are given extra diet – milk, eggs, butter etc., as their condition may
demand and are often kept in bed for a day or two before starting general routine.
Kindly treatment and every effort to make her realise the fact that her womanhood
is respected, is the primary unwritten law of those in charge.
The result is always satisfactory; out of the apparently hopeless chaos comes awoman, respectful, clean, quiet and hard-working, a striking contrast; and in thisstate of clean clothes, clean body and restored health, the prison is left.
Back to the squalid “Home”, drink, soon the eternal round is finished for the tenth,twentieth, hundredth time.
At last if does not end in the Prison Hospital, one last time comes and end thus,
the Police, the Coroner, the Morgue, the Postmortem Table.
Such is the result of the short sentence system, which has been in vogue formany years and has failed to check or cure the types under discussion.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendices115

A radical change must be made, if we hope to do any good to individual cases;
a long sentence system should be enforced, to give sufficient time for a cure tobe effected, where possible, and the long sentence should not be enforced in a
prison, but in a Home, with surroundings of trees, flowers, lawns, outside andinside, furniture, pictures, music, table appointments, bedchambers, recreation
rooms; Matron and assistant Officers, all of such a character as to awaken tastes
for that which is clean, good and beautiful and disgust for what is base and low.
A love for a new life, a hatred for the old; then and then only, may we hope forregeneration.
Some, at first, of the old hands may have to stop in such an institution for life, but
the life would be clean and wholesome, the majority would be completely cured.
Your statistics show ages from 16 to 60 years and the impressions that can bepermanently stamped on the brain of a person between 16 and 32 are many, butwould be more difficult to impress on persons of increasing age.
The fact that all these types are quiet, obedient and hard working in prison, shows
how amenable to treatment they are, how much more amenable would they bein a well appointed home, lived in for a considerable period? They would leave
cured, no desire for drink, and every desire to lead useful lives.
I would like to express my appreciation of the work done in the Prison by Matron
O’Neil, work that cannot be over praised.
Finally, I beg to thank you for your courtesy in asking me to support you in helping
forward a social reform that we both felt needful, and congratulate you on having
compiled certain facts and figures, which must remove all doubt, in fair minds, as
to the necessity of such reform.
It is one thing to know what should be done, another to convince others of thesame fact and get it done.106
On reading the doctor’s report, the Colonial Secretary noted ‘the Medical Officer’s
report is a valuable contribution to the literature on this file on the subject. He draws
the sad picture with skill and force and he shows how the evil may be remedied’.107
Yet the evil was not remedied. A year later, the Superintendent again wrote to theComptroller General on the need for a female Inebriates home; ‘I am prepared towaive all opposition to the scheme, so long as we can make a start and clear our
streets of those who will not attempt to help themselves’. Hann proposed the New
Division of the Female Prison, be declared an Institution under the Act even though,he wrote, ‘this of course departs from the ‘ideal’.108
The reason for Hann’s compromise was the continued, significant, number of thefemale prison population who had been convicted alcohol-related crimes:
There is one matter which to me appears of great urgency, that is the Females.
Fully 80% of our inmates are here through drink, direct or indirect.
I understand from Doctor Montgomery there is small chance of an institution
for this class of inebriate being established for months to come and this awful
degradation will still go on unchecked.

116

Appendices • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

The Colonial Secretary approved Mr. Hann as Superintendent of this new section
on 26 March, 1915 and the Inspector General of the Insane was asked to ‘please
now deal with the question of setting apart portion of the Gaol premises as an
Inebriates Institution for females’.109 The new facility lasted little more than a year. On
10 August, a memo was sent by the Comptroller General to the effect that ‘the ‘newdivision’ having been decided upon as a Military detention barrack, other place ofdetention for refractory inebriates requires to be found’.110 One was not.
Modern Era:
Female Prisoners remained at Fremantle Prison until 1969 when a new prison,
Bandyup Prison opened in the Perth metropolitan area in 1969.111
Inebriates (Male)By 1870 with convict transportation a thing of the past, Fremantle Prison had
declined to the extent that the Governor William Robinson called it a mere ‘seaport
lock-up for drunken sailors and prostitutes’.112 By 1879 the Superintendent of
Police was calling urgently on the authorities for an ‘Inebriate Asylum’ in Fremantle,113
reinforcing the general perception that ‘the main activity in Fremantle itself seemed
to be the consumption of grog’.114 Indeed, in 1871 ‘of 4,561 summary convictions’ atFremantle, ‘2,000 were for drunkenness’.115 Offenders seen by Fremantle’s Resident
Magistrate included a significant number of women, and severe penalties applied toboth sexes. The local newspapers, reporting from the Fremantle court, show that afirst-time drunk and disorderly offender, male or female, could easily be sentenced
to six weeks’ imprisonment with hard labour.116
Whilst the Police Act of 1892 was introduced to directly tackle the anti-social
offences of drunkenness, idle and disorderly and vagrancy by 1898 the majorityof male prisoners in Fremantle Prison remained those who had been charged withminor offences such as petty larceny, vagrancy and, most especially, drunkenness.117
It was at this time, following the investigation of the Select Committee, that thecommittee reported that ‘Lunatics, imbeciles, drunkards, vagrants (meaning thereby
homeless wanderers and not necessarily criminal characters), diseased persons,should all be treated in institutions especially adapted to them, not in gaol’.118
However, many prison and other authorities argued that the place for prisoners
whose only ‘crime’ was inebriation and the petty crimes that were often associatedwith it, many years passed before a growing sense of justice was converted tolaw. In 1905, the Acting Superintendent of Fremantle Prison, Francis Townsend,
recognised this, calling for the establishment of a home for inebriates which would,
he thought, ‘materially reduce the number of inmates of this prison’ and pointing
out that ‘the victims of the drink habit are not only those convicted and sent here as
drunks, but are largely to be found among the vagrants, the disorderly and the petty
thieves’.119

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendices117

By 1911, it remained that ‘the overwhelming number of those arrested by police
were men and women arrested on Drunkenness, vagrancy and offensive-behaviour
charges. Their processing through the police courts, into gaol on short-term
sentences and out the other door was a distraction and an irritant to the main
business of criminal justice. In attempting to solve the ‘habituals problem’, the firstdifferentiation was the targeting of Drunkenness. This was done through the creationof separate institutions, the inebriate asylums, to which repeat offenders would
be committed. Almost universally, these asylums failed, but their establishment as
separate institutions was a mark of the times. Medical conceptions were replacing
moral ones, although the extent to which medical treatment replaced the penal andmoral treatment of the Drunkard was limited’.120 And in many cases actually failed.
However, in December 1912, the Legislature of Western Australia passed theInebriates Act, 1912 in order to stem this problem. According to the Act, an inebriate
was defined as anyone who ‘habitually uses intoxicating liquor or intoxicating or
narcotic drugs to excess’.121 Yet it took over two years to establish the kind of‘inebriates home’ for which the Act came into being.
In the meantime, what to do with convicted inebriates with no home to send themto, yet prohibition under the Act for confining them to gaol, became an increasingproblem. People sentenced by the courts merely for drunkenness could, whilst
waiting for an Inebriates Home to be established, be sent to Claremont Hospitalfor the Insane. Although this was a less than ideal situation, it avoided them being
sent to prison. More importantly, it asked the courts to decide who of those whocame before them, were considered ‘curable’. For the ‘habitual drunkard’, who often
committed petty crimes coincident with his/her drunkenness, Magistrates continued
to prefer to send the prisoner to gaol. Often with a note for ‘Special Treatment’.
In April, 1913 considering an application to have a prisoner considered an inebriate,
sent to Claremont Hospital for the Insane, the Under Secretary, Frederic North wrote
to the Under Secretary for Law:
I regret that until we are in a position to establish an Inebriate’s Home there is noroom for cases of this class.
The accommodation at the Claremont Hospital for the Insane is limited andunsuitable for the reception and treatment of the criminal drunkard. Indeed, thiswas clearly recognised at the time the Claremont Hospital was appointed an
institution under the Inebriates Act, by limiting its application to those cases only
referred to in Sections 5 and 6 as contradistinct (sic) from Sections 7 and 8 underwhich latter such a case as this would fall.122
He then suggested that it might be possible to ‘treat this class separately andmedically at the Fremantle Prison’.123 The papers were then forwarded for the
notification of the Attorney General, Thomas Walker, as per the custom of the day.
Walker was a committed prison reformist and he noted on the file ‘Noted. But I
do not like prisons for the treatment of inebriates. It is taking the very course theInebriate’s Bill was passed to avoid.’124

118

Appendices • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

North, at this time both Under Secretary and Comptroller General of Prisons, thenwent on to take up the matter with the Superintendent of Fremantle Prison, in hisrole as Comptroller General. In his Minute, he noted the objection of the Hon. The
Attorney General, and suggested to the Superintendent that ‘it would be a distinct
advance if separate treatment could be extended to this class and there is no doubtthat the criminal drunkard class must come under a form of penal treatment anduntil a special institution is provided the Prison is the only place for them. It reallyamounts to a classification of prisoners’.125 This letter began an earnest discussion
between the two administrators about how best to deal with the inebriate prisoner in
the absence of a home for their proper treatment. Hann responded:
Speaking from personal knowledge I think, that all persons, mere Drunkards
or criminals as a result of Doctor should not be punished by imprisonment
but should be reformed, or at least treated, in a proper home for considerable
periods. Penal treatment does not reform. Though it may deter some.126
North bristled at being mis-understood:
I am not advocating the Prison as the proper place for the treatment of this class,but merely as an expedient until proper provision is made.
At the present time these men are all herded together without discrimination
and what I have asked you to report upon is as to the feasibility of treating themseparately in prison by medicine and special diet.
Could not one portion of the Prison be set aside for this class, similarly as isdone in the Hospital for the Insane, for the treatment of inebriates, who would
be the special concern of the Medical Officer and could receive the best medical
treatment for the cure of inebriates as far as would be consistent with theirsurroundings?
In other words, until we have a proper place we are using the Hospital at
Claremont for the curative cases and the Prison at Fremantle for the criminalcases.
The two classes are quite distinct’.127
It was then Hann’s turn to show indignation at the implied insult of the Comptroller
General to his management of the Prison:
The prisoners are not herded together. Each individual is treated separately.
The Medical Officer sees, examines and prescribes any treatment that he thinks
necessary, even to taking them into the prison Hospital and takes special careof inebriates and every facility is given him, to bring this class back to a normal
state. They are nursed back to health but it is no fault of ours, that this class dofall again, after release.
If this prison lent itself to a proper classification, well and good, but it does not,then, why suggest methods which in actual practice would be pretence, pure andsimple, classification and separation look very well on paper, there it ends, as it isa mere farce in every day prison life in Fremantle.128

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendices119Days later the argument continued. However, it is important to note that these are
not merely two egoists in a narrative arm-wrestle. Both these men were committed
to prison reform and the betterment of the system. Their argument genuinely
articulates the difficulty that was presented to them in the handling of inebriate
prisoners, within the confines that the law allowed, not only according to the letter ofthe law but to the spirit of it. North replied:In the first part of your minute you say that ‘the prisoners are not herded
together’, but that each individual is treated separately. Surely this meansclassification and separation.
In the last paragraph of your minute you say ‘classification and separation lookvery well on paper but is a mere farce in Fremantle’. I confess your minute seems
slightly contradictory.
Please bring this before me when I am next at Fremantle, for further discussion.129
No further discussion at this date is included in the correspondence. Althougha short note to officially draw the subject to a close was written the file dated 5
June, 1913 noting simply ‘Comptroller General. We discussed this matter’. In all
likelihood, the two men had an earnest debate over the subject when they did seeeach other the next time North was in Fremantle. The opinion of Augustus Roe, thePolice Magistrate in Perth to the Under Secretary for Law on the subject, further
defined the legal and ethical conflicts presented by the Act, yet reveals that the law
continued to ‘condemn’ habitual drunkards on moral as well as legal grounds:
Considerable difficulty is experienced in dealing with hopeless habitual “drunks”
who are brought up time after time at the Police Court.
These Police Court habitual drunkards, will not, and very properly too, be
admitted to the Inebriates Institution; under the provisions of section 8. Sub. Sec(3) of the Inebriates Act, that institution never being intended for the treatment ofsuch cases.
It has occurred to me that the difficulty could in some measure be got over by
a portion of the Gaol at Fremantle being specially set aside for the treatmentof these cases, there, they could receive special treatment required for suchcases and the worst of the cases could be sent there for periods ranging up to 6
months.
One of the first requisites for a drunkard, if you want to cure him, is to keep him
occupied, mentally and physically, and that is now rendered impossible by theproviso in section 8. Sub. Sec (2) of the Act, which states that if any person issentenced to imprisonment for drunkenness, it shall be without hard labour, noworse provision as far as the Drunkard’s welfare and his possible cure, could havebeen inserted in the Act.
Occupation, mental and physical, especially the latter, are absolutely essential if
you want to cure the craving for drink.130

120

Appendices • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

Why, ‘and very properly too’? Surely the very proper place for an habitual drunkard
is an Inebriates home, dedicated to the cure and restoration of the disease? Thiswas certainly Hann’s position, which is seen when the subject was resurrected in
October that same year. Hann and North’s discussion is expressed more fully andmore heatedly, but reveals the difficulty facing the administrators of the day, so isworth repeating here in full.
On 1 October, North wearing both hats, wrote to Superintendent Hann:
I can still see no reason why we should not set apart a special portion ofFremantle Gaol for the reception of criminal drunkards, who would be the special
care of the Medical Officer.
It would be just as feasible for the Lunacy Authorities to say than an Asylum
for the Insane is not the proper place for the treatment of inebriates and that
the Inebriates Act was passed to remedy this state of affairs, as for the Prison
Authorities to say that the Prison is not the proper place for criminal drunkards,
for the same reason.
At the present time we are faced with the position of having an Act without thenecessary machinery and buildings to carry it out and it is, therefore, incumbent
upon us to make the best of the means at our disposal.
The Lunacy Department has laid itself out with considerable success to cope withthe curative cases of inebriates and I can see no reason whatever why we should
not make a similar effort in connection with the criminal inebriates at Fremantle,
especially as we are not crowded out for accommodation.
Kindly give the matter further consideration.131
Superintendent Hann was at the Prison every day. He knew how a prison sentence
affected the prisoners; he knew what pitfalls it held for their health and self-esteem;
he knew the difficulties in every instance. The subject was not merely academic forhim. A few days later, Hann sent a heartfelt and cogent response:
There is no reason why a portion of Fremantle Prison could not be utilised in theway you suggest.
There are several reasons why it should not.
First, it would be meaningless.
Second, it would not and could not affect the desired end.
Third, it would mislead the Public into the idea that we were doing somethingwhich we were not, and thus delay the provision of a proper place for the cure or
attempted cure of this evil.
Fourth, it would be cruelty, and instead of curing would accentuate the evil.
As regards the first. It would mean nothing because we cannot in Fremantle keep
classes separate, they are bound to mix, unless they are locked in their cells allday. This would not cure.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendices121

As regards the second. It could not accomplish the desired end which isreformation, because the whole system of dealing with the poor who get drunk, iswrong. In the first place they should not be sent to a prison where the stigma of‘Gaol Bird’ is added to that of being a dipsomaniac.
They come in for short periods varying from 48 hours to six months and their one
idea is to get out and have another bout for which their short detention in prison
has fortified them.
As regards the third. It is the settled opinion of all Prison Governors and of those
who make a study of the problem, that drink in itself is not a crime (though it often
leads to it, in fact most crimes are due to it) and therefore Institutional and not
Prison is a proper remedy.
As regards the fourth. To treat these men as an absolutely separate class inFremantle, would mean total isolation with no surroundings tending to raise them
above their present condition. Work in the shops would be barred, so would workin the garden, because of the criminals pure and simple, they would thus be thrownentirely on themselves to mope and curse, with the tendency always present not ofremaining a dipsomaniac but of becoming maniacal.
As regards paragraph 3 of your minute. To my mind, there is absolutely no analogy
between a Prison and a Lunatic Asylum. One is a place of punishment, the otheris a place for the medical treatment of those who are of unsound mind in any
shape or form. Drink is admitted to be a mental disease, hence I presume the term
‘Dipsomaniac’.
You use the term ‘criminal drunkard’, I would ask why? but the answer is so obvious,
you mean a person who is continually falling into the hands of the Police, whilst
under the influence of drink. He really becomes a criminal owing to his association
with a prison and criminals.
Re paragraph 4. I agree with you the fault is none of ours but it would be unless wepress the question home hard.
Re paragraph 5. I know nothing about the success or otherwise of the Lunacy
Department’s efforts, they are not faced with the same condition as we are, theircases are, I suppose, voluntary, ours is compulsory, and the worst feature is theshort sentence, it is absolutely destructive of whatever moral fibre is left in theindividual addicted to drink.
Give me an Inebriate institution and I believe I could rehabilitate many whose lives
are hopeless. I have lived, worked and helped them for 30 years past and I believethat most can be straightened up to face life again.
Prison classification cannot do it, we do all that is possible for those that come, they
get medical attention and any dietary the Medical Officer likes to order, if very bad,say D.T’s, they are kept in hospital and restored to a fairly normal condition.
The Magistrate asks that special treatment be given, but does not say of what kind,our ordinary treatment is described by the Medical Officer as the best. What more
can we do under the circumstances?132

122

Appendices • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

Hann was striving to really ensure that men and women suffering from drunkenness
deserved a chance to be healed not punished; “You use the term ‘criminal
drunkard’, I would ask why? but the answer is so obvious, you mean a person who
is continually falling into the hands of the Police, whilst under the influence of drink.
He really becomes a criminal owing to his association with a prison and criminals ”.133
This was the sticking point that it would take prison reformers many years to resolve.
In the meantime, men continued to be caught in the failings of the Act. One of these
was referred to at one stage by Frederic North as ‘our old friend peg-leg Johnson’.134
Case Study: Peg-Leg Johnson
John Johnson’s long and repeated prison life began in Kalgoorlie in March, 1898.
The statement of the arresting Constable was that on the afternoon of 24 March,he saw Johnson in a crowd outside Wilkie’s Hotel about 7.15pm. Johnson wasaddressing a crowd ‘and using bad language’. Later on, the Constable went overto him, which stopped his loud behaviour for a while. Then a few minutes later theConstable ‘heard Johnson say “‘stick to your colours boys, never mind Sir John
Forrest or any other b….y animal. Never mind the b….y Warden. Three groans forHare and Moran”. I then arrested him. He made use of bad expressions’.135
Fred Hare was the Police Magistrate in Kalgoorlie at the time so it can be assumed
that Johnson had had some local run-ins with the law before this date. This time
however, Magistrate Hare sentenced Johnson, now Prisoner number 3230, to
3 months hard labour and he was sent to Fremantle Prison, from where he wasreleased on 11 June, 1898.
Johnson had ‘lost a leg above the knee’ in an accident at the Eastern Goldfields andwore a wooden leg. A widower with two children, Johnson got into a bit of trouble
while he was on the Goldfields, with 7 convictions between 1898 and 1900, mostlyfor ‘Disorderly’. However, in 1911 he moved to Geraldton, stayed out of trouble
and, ‘unable to do any hard work, took up the occupation of a shoeblack and paper
seller’.136 His real trouble began when he sold that business in 1912 and headed for
Perth. He and his children were assaulted and robbed on the Express train. Thatexperience changed Johnson’s life, and in his own words a year or so later, ‘I havedone very little good since’.137 Johnson wrote that following the robbery, ‘I became
despondent and not having regular employment I commenced drinking heavily’.138 In
October 1912 he was imprisoned at Fremantle for three months, two months for
disorderly and one month for ‘damaging property’, for which he was also given the
onerous fine of 9 pounds, 12 shillings. Johnson’s ‘Prisoner’s History’ dated October
19, 1912 reveals an additional 28 convictions starting in February, 1901, again
mostly for ‘Disorderly’ or ‘Drunk’, yet they all saw him returned to Fremantle Prison.
He did not receive his first ‘Habitual Drunk’ until October, 1910, for which he wassentenced to two months with Hard Labour. Until October, 1912, when he was again
given a sentence of two months, this time for ‘Disorderly’, his sentences were mostly
in the form of days rather than months. And yet there were so many of them.
In January, 1913, when he was released from his three months in gaol, the Salvation
Army took him in to their Salvation Home in West Perth.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendices123

Johnson was sent to Fremantle Prison 38 times between 25 March, 1898 and 16
July, 1913, almost all for ‘disorderly’ or ‘drunk’. On 16 July, 1913 he was finallyconvicted of being an ‘habitual drunkard’.139 At this point, Johnson, now 50 years
old, wrote to the Governor for appealing for clemency. Petitioning the Governor wasa formality that was only allowed to certain prisoners with the approval of the Prison
Superintendent, who he considered to have mitigating circumstances. Johnson’s
petition finished with this appeal:
I will humbly ask you to consider my position and help one who is struggling to
get a honest living, by remitting the sentence or considering it in some way even if
you impose conditions, I will try to carry them out to the best of my ability.140
Then rather plaintively, Johnson added ‘I do not think that Prison Life will ever makea better man of me’.
The petition passed through the regular channels and when it reached the Under
Secretary for Law, H. G. Hampton, he wrote to the Attorney General:
If this man is dealt with in future it should be under the Inebriates Act. He is not acriminal and should not be treated as one. He is to be pitied rather than punishedfor his mania for drink. I recommend remission of remainder of sentence.141
The Attorney General approved the petition to have Johnson’s sentence remitted,
and 18 August, 1913 North wrote to the Superintendent to ‘please have prisoner
released accordingly’. The following day Superintendent Hann replied to North,‘noted and prisoner Johnson released today. He has given me his word of honour
that he will abstain from drink. I wonder what the result will be?’.142
Sadly, Johnson found himself in Fremantle Prison in the month following
the remission of his sentence. His second arrival at the Prison prompted theSuperintendent to write to the Comptroller General, F. D North, on his behalf andthat of a fellow inmate, also sent into the prison for the conviction of ‘Drunk’.
Prisoner John Johnson is again in gaol, this time for 6 months, Special Treatment,
also John Brown.
As you know, we have no means of special treatment. They are under the medical
officer’s care, more or less.
I put them to work on the wood heap just to employ their time.
It seems to me, and I think both yourself and the Attorney General will agree,that Prison is not the place for this class of delinquent. They should both be in
Claremont.
I should be glad of instructions’.143
At their conviction, the Magistrate had ordered the two prisoners to receive ‘Special
Treatment’, yet Hann’s difficulty lay in the question ‘what special treatment’?
Repeatedly, men like Johnson and Brown were being sent to Prison when there
should be a better place for them. His only option, for men who could not do hardlabour, was to give them something menial, and in Johnson’s case, manageable, todo with their time while they were imprisoned.

124

Appendices • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

North did reach out to the Inspector General of Insane to see if Johnson and Brown
could be taken in at Claremont, but received the response that ‘it is quite impossible
for us to receive men of this type as we have neither the buildings to house them inor the means to control them’.144 He did, at least, attempt to explain the situation at
Claremont Hospital more fully, as he added a note that he would call ‘and explain
this more fully to you’.145
Whitby Falls hospital (previously known as Whitby Falls Insane Asylum) was finally
opened as an inebriate’s home early 1915. As the Act allowed for the detention
and treatment of alcoholics in a ‘home’ for up to 12 months, at Whitby Falls, it was
intended for the inmates to remain for a long enough period to cure their addiction
to alcohol. Whilst they were there, the inmates ran the farm and carried out
renovations to existing c.1854 residence.146 However, the opening of the home did
not remove all contradictions in the Act nor entirely keep ‘habitual drunkards’ frombeing sentenced to the Prison instead of the Home. In addition, Doctor Montgomery,
the Inspector General of Insane, who had charge of Whitby Falls, asked to put asection of Fremantle Prison aside as an Inebriate’s Institution for male refractory
inebriates only, ‘in order to transfer inebriates who escape or otherwise seriously
break the rules, to the prison temporarily as a deterrent’.147 Hann’s response wasfirmly in the negative and reinforced his stance on making criminals of habitual
drunkards:
As you are aware I have steadily declined invitations to call any part of Fremantle
Prison an Inebriates Home for the very obvious reason that it would defeat theintentions of the Act.
If merely a cure was necessary, that could be carried out in prison, it would not
require a special Inebriates home.
The real reason underlying the whole question is, that drunkenness being a
disease, the State has no right to make a criminal of an inebriate.
I have thought a good deal about the Inspector General’s idea and the more I
think about it, the more convinced I am that it will spell failure, if these diseased
persons are to be made criminals for breach of discipline by being sent to gaol.
I know it will be said, they are not being sent to gaol, but to Fremantle Inebriates
Home. I cannot personally guarantee to keep the White sheep from the Black
unless I lock them up separately and when they go out, they will still be known as
Gaol Birds.
It is this aspect of the matter on which all Criminologists are agreed.
Hann also suggested getting the opinion of the Attorney General ‘before going
forward with the question’, almost certainly sure of getting the support of his fellow
prison reformer.148

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendices125

Doctor Montgomery, in his turn, pushed back:Mr. Hann’s ideas are very good in theory but I am afraid will not work out inpractice.
One must remember that at Whitby Falls we have no walls round the gardens andunless the staff is a large one, (which I hope it will not be) there will be no difficultyin the inebriates escaping.
The alcoholic is noted for his unreasonableness and when he gets the craving for
drink if he knows he cannot be punished he will not hesitate to clear out.
The fact that if they escape they will be sent to Fremantle to complete their term
will I feel sure will prevent this and if one or two are punished in this way the
Prison portion of the scheme will become a dead letter.
Mr. Hann apparently thinks it will be used considerably but I feel sure that the fact
it can be used will be sufficient to prevent its use.149
The Attorney General weighed in with his view, which essentially supported theposition taken by the Superintendent of Fremantle Prison:
I think one can as easily send back an escapee from Whitby to Whitby again as
we can send him to Gaol for his offence. The fact that ‘the alcoholic is noted for
his unreasonableness’ indicates that he needs sympathetic care not unreasonablepunishment.
When men are lacking the powers of reason they need guidance and not anger.
Personally, I cannot see any curative value in turning Whitby Inebriate Home intoa branch of the Fremantle Gaol’. 150
No part of the Prison was set aside for refractory Inebriates. As for John Johnson, by
1915 he had been in Fremantle Prison three more times, and his repeated presence
there continued to raise questions. On 10 November, 1915 the Crown Solicitor wrote
to Hampton:
three times since the Inebriates Act was passed he has been convicted of being
an habitual Drunkard and sent to gaol. Why were not proceedings taken insteadunder the Inebriates Act?151
Johnson was caught in a system that continued for more years to come. It
remained that the unwillingness of certain authorities to treat alcoholism as adisease; misinterpretations of the Inebriates Act and the willingness of Magistrates
to continue to sentence men to Prison rather than a home, sent many more men likeJohn Johnson, into the Gaol. In 1920, Whitby Falls had closed and Fremantle Prison
continued to hold prisoners sent there for minor offences such drunkenness, idle
and disorderly, and disorderly conduct. Thomas and Stewart write that in 1920, of
over 1,500 prisoners at Fremantle, only 51 of them had been awarded sentences ofover one year.152

126

Appendices • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

1960sIn February, 1963 the Acting Chief Crown Prosecutor wrote to the Comptroller
General of Prisons, at the request of Senior Puisne Judge (the Hon. Mr. JusticeJackson) to obtain certain information regarding prisoners sentenced under
the provisions of Section 662 of the 1963 Act. This part of the Act referred to‘indeterminate sentence on person convicted of indictable offence’:153
His Honour desires to know:(1) U nder existing conditions, what facilities has your Department to assist in the
rehabilitation of prisoners so sentenced;(2) A re they segregated from prisoners with long records – while working in the
shops and in recreation yards(3) In what way does their confinement differ from prisoners sentenced to a finite
term(4) If special facilities are available for their rehabilitation, would you kindly
specify them and if you see fit, express an opinion on their efficacy(5) I understand a new institution is being built… at Serpentine. Is it proposedthat young prisoners sentenced under section 662 of the code should be sent
there? If so, could you advise what facilities will there be available and(6) If … such an institution is being built, when will it be ready for occupation.
His Honour, in connection with a different type of prisoner, also desires toknow whether under section 669A of the Criminal Code, an institution has yet
been established for the reception of convicted inebriates. If at present there
is no such institution, can you inform His Honour when such an institution will
be available for the reception of such persons.
The Comptroller General of Prisons responded to the Acting Chief Crown
Prosecutor, revealing that essentially, very little had changed in Fremantle Prison for
the treatment of inebriate prisoners in over fifty years:
If considered suitable, prisoners sentenced under the above section of the
Criminal Code are transferred to an open institution such as Pardelup. Whilein the prison they are encouraged to attend the school, which is staffed by aqualified teacher, take correspondence courses and attend meetings of Alcoholics
Anonymous if alcohol is their weakness. If recommendation is made by the
Medical officer, they receive psychiatric and psychological examinations.
(1) It is not possible to segregate prisoners while at work due to our old
outmoded trade shops. They use a separate exercise yard for recreation to
those used by prisoners serving finite sentences.
(2) T here is no great difference in treatment. The only variation is that cell lights
are left on until a later hour to facilitate studies. Accommodation is in cells.
There are no dormitories in Fremantle.
(3) N o special facilities. Fremantle Prison is too small and is grossly
overcrowded. There is no space available for the provision of hobby or games
rooms. Under present conditions, security has to be considered before therelaxing of rules for any one group.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendices127

(4) P risoners sentenced under Section 662 of the Criminal Code will be eligible
for transfer to Karnet at Serpentine providing there are no medical reasons
against transfer and that we consider they have no escapist tendencies.
Regular psychiatric and psychological examinations will be made. Inmates
will be encouraged to further their education, attend group therapy and AA
meetings and enter all sporting activities. They will work in the open air andwill be employed on general market gardening and farm work.
(5) K arnet will be opened on the 29th March, 1963. One section, withaccommodation for sixty inmates, has been set aside for the reception of
alcoholics committed direct from the Courts.154
Thomas and Stewart write that in ‘another important attempt to cope with a chronic
problem, which was also influenced by world-wide discussion, was the Convicted
Inebriates Rehabilitation Act of 1963.155 The main feature of this legislation was theestablishment of an advisory board which was to be given the task of overseeing,advising on and assisting in the clinical treatment and the rehabilitation of, what
were termed convicted inebriates. The Act allowed the court, under certain
conditions, to place inebriates in an institution specially set aside for them. The
Advisory Board, could amongst other things, recommend variation of the sentence.
The people dealt with under the Act were sent to Karnet, the new establishment in
the Serpentine district opened on 29 March, 1963 which catered for sixty.156
Megahey writes that ‘the social revolution of the 1960s and 1970s impacted on
Fremantle Prison in a number of ways, illicit drugs and alcoholic home-brews took
their place alongside tobacco as jail currency’.157 He continues, that during the1970s and 1980s ‘the use of Drugs by inmates became widespread, including theuse of heroin and hash and cannabis, glue and paint thinner from the workshops. He
writes that ‘by the mid 1980s the Prisons Department had enlisted the assistanceof the C.I.B. and the Customs Service in its effort to control the problem. In a
Memorandum to his deputy-Directors in August, 1985 Ian Hill, the Director of the
Department of Corrections, expressed his concern about the “small but steady risein the number of prisoners committed for Drug offences and the increase in prison
offences relating to drugs’.158
A lack of education has also been highly noted in research data. Megahey writes
that of ‘the vast majority of Aboriginal inmates, over 84%, had undergone less than
three years secondary education. A lack of education was also high among thenon-Aboriginal inmates, although to a lesser degree. Over 40% on non-Aboriginal
inmates had completed less than three years secondary education’.159
There were, of course attempts to address the balance the negative impact of prison
life. A memorandum in 1978 declared:‘When a person is imprisoned he is deprived of his liberty and consequently thisDepartment has to assume certain legal and moral responsibilities for his welfare.
Therefore, the Department has actively encouraged to participate in recreational
activities, believing that recreation improves the inmates’ physical and mental
health, fosters the specific ability to play specialised roles in an appropriatemanner, provides socialising experiences by transmitting the presumed goals andvalues of society and also encourages character building activities.160

128

Appendices • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

Additionally, Fremantle Prison was suffering continued overcrowding. A research
paper in 1981 noted that ‘Fremantle (as always) remains well above its optimum
muster figure’.161 The rise was not entirely linked to an increase in criminality. Indeed,
one research paper observed that ‘during the last twenty years, there has been adramatic rise in traffic offences to the point where they constituted 25 per cent of allcommitments to prison in 1979/80’.162
It was also noted, that due to overcrowding the practical possibilities of carrying out
the spirit of the memorandum were limited. ‘Within broad terms, any recreational
programme within a prison setting is designed to develop an inmate’s selfexpression, creativity and self-esteem. At Fremantle Prison, Recreation Officers havegreat difficulty in finding spare rooms for any activity’.163
In 1982, a Prison research paper indicated the following:
The case is put below that this State should adopt as a conscious social andeconomic policy the limitation of the use of imprisonment as a sanction...amaximum acceptable average imprisonment rate of 100 per 1,000,000 should
form the basis for any planning of future prison accommodation…this isachievable without being unduly disruptive and that considerable economic
savings would result. This conscious setting of limits represents a radical
departure from the former practice of expecting the prison system to adapt towhatever rate of imprisonment might arise.
Although the reasons for Western Australia having a very high imprisonment rate
are many and complex, two are worthy of particular mention here. The first is theextent to which Aborigines are over-represented in the prison population. The
second is the much higher rate at which courts use imprisoment’.164
From the 1980s, again the effort was on keeping people out of gaol.
Thomas and Stewart observed that the problem of alcoholism was, and is, ‘a matter
which needs more imaginative treatment than crude imprisonment’.165 Certainly,
the opening of Karnet in Serpentine was intended as an ‘institution’ rather than aprison, with a view to reforming inmates. In 1971, another institution, Byford, wasestablished for alcoholics.
A policy research paper in 1982, revealed that ‘the most dramatic decline over theperiod has been drunkenness, which twenty years ago, accounted for one-thirdof all commitments. The dramatic fall in commitments for drunkenness after 1974
seems to reflect what appears to have been a conscious though informal decisionon the part of many of the Judiciary to employ sanctions other than imprisonment’.166

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendices129

Legislative Change Relating to Prisoners’ Well-Being
The first major legislation relating to prison administration in Western Australia
passed in 1848 and was in force for over fifty years.
Fremantle Prison continued to be run under entirely by the definitions of the 1849
Act until the 1890s. During this time ‘there had been occasional expressions of
dissatisfaction about prison administration in Western Australia. Thomas andStewart suggest that the appointment of Superintendent George ‘to the key postof Fremantle Gaol in 1897 had something to do with this dissatisfaction. In his first
Annual Report it is clear that he intended introducing a more repressive regime’.167
There was also a rapid increase in the prison population. Megahey writes that there
was a rapid increase in the population of the Fremantle Prison due to the gold rushin Western Australia between 1886 and 1895 and particularly of short sentence
inmates serving three months or less. The number of long sentence prisoners,
those serving upwards of five years, increased only slightly. In addition, to prisoners
being sent to Fremantle from the gold fields, prisoners were also transferred from
Perth Gaol which closed in 1888. So that by 1898, 62 percent of people committed
to prison in Western Australia were being sent to Fremantle Prison.168 Megahey’s
research reveals that in 1898, 1,522 people were committed to Fremantle Gaol, 89%of whom were male. Between 1898 to 1911 that proportion remained over 80%,
except in 1910 when it dropped to 79.5%. The majority of these men were between
the ages of 20 and 39 years.169 In addition, the vast majority of these male prisoners
in Fremantle Prison, 89.7% in 1898 and 90% in 1911, had been convicted for minor
offences, ranging from petty larceny to vagrancy and Drunkenness. Grave offences
included murder, manslaughter, other crimes involving violence, forgery and uttering,larceny and false pretences’.170
By 1898, the system was clearly dysfunctional. James Roe who was both Sheriffand Inspector of Prisons, lived in Perth and only made ‘perfunctory weekly visits’ to
the Fremantle Gaol, ‘leaving much of the responsibility for its management to theSuperintendent.171
Concerns about developments, or lack of them, in prisons came to a head in a
debate on 6 July, 1898, when a member of the Legislative Assembly, Frederick
Vosper, proposed the establishment of a royal commission. Vosper argued that thefact that prisons were administered under the Act of 1849 ‘which was grotesquein its obsolescence’ demanded action.172 Thus, the 1898 a Royal Commission ofInquiry into the Penal System of the Colony was appointed by Premier John Forrest
and consisted mostly of doctors and lawyers, seemingly a sensible choice. However,
Vosper complained that there were no members of the Legislative Assembly
appointed to the committee and that the people who were invited to join ‘had noexperience of, or special interest in penal affairs. “They had” he observed, “led livesof mediocre respectability”’.173
The terms which defined the Commission’s inquiry were:
To enquire into the existing condition of the penal system of Western Australia
and to report on the method now in use for the punishment of criminals, theirclassification, the remission of sentences, and the sanitary conditions ofFremantle Gaol, as well as to enquire into all contracts for supplies of food andother materials for use in the said Gaol.

130

Appendices • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

The Commission’s greatest impact, was in allowing prisoners to speak for themselves.
Megahey writes that ‘in all, 171 prisoners gave evidence’ to the Commissioners on
their treatment and the conditions of their incarceration.174 ‘The preliminary workof the Commission consisted in initiating a dialogue which clearly recognised that
prisoners had rights, including the right to a minimum standard of welfare and theright to complain when this standard was not upheld. Broadly, complaints brought
before the Commission by prisoners fell into two catagories; appeals against perceived
unfair judicial treatment and complaints about conditions within the prison’.175 Acrosseighty sittings over seven months, the Commission produced three reports which
recommended significant change in the operation of Fremantle Gaol. However, theCommission did not result in any legislative change.
The next attempt to enact prison reform came in 1902, when a Bill to update prison
legislation was introduced and “Regulations Relating to the Management and Controlof the Gaols and Prisoners” were published in the Government Gazette’.176 Under
these new regulations, Prisoners could request to see the visiting Justice who was
required to visit the prison at least one a week ‘to hear and determine all cases awaiting
adjudication and hear complaints of prisoners’.177 The Bill took eighteen months tomove through mechanics of Parliament. In introducing the Bill to Parliament, theColonial Secretary, Walter Kingsmill, exhorted, ‘We must conduct our prisons not onlywith a view to punish criminals and to deter, but also to exercise some sort of curative
influence’.178 Thomas and Stewart write that the discussion in the Legislative Assemblyover the Bill was altogether different from that of the conservative members in theLegislative Council and ‘much more sophisticated’ revealing the ‘emergence of a vocal
care of liberal opinion’.
The members expressing this opinion were: Illingworth, who was English and a noted
temperance worker; Moran; Pigott, Bath, who was perhaps the most distinguished of
the group and Taylor, who had been to prison. The informed nature of their comments
was impressive to such a degree that it is difficult to believe that only six years before,
Vosper battled alone to interest people in prisons. This new group was sufficiently
interested to challenge many of the assumptions underlying clauses in the Bill,
courageous enough to take a stand for the reasonable treatment of prisoners andinformed enough to draw the attention of the Assembly to situations elsewhere’.179
The 1903 Prisons Act was finally passed in November, 1903.180 ‘The Act gave power
to the Governor to make regulations for “the safe custody, classification, separation,
diet, instruction, treatment and correction of prisoners”.181 This Act remained theprincipal Act relating to prisons in Western Australia until 1991. Thomas and Stewart
suggest that being more extensive than either the 1849 or 1858 Acts, the 1903
Act repealed 16 separate Acts, ‘while at the same time retaining all their desirable
provisions’.182 Importantly, the Act also created the position of Comptroller Generalof Prisons. However, a little over a decade later, conditions within the Gaol remained
unsatisfactory. Following a series of protests by the warders of the Prison in 1911,
a Royal Commission was established in October of that year. Captain C. E. D. F.
Pennefather, the Comptroller-General of Prisons in Queensland, was appointed tohead it. Pennefather examined the entire running of Fremantle Gaol, no stone was too
small to be unturned. Yet the coincidence of a change of administration at this sametime, made probably the most significant contribution to effecting change at Fremantle
Prison. W. A. George, who had been Superintendent for many years, retired in 1911
and Hugh Hann was appointed to take his place.
FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendices131

Hann was an Englishman who had worked in three English prisons; had beenhead of Prisons in Sierra Leone and in 1906 had been given the position ofSuperintendent of Prisons in Ceylon. ‘The importance of Hann’s role in thedevelopment of prison policy in Western Australia springs from this background.
Although the English prison system had only just begun a programme of reform,
since 1895 it had firmly turned its back on much of the Victorian policy. Hann would
have had some experience of the new policy and the debates and controversies
preceding it, and it was this experience which made his contribution so vital in thechanging situation in Fremantle’.183
Shortly after George’s withdrawal from the system, Octavius Burt, who had been
Sheriff from 1901, also retired. Coincident with this change in personnel, theseparation of the jobs of Sheriff and Comptroller-General occurred. ‘It was in 1912
that the first professional head of the prison system in Western Australia was
appointed’. F. D. North who was also Under-Secretary and permanent head of theColonial Secretary’s department, ‘was a professional administrator’.184
This new team of Comptroller General and Superintendent became a reforming
force. ‘To support them, Hann and North had, for the first time in the historyof the system, a political power with a real interest in the subject: the colonial
secretary, J. M. Drew, who was appointed to his position in the second Labour
ministry of 1911. Drew wrote two pamphlets advocating reform’.185 In the years
that followed these appointments, ‘North took a keen interest in the duties and in
him the Superintendent has found a willing coadjutor and sympathetic supporter ofreform’.186 Additionally, at the end of 1911, ‘Western Australians elected their firstLabor government. The appointments of J. M. Doctorew as Colonial Secretary andThomas Walker as Attorney General meant that for the first time, the Superintendentand Comptroller General had the support of a political power with real interest in
prison reform, both politicians having long been enthusiastic advocates of reform’.187
As a result of the energy of these three men, in 1913 a new set of ‘Regulations
relating to the management and control of the prisons of Western Australia’ wasissued. In addition, in the year preceding, the Inebriates Act of 1912 was passed
which attempted, essentially, to decriminalise drunkenness. The introduction of the
Inebriates Act was a significant legislative act considering that the majority of inmates
within Fremantle Gaol were there on short term sentences for drunkenness and its
related charge of ‘disorderly’. The Act allowed the court, under certain conditions,to place inebriates in an institution specially set aside for them. This institution was
Whitby Falls. In early 1915, Whitby Falls was opened under the auspices of the
Inebriates Act of 1912, which allowed for the detention and treatment of alcoholics in a‘home’ for up to 12 months. The home only operated until 1918, at which time it again
became a hospital for the insane. However, in its place, other homes for the treatmentof ‘inebriates’ and later, alcoholism and drug addiction, followed.
Megahey writes that among the reforms which Hann implemented in Fremantle
Prison ‘were the abolition of the separate system, the introduction of games andrecreational activities for prisoners, the formation of a prisoner committee andthe introduction of monetary assistance for prisoners on their discharge’.188 Most
significantly however, he highlights Hann’s philosophy, which he writes, ‘emerges
clearly from his annual reports. Prisoner welfare was of real concern to him.189

132

Appendices • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

The next significant piece, or rather, pieces of legislation followed only five years
later in 1918. These pieces of legislation addressed, rather than the conditions of theprison, the rules that defined both the length of time in which a prisoner could besent and the conditions upon which he or she could be sentenced. The legislation
was focussed on reform and indeterminacy. These were as much about the spirit of
the law as the letter of it and would have far reaching impact.
Throughout the next forty years, very little significant change was made. It was not
until the 1960s that there was any further significant institutional change. Indeed,Thomas and Stewart argue that from 1919, the prison system entered a period ofstagnation. H.C. Trethowan was appointed the new Comptroller-General and A.
T. Badger, the new Superintendent, and, ‘from a governmental standpoint, these
appointments were shrewd, since neither man created any trouble. The next
thirty years were to be the most placid in the history of the system. The exercise
of caution which obviates any embarrassment for governments has certain othereffects which may be regarded as disadvantageous’.190
1960s to 1991
It was not until the 1960s that attempts to reform the prison system were once
again introduced. This era reflected the existence of international ideas about thebest methods of dealing with crime; ‘the years following the Second World War
saw a renewed interest in penal reform inspired by the horrors of imprisonmentand concentration camps which “provided the world with a picture of collective
punishment that was brutal, unjust and inhumane”’.191 Megahey writes that post-war
penal reformers ‘devoted unprecedented attention to the legal rights of prisoners’.192
Likewise, Thomas and Stuart write that ‘the genesis for change in a penal system isdifficult to pinpoint. The enactment of legislation or the introduction of new systems
is not necessarily the result of a calculated analysis of variations in the nature of the
problem of criminality, or an evaluation of rival methods of dealing with it. Rather,
especially in recent years, innovation in penal treatment is a result of the perusalof national and international practice which has been given a superficial validity byproponents of several ideologies.
The inspiration for changes in the law in respect of penal methods in Western
Australia did not come from an awareness of the changing composition of thecriminal, or more specifically the prison population. The changes were drawn
from a welter of international assumptions about the best methods of dealing withcrime, which were an amalgam of reformers’ care for the oppressed, a distaste for
imprisonment and a persistent faith in the successful outcome of a search for the‘scientific’ treatment of the criminal.
The two pieces of legislation that came from this movement were the Offenders
Probation and Parole Act of 1963 and the Convicted Inebriates Rehabilitation Act,
1963 .193 These Acts brought into law the ability to introduce probation as a meansof dealing with adult offenders, preserved the concept of indeterminacy through theintroduction of a parole scheme and attempted, again, to remove alcoholics fromprison life.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendices133

Since the mid-1950s, a significant rise in the numbers of prisoners in Western
Australia had led to severe overcrowding in Fremantle Prison. However, newprisons opened, including two open prisons and some medium security and theexistence of this new range of prison facilities, together with the new legislation
offered alternatives to custodial imprisonment and provided the framework within
which other improvements could be implemented. Megahey writes that two
important results were the establishment of a classification board, in 1963 and of anassessment centre, at Fremantle Prison in 1966.194
In the following decade, further reforms were instituted. Megahey suggests that:
New prisons and legislation alone cannot fully account for the developments
which took place within the Western Australian penal system throughout the
1970s, the real beginnings of which can be detected after 1966. It was only after
the appointment of Colin Wallace Campbell as Comptroller General in 1966, thefirst senior appointment made from outside the Western Australian prison systemsince 1918, that effective change began to occur.195
Campbell’s background in psychology and experience working in Child Welfare, led
him to have a philosophy in which he believed “Prison is a place for rehabilitation
and re-education, a place where people can retain their identity and, if necessary,create a new identity”.196
Megahey writes that one of Campbell’s first moves on being appointed Comptroller
General was to take over the chairmanship of the classification committee, ‘amove which brought him into direct contact with the inmates at Fremantle Prison’.197
Campbell reduced the requirement for classification from twelve months or more toinmates with sentences of six months, and sped up the classification process. He
also established a prison officers’ training school and an assessment centre within
Fremantle Prison which he hoped, would enable prisoners to access training andeducational programmes. Then in 1973 Campbell introduced a voluntary tutoring
programme for prisoners, ‘aimed at reducing the rate of illiteracy among prisoners
but also to provide social contact’.198
In 1977, Campbell died and was replaced by William Kidston. A few years later,
it had become apparent that the 1903 Prisons Act had become ‘increasingly
irrelevant’. Thus, a new Prisons Act was introduced into Parliament in 1981. Oneof the purposes of the 1981 Act, according to Chief Secretary, Bill Hassell, was ‘toincrease legislative responsibility for the Department’s activities by incorporating into
law’ the policies which had been introduced through standing orders, administrative
instructions and policy manuals.199
Again, the movement for reform reflected Fremantle’s role as part of an international
collection of penal establishments. Megahey suggests that ‘the years leading up to
the passing of the 1981 Prisons Act had witnessed numerous and unprecedentedchanges in the Western Australian prison system. Many of these changes mirrored
developments in prison systems across the Western world, as prisoners along withother minority groups began to demand civil rights’. In parallel, these years saw ‘theemergence of louder voices from within Fremantle Prison as inmates clamoured for
improved living conditions and more recognition of human rights’.200

134

Appendices • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

And yet, the 1981 Act seemed, to many onlookers, to weaken prisoners’ rights.
Whilst it was debated in Parliament, the Criminal Lawyers Association sent a listof criticisms to every member of Parliament urging changes ‘to no less than seven
separate sections’. However, ‘the government refused to consider any of the
proposed changes on the grounds that they would weaken the Prison Department’s
authority to maintain discipline and order’.201 Indeed, the Western Mail referred to theBill’s qualities as having ‘a distinct atmosphere of dehumanisation’.202
Megahey suggests reform in this period, became more about the ‘custodial
responsibilities of the Department and the need for more effective management’
under Kidson and Hill… ‘Despite major changes, discontent and tension continued
to simmer within Fremantle Prison throughout the 1980s, culminating in the riot andburning of the prison in 1988. The ensuing enquiry and report (the McGivern report),
attributed that disturbance to major defects in what McGivern termed the humanand administrative environments in Fremantle Prison’.203
As previously mentioned, the first antidiscrimination legislation to include disability
was in New South Wales, in 1981. Broad antidiscrimination provisions commenced
in Western Australia with the Equal Opportunities Act (1984). However, thislegislation did not include disability as a ground for unlawful discrimination until it
was amended in 1988 to include ‘impairment of body or brain’. Further protections
against discrimination, including proactive requirements to prevent against indirectdiscrimination, were enacted with the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act(1992) after the closing of the Fremantle Prison.204

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendices135

Endnotes

136

1

J. E. Thomas & Alex Stewart Imprisonment in Western Australia: Evolution,
Theory and Practice UWA Press, 1978 p.30

2

Thomas & Stewart, Imprisonment in WA, 1978, p.60

3

Marshall, Louis Ph.D Convict Era Surviving the Colony: The impact of theWestern Australian Convict System on Prisoner Health, 1850-1877 Ph.D Thesis,
UWA, August 2018 p.314

4Charleroy, Margaret, ‘Management of Health and Disease, 1850-1950’,
Exploring the history of prisoner health (website), post from https://
histprisonhealth.com/2016/02/01/correctional-care-management-of-healthand-disease-in-english-and-irish-prisons-1850-1950/, accessed 26 October
2021

5

Fremantle Prison library archive: Item no 310.2006 Fremantle Prison
Conservation and Future Use: ‘Hospital’

6

Copy of Petition from the Convicts of Western Australia, Fremantle, December
1866 (Prison File No. 24 (a)) p.482

7

Fremantle Prison library archive: Item no 310.2006 Fremantle Prison
Conservation and Future Use: ‘Hospital’8

Fremantle Prison library archive: Item no 310.2006 Fremantle Prison
Conservation and Future Use: ‘Hospital’

9

Rees et al, Australian anti-discrimination law, 2008, pp.249-251, 255

10

Rees et al, Australian anti-discrimination law, 2008, pp.17-19, 252-253

11

Rees et al, Australian anti-discrimination law, 2008, p.262

12

Rees et al, Australian anti-discrimination law, 2008, pp.262-263

13

Rees et al, Australian anti-discrimination law, 2008, p.263

14

Rees et al, Australian anti-discrimination law, 2008, p.309

15

Rees et al, Australian anti-discrimination law, 2008, p.417

16

Marshall, Surviving the Colony, pp.142-153

17

Marshall, Louis ‘The Ticketer’s Plight’ in The Carceral Colony, Studies inWestern Australian History eds J. Gregory and L. Marshall Vol 34, 2020 p.110

18

Marshall, Louis ‘The Ticketer’s Plight’ in The Carceral Colony, Studies inWestern Australian History eds J. Gregory and L. Marshall Vol 34, 2020 p.111

19

Megahey PhD A community apart: A History of Fremantle Prison. p.104

20

Dyspepsia was a condition relating to the stomach or upper abdomen. Cited
in J. E. Thomas & Alex Stewart Imprisonment in Western Australia: Evolution,
Theory and Practice UWA Press, 1978 pp.56-57

Appendices • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

21

See J. E. Thomas & Alex Stewart Imprisonment in Western Australia: Evolution,
Theory and Practice UWA Press, 1978 pp.56-57

22

J. E. Thomas & Alex Stewart Imprisonment in Western Australia: Evolution,
Theory and Practice UWA Press, 1978 p.55

23

Marshall, Surviving the Colony, pp.150-151

24

Marshall, Surviving the Colony, pp.56-57

25

Megahey, N. A community apart: A History of Fremantle Prison: 1898-1991
Ph.D Thesis, Murdoch University, 2000 p.142

26

Marshall, Surviving the Colony, pp.45-47, 108

27

Marshall, Surviving the Colony, pp.162-163

28

Fremantle Prison records AU WA S701 Cons 4200 1 Medical Journal M 19
1857-1859 . S.R.O, Perth29

Fremantle Prison records AU WA S701 Cons 4200 1 Medical Journal, M 19
1857-1859 S.R.O, Perth

30

Marshall, Surviving the Colony, p.154

31

J. E. Thomas & Alex Stewart Imprisonment in Western Australia: Evolution,
Theory and Practice UWA Press, 1978 p.55

32

J. E. Thomas & Alex Stewart Imprisonment in Western Australia: Evolution,
Theory and Practice UWA Press, 1978 p.55

33

Thomas & Stewart, Imprisonment in WA, 1978, p.37, quoting John SeptimusRoe, 1861

34

Thomas & Stewart, Imprisonment in WA, 1978, pp.25-26

35

Thomas & Stewart, Imprisonment in WA, 1978, p.33, quoting Henderson, 186136

Lambert, D.A The Old Convict Establishment p.4

37

Marshall, Surviving the Colony, p.74

38

Un-named early 1860s surgeon’s comments quoted in Marshall, Surviving theColony, p.45

39

Marshall, Surviving the Colony, pp.53-54, quoting 1852 letters of Governor
Fitzgerald

40

Marshall, Surviving the Colony, pp.220-221

41

Marshall, Surviving the Colony, pp.150-151, 222-223, 235

42

Marshall, Surviving the Colony, pp.228-229

43

Marshall, Surviving the Colony, pp.226-227

44

Cullity, Olimpia ‘Reform and Punishment: Fremantle Prison, 1850 to 1890’ inStudies in Western Australian History No. 31, 2016 p.76

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendices

137

138

45

Cullity, Olimpia ‘Reform and Punishment: Fremantle Prison, 1850 to 1890’ inStudies in Western Australian History No. 31, 2016 p.77

46

Cullity, Olimpia ‘Reform and Punishment: Fremantle Prison, 1850 to 1890’ inStudies in Western Australian History No. 31, 2016 p.76

47

Cullity, Olimpia ‘Reform and Punishment: Fremantle Prison, 1850 to 1890’ inStudies in Western Australian History No. 31, 2016 p.76

48

Cullity, Olimpia ‘Reform and Punishment: Fremantle Prison, 1850 to 1890’ inStudies in Western Australian History No. 31, 2016 pp.76-77

49

Cullity, Olimpia ‘Reform and Punishment: Fremantle Prison, 1850 to 1890’ inStudies in Western Australian History No. 31, 2016 pp.76-77

50

Thomas & Stewart, Imprisonment in WA, 1978, pp.10-11

51

Finnane, Mark, Punishment in Australian Society, Oxford University Press,
Melbourne, 1997, p.43

52

Marshall, Surviving the Colony, pp.132-133

53

Fremantle Prison records AU WA S701 Cons 4200 1 Medical Journal M 19
1857-1859 . S.R.O, Perth

54

Marshall, Surviving the Colony, pp.132-133

55

Marshall, Surviving the Colony, p.281

56

Cox, Catherine & Marland, Hilary, ‘We are recreating Bedlam’: A Historyof Mental Illness and Prison Systems in England and Ireland’, in Mills, A &Kendal,l K, (eds) Mental Health in Prisons: Critical Perspectives on Treatment
and Confinement’, Cham (CH), Palgrave Macmillan, 2018, Ch.2, https://www.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK539383/

57

Finnane, Punishment in Australian Society, 1997, p.44

58

Copy of Petition from the Convicts of Western Australia, Fremantle, December
1866 (Prison File No. 24 (a)) p.482

59

Cullity, Olimpia ‘Reform and Punishment: Fremantle Prison, 1850 to 1890’ inStudies in Western Australian History No. 31, 2016 p.69

60

Marshall, Surviving the Colony, p.281

61

Marshall, Surviving the Colony, p.322

62

Fremantle Prison records AU WA S701 Cons 4200 1 Medical Journal M 19
1857-1859 . S.R.O, Perth63

Fremantle Prison records AU WA S701 Cons 4200 1 Medical Journal M 19
1857-1859 . S.R.O, Perth64

Fremantle Prison records AU WA S701 Cons 4200 1 Medical Journal M 19
1857-1859 . S.R.O, Perth

65

Marshall, Surviving the Colony, p.132

Appendices • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

66

Fremantle Prison Library archive. PAR/5/1 Box AA Item 2013.15.4 ‘Convict
Establishment W.A Superintendent’s Office 13 October, 1862 Return of all
Corporal Punishments ordered by the visiting Magistrate at the above from 1
January, 1857 to present date’. Fremantle Prison.

67

Inquirer and Commercial News 23 July, 1897 p.9

68

Inquirer and Commercial News 20 October, 1893 p.18

69

Cullity, Olimpia ‘Reform and Punishment: Fremantle Prison, 1850 to 1890’ inStudies in Western Australian History No. 31, 2016 p.77

70

Marshall, Surviving the Colony, pp.66-68

71

Report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the Penal System of theColony. Perth, 1899 p.21

72

Report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the Penal System of theColony. Perth, 1899 p.16

73

J. E. Thomas & Alex Stewart Imprisonment in Western Australia: Evolution,
Theory and Practice UWA Press, 1978 p.64

74

Cullity, Olimpia ‘Reform and Punishment: Fremantle Prison, 1850 to 1890’ inStudies in Western Australian History No. 31, 2016 p.64

75

Research and Information Series, Western Australian Department ofCorrections The Ethical Problems of Pyschologists in the Prison Service’. D.
Todd, August, 1974 Fremantle Prison archive.

76

Prisons Department file File no: 1174/11 Item 1978.71 Royal Commission on
Fremantle Prison. Suggests Prisoners be allowed to play games – Male andFemale Extract from Captain Pennefather’s report on Fremantle Prison, dated
29/4/1911, file 878/1911 58. Games for Prisoners.

77

19 July, 1911 from Comptroller General of Prisons to Acting Superintendent,
Fremantle Prison. Prisons Department file File no: 1174/11 Item 1978.71
Royal Commission on Fremantle Prison. Suggests Prisoners be allowed toplay games – Male and Female Extract from Captain Pennefather’s report on
Fremantle Prison, dated 29/4/1911, file 878/1911 58. Games for Prisoners.

78

6 May, 1912 from D.C.G to the Superintendent, Female Prison. Prisons
Department file File no: 1174/11 Item 1978.71 Royal Commission on
Fremantle Prison. Suggests Prisoners be allowed to play games – Male andFemale Extract from Captain Pennefather’s report on Fremantle Prison, dated
29/4/1911, file 878/1911 58. Games for Prisoners.

79

7 May, 1912 from Hann, Superintendent, to Dep. Controller General Prisons
Department file File no: 1174/11 Item 1978.71 Royal Commission on
Fremantle Prison. Suggests Prisoners be allowed to play games – Male andFemale Extract from Captain Pennefather’s report on Fremantle Prison, dated
29/4/1911, file 878/1911 58. Games for Prisoners.

80

Prisons Department file File no: 1174/11 Item 1978.71 Royal Commission on
Fremantle Prison. Suggests Prisoners be allowed to play games – Male andFemale Extract from Captain Pennefather’s report on Fremantle Prison, dated
29/4/1911, file 878/1911 58. Games for Prisoners.
FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendices

139

140

81

13 May, 1912 Prisons Department file File no: 1174/11 Item 1978.71 Royal
Commission on Fremantle Prison. Suggests Prisoners be allowed to playgames – Male and Female Extract from Captain Pennefather’s report on
Fremantle Prison, dated 29/4/1911, file 878/1911 58. Games for Prisoners.

82

18 April, 1913 Comptroller General passed on an ‘Extract from report of visiting
Justice Nicholas dated 3/4/13. Prisons Department file File no: 1174/11 Item1978.71 Royal Commission on Fremantle Prison. Suggests Prisoners beallowed to play games – Male and Female Extract from Captain Pennefather’sreport on Fremantle Prison, dated 29/4/1911, file 878/1911 58. Games for
Prisoners.

83

J. E. Thomas & Alex Stewart Imprisonment in Western Australia: Evolution,
Theory and Practice UWA Press, 1978 p.91

84

J. E. Thomas & Alex Stewart Imprisonment in Western Australia: Evolution,
Theory and Practice UWA Press, 1978 p.92

85

J. E. Thomas & Alex Stewart Imprisonment in Western Australia: Evolution,
Theory and Practice UWA Press, 1978 p.93

86

J. E. Thomas & Alex Stewart Imprisonment in Western Australia: Evolution,
Theory and Practice UWA Press, 1978 pp.92-93

87

Cited in J. E. Thomas & Alex Stewart Imprisonment in Western Australia:
Evolution, Theory and Practice UWA Press, 1978 p.93

88

J. E. Thomas & Alex Stewart Imprisonment in Western Australia: Evolution,
Theory and Practice UWA Press, 1978 p.94

89

8 March, 1905 from W. George, Superintendent, Fremantle Prison to theComptroller General Colonial Secretary’s Department records AU WA S675
Cons 752 Item 1905/0623 Fremantle Gaol – Scheme for classification of female
prisoners S.R.O, Perth90

Leigh Straw, ‘Outcast Women’ in Studies in Western Australian History No. 31,
2016 pp.82-83

91

J. E. Thomas & Alex Stewart Imprisonment in Western Australia: Evolution,
Theory and Practice UWA Press, 1978 p.159

92

Cited in J. E. Thomas & Alex Stewart Imprisonment in Western Australia:
Evolution, Theory and Practice UWA Press, 1978 p.159

93

Leigh Straw, ‘Outcast Women’ in Studies in Western Australian History No. 31,
2016 p.86

94

Finnane, M. Punishment in Australian Society Melbourne: Oxford University
Press, 1997 p.88

95

19 May, 1908 from Superintendent, Fremantle Prison to the Comptroller
General. Colonial Secretary’s Office files AU WA S675 Cons 752 Item
1912/2318 Fremantle Prison: alterations (includes CSO 1909/2393 ‘female
accommodation’. S.R.O, PerthAppendices • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

96

19 May, 1908 from Superintendent, Fremantle Prison to the Comptroller
General. Colonial Secretary’s Office files AU WA S675 Cons 752 Item
1912/2318 Fremantle Prison: alterations (includes CSO 1909/2393 ‘female
accommodation’). S.R.O, Perth97

24 November, 1914 From the Superintendent Fremantle Prison to theComptroller General of Prisons, Perth Colonial Secretary’s Department
records AU WA S675 Cons 752 Item 1905/0623 Fremantle Gaol – Scheme forclassification of female prisoners S.R.O, Perth98

24 November, 1914 From the Superintendent Fremantle Prison to theComptroller General of Prisons, Perth Colonial Secretary’s Department
records AU WA S675 Cons 752 Item 1905/0623 Fremantle Gaol – Scheme forclassification of female prisoners S.R.O, Perth99

24 November, 1914 From the Superintendent Fremantle Prison to theComptroller General of Prisons, Perth Colonial Secretary’s Department
records AU WA S675 Cons 752 Item 1905/0623 Fremantle Gaol – Scheme forclassification of female prisoners S.R.O, Perth

100 24 October, 1916 from Superintendent Hann to the Comptroller General.
Colonial Secretary’s Office files AU WA S675 Cons 752 Item 1916/2736
Fremantle Prisoner F692 prisoner Beatrice Armstrong (Prisons file 675/16)
S.R.O, Perth101 24 October, 1916 from Superintendent Hann to the Comptroller General.
Colonial Secretary’s Office files AU WA S675 Cons 752 Item 1916/2736
Fremantle Prisoner F692 prisoner Beatrice Armstrong (Prisons file 675/16)
S.R.O, Perth102 2 November 1914 from F. D. North to the Colonial Secretary Colonial
Secretary’s Department records AU WA S675 Cons 752 Item 1905/0623
Fremantle Gaol – Scheme for classification of female prisoners S.R.O, Perth103 2 November 1914 from F. D. North to the Colonial Secretary Colonial
Secretary’s Department records AU WA S675 Cons 752 Item 1905/0623
Fremantle Gaol – Scheme for classification of female prisoners S.R.O, Perth104 6 November, 1914 Colonial Secretary’s Department records AU WA S675 Cons752 Item 1905/0623 Fremantle Gaol – Scheme for classification of female
prisoners S.R.O, Perth105 11 November, 1914 from J. M. Doctorew, C.S to the U.S, F. D. North Colonial
Secretary’s Department AU WA S675 Cons 752 Item 1914/3401 Female
inebriate prisoners. Report and history of prisoners in Fremantle Prison S.R.O,
Perth
106 November 1914 Colonial Secretary’s Department AU WA S675 Cons 752
Item 1914/3401 Female inebriate prisoners. Report and history of prisoners inFremantle Prison S.R.O, Perth107 26 November, 1914 Colonial Secretary’s Department AU WA S675 Cons 752
Item 1914/3401 Female inebriate prisoners. Report and history of prisoners inFremantle Prison S.R.O, Perth

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendices141

108 2 March, 1915 from the Superintendent to the Comptroller General. Colonial
Secretary’s Department. Colonial Secretary’s Office files AU WA S675 Cons752 Item 1914/2347 Fremantle Gaol. Portion of declared as an institution underthe Inebriates Act S.R.O, Perth109 8 April, 1915 from Acting Under Secretary to Inspector General of the Insane.
Colonial Secretary’s Department. Colonial Secretary’s Office files AU WA S675
Cons 752 Item 1914/2347 Fremantle Gaol. Portion of declared as an institution
under the Inebriates Act S.R.O, Perth110 10 August, 1916 memo from Comptroller General. Colonial Secretary’s Officefiles AU WA S675 Cons 752 Item 1914/2347 Fremantle Gaol. Portion ofdeclared as an institution under the Inebriates Act S.R.O, Perth
111 J. E. Thomas & Alex Stewart Imprisonment in Western Australia: Evolution,
Theory and Practice UWA Press, 1978 p.159
112 His Excellency the Governor to the Right Honourable The Secretary of State,
Despatch No. 13, Australian Parliamentary Papers 1870/71-1880. Battye
Library, Perth.
113 Report of the Superintendent of Police upon Criminal Statistics and the Police
Force for the Year 1878 (1879). Battye Library, Perth.
114 A. Bond, The Port of Fremantle: Some 19th Century Impressions, p2, Fremantle
Local History collection LH 387.1 BON. Fremantle City Library History Centre
115 McPherson, Margaret ‘A class of utterly useless men’ in Studies in Western
Australian History No. 24, 2006 p.67
116 For example, see West Australian, 10 April 1888, p3, on the previous day’s
activities in the Fremantle Police Court. See also Doctor Leigh Straw’s Drunks,
Pests and Harlots: Criminal Women in Perth and Fremantle 1900-1939 for a morecomprehensive examination of women and crime in Fremantle during this period.
117 Megahey puts the figure of prisoners in Fremantle Gaol in 1898 for minor
offences at 89.7%. See Megahey, N. A community apart: A History ofFremantle Prison: 1898-1991 Ph.D Thesis, Murdoch University, 2000 pp.72-73
118 ‘Report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the Penal System of theColony. Perth, 1899 p.16
119 Cited in Megahey, N. A community apart: A History of Fremantle Prison: 18981991 Ph.D Thesis, Murdoch University, 2000 p.73
120 Mark Finnane Punishment in Australian Society Melbourne: Oxford University
Press, 1997 p.78
121 Inebriates Act, 1912 p.1 https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.
nsf/law_a6746.html
122 23 April, 1913 from F. D. North, Under Secretary to the Under Secretary for
Law Colonial Secretary’s Office files AU WA S675 Cons 752 Item 1913/1811
Fremantle Prison: re separate treatment for ‘inebriate’ prisoners. S.R.O, Perth123 23 April, 1913 from F. D. North, Under Secretary to the Under Secretary for
Law Colonial Secretary’s Office files AU WA S675 Cons 752 Item 1913/1811

142

Appendices • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

Fremantle Prison: re separate treatment for ‘inebriate’ prisoners. S.R.O, Perth124 25 April, 1913 Colonial Secretary’s Office files AU WA S675 Cons 752 Item
1913/1811 Fremantle Prison: re separate treatment for ‘inebriate’ prisoners.
S.R.O, Perth125 5 May, 1913 Minute paper from North, C. G. to Superintendent, Fremantle
Prison Colonial Secretary’s Office files AU WA S675 Cons 752 Item 1913/1811
Fremantle Prison: re separate treatment for ‘inebriate’ prisoners. S.R.O, Perth126 12 May, 1913 from Superintendent Hann to the Comptroller General Colonial
Secretary’s Office files AU WA S675 Cons 752 Item 1913/1811 Fremantle
Prison: re separate treatment for ‘inebriate’ prisoners. S.R.O, Perth
127 19 May, 1913 from North, C. G. to Superintendent, Fremantle Prison Colonial
Secretary’s Office files AU WA S675 Cons 752 Item 1913/1811 Fremantle
Prison: re separate treatment for ‘inebriate’ prisoners. S.R.O, Perth
128 All underlining in the original. 21 May, 1913 from Superintendent Hann to
the Comptroller General Colonial Secretary’s Office files AU WA S675 Cons752 Item 1913/1811 Fremantle Prison: re separate treatment for ‘inebriate’
prisoners. S.R.O, Perth129 27 May, 1913 from North, C. G. to Superintendent, Fremantle Prison Colonial
Secretary’s Office files AU WA S675 Cons 752 Item 1913/1811 Fremantle
Prison: re separate treatment for ‘inebriate’ prisoners. S.R.O, Perth
130 Colonial Secretary’s Office files AU WA S675 Cons 752 Item 1913/1811
Fremantle Prison: re separate treatment for ‘inebriate’ prisoners. S.R.O, Perth131 All underlining in the original. 1 October, 1913 from F. D. North, Under Secretary
and Comptroller General of Prisons to the Superintendent, Fremantle Gaol
Colonial Secretary’s Office files AU WA S675 Cons 752 Item 1913/1811
Fremantle Prison: re separate treatment for ‘inebriate’ prisoners. S.R.O, Perth132 6 October, 1913 from Superintendent Hann to the Comptroller General,
Colonial Secretary’s Office files AU WA S675 Cons 752 Item 1913/1811
Fremantle Prison: re separate treatment for ‘inebriate’ prisoners. S.R.O, Perth133 6 October, 1913 from Superintendent Hann to the Comptroller General,
Colonial Secretary’s Office files AU WA S675 Cons 752 Item 1913/1811
Fremantle Prison: re separate treatment for ‘inebriate’ prisoners. S.R.O, Perth134 7 August, 1918 Colonial Secretary’s Office files AU WA S675 Cons 752 Item
1915/1456 Prisoner No 3230 John Johnson
135 Statement of Police Constable Bendell dated 28 March, 1898
136 26 July, 1913 Prisoner’s Petition, to His Excellency the Governor sent from
Fremantle Prison. Colonial Secretary’s Office files AU WA S675 Cons 752 Item
1915/1456 Prisoner No 3230 John Johnson
137 26 July, 1913 Prisoner’s Petition, to His Excellency the Governor sent from
Fremantle Prison. Colonial Secretary’s Office files AU WA S675 Cons 752 Item
1915/1456 Prisoner No 3230 John Johnson
138 30 January, 1913 writing from the Salvation Home, West Subiaco to the
FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendices143

Comptroller of Prisons. Colonial Secretary’s Office files AU WA S675 Cons 752
Item 1915/1456 Prisoner No 3230 John Johnson
139 Colonial Secretary’s Office files AU WA S675 Cons 752 Item 1915/1456
Prisoner No 3230 John Johnson
140 26 July, 1913 Prisoner’s Petition, to His Excellency the Governor sent from
Fremantle Prison Colonial Secretary’s Office files AU WA S675 Cons 752 Item
1915/1456 Prisoner No 3230 John Johnson
141 12 August, 1913 H.G Hampton to Attorney General. Colonial Secretary’s Officefiles AU WA S675 Cons 752 Item 1915/1456 Prisoner No 3230 John Johnson
142 Colonial Secretary’s Office files AU WA S675 Cons 752 Item 1915/1456
Prisoner No 3230 John Johnson
143 16 September, 1913 from Superintendent Hann to the Comptroller General
Colonial Secretary’s Office files AU WA S675 Cons 752 Item 1913/1811
Fremantle Prison: re separate treatment for ‘inebriate’ prisoners.
144 22 September, 1913 North to the Acting Inspector General of Insane and reply
dated 26 September, 1913 Colonial Secretary’s Office files AU WA S675 Cons752 Item 1913/1811 Fremantle Prison: re separate treatment for ‘inebriate’
prisoners.
145 22 September, 1913 North to the Acting Inspector General of Insane and reply
dated 26 September, 1913 Colonial Secretary’s Office files AU WA S675 Cons752 Item 1913/1811 Fremantle Prison: re separate treatment for ‘inebriate’
prisoners.
146 Although the home only operated until 1918, at which time it again became ahospital for the insane Whitby Falls Register of Heritage Places Assessment
Documentation http://inherit.stateheritage.wa.gov.au/Admin/api/file/179d1f147b25-992e-0b9e-a8caf8a8788b
147 24 July, 1914 from Doctor S.H.R. Montgomery, Inspector General of the Insane
to the Under Secretary, Colonial Secretary’s Department. Colonial Secretary’s
Office files AU WA S675 Cons 752 Item 1914/2347 Fremantle Gaol. Portion ofdeclared as an institution under the Inebriates Act
148 All underlining in the original. 31 July, 1914 from Superintendent Hann toComptroller General of Prisons. Colonial Secretary’s Department. Colonial
Secretary’s Office files AU WA S675 Cons 752 Item 1914/2347 Fremantle Gaol.
Portion of declared as an institution under the Inebriates Act
149 18 September, 1914 from Montgomery, I.G for the Insane to the Under
Secretary for Law, H.G Hampton. Colonial Secretary’s Office files AU WA S675
Cons 752 Item 1914/2347 Fremantle Gaol. Portion of declared as an institution
under the Inebriates Act
150 All underlining in the original. 22 September, 1914 remarks of Attorney General.
Colonial Secretary’s Office files AU WA S675 Cons 752 Item 1914/2347
Fremantle Gaol. Portion of declared as an institution under the Inebriates Act
151 Colonial Secretary’s Office files AU WA S675 Cons 752 Item 1915/1456
Prisoner No 3230 John Johnson

144

Appendices • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

152 J. E. Thomas & Alex Stewart Imprisonment in Western Australia: Evolution,
Theory and Practice UWA Press, 1978 p.101
153 8 February, 1963 from Acting Chief Crown Prosecutor to the Comptroller
General of Prisons Re: Section 662, Criminal Code. Crown Law Department
files AU WA S2664 Cons6815 Item 1963/00166
154 12 February, 1963 from A. H Waters [?] Comptroller General of Prisons to
Acting Chief Crown Prosecutor Crown Law Department files AU WA S2664
Cons6815 Item 1963/00166 Prisoners sentenced to reformatory prison during
Governor’s pleasure – or convicted inebriates – inquiry re prison treatment andrehabilitation facilities
155 12 Eliz. II No 63 (1963) An Act to make better provision for the Rehabilitation ofConvicted Inebriates and for incidental and other purposes.
156 J. E. Thomas & Alex Stewart Imprisonment in Western Australia: Evolution,
Theory and Practice UWA Press, 1978 p.156
157 Megahey, N. A community apart: A History of Fremantle Prison: 1898-1991
Ph.D Thesis, Murdoch University, 2000 p.121
158 Megahey, N. A community apart: A History of Fremantle Prison: 1898-1991
Ph.D Thesis, Murdoch University, 2000 p.126
159 calculated from 1980 Census. See Megahey, N. A community apart: A History
of Fremantle Prison: 1898-1991 Ph.D Thesis, Murdoch University, 2000 p.92
160 Item 1999.114.1 Prison Establishments & Facilities Planning and Research
Section - Western Australian Department of Corrections January, 1978 P16.
Female Prison Archive.
161 PAR/5/4 Box 13 Policy research paper, 1981 DOCSTATS’. Department ofCorrections, Perth, Western Australian DocStats Number 3 – March, 1982
Regstats 5
162 PAR/5/4 Box 13 Policy research paper, 1981 DOCSTATS’. Department ofCorrections, Perth, Western Australian DocStats Number 3 – March, 1982
Regstats 5
163 Item 1999.114.1 Prison Establishments & Facilities Planning and Research
Section - Western Australian Department of Corrections January, 1978 P16.
Female Prison Archive.
164 PAR/5/4 Box 13 Limiting Imprisonment Rates WADoc, 1982 Research andInformation Series, Western Australian Department of Corrections ‘Limiting
Imprisonment Rates: Social, Economic and Planning Policy Decision’. C. R.
Foley Jones, June 1982 pp.2-6
165 J. E. Thomas & Alex Stewart Imprisonment in Western Australia: Evolution,
Theory and Practice UWA Press, 1978 p.156
166 PAR/5/4 Box 13 Policy research paper, 1981 DOCSTATS’. Department ofCorrections, Perth, Western Australian DocStats Number 3 – March, 1982
Oddstats 12

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendices145

167 J. E. Thomas & Alex Stewart Imprisonment in Western Australia: Evolution,
Theory and Practice UWA Press, 1978 p.49
168 Megahey, N. A community apart: A History of Fremantle Prison: 1898-1991
Ph.D Thesis, Murdoch University, 2000 p.71
169 Megahey, N. A community apart: A History of Fremantle Prison: 1898-1991
Ph.D Thesis, Murdoch University, 2000 p.72
170 Megahey, N. A community apart: A History of Fremantle Prison: 1898-1991
Ph.D Thesis, Murdoch University, 2000 pp.72-73
171 Megahey, N. A community apart: A History of Fremantle Prison: 1898-1991
Ph.D Thesis, Murdoch University, 2000 p.43
172 Thomas & Stewart, Imprisonment in WA, 1978, p.50
173 Thomas & Stewart, Imprisonment in WA, 1978, p.52
174 Megahey, N. A community apart: A History of Fremantle Prison: 1898-1991
Ph.D Thesis, Murdoch University, 2000 p.104
175 Megahey, N. A community apart: A History of Fremantle Prison: 1898-1991
Ph.D Thesis, Murdoch University, 2000 p.104
176 ‘Regulations Relating to the Management and Control of the Gaols andPrisoners of Western Australia’ Government Gazette January-March, 1902, 28
March, 1902 pp.1225-1238
177 However, Rule 177 made it clear that prisoners ‘continued to be liable forpunishment if their complaints were found to be “frivilous or groundless”. See
Megahey, N. A community apart: A History of Fremantle Prison: 1898-1991
Ph.D Thesis, Murdoch University, 2000 p.108-109
178 Cited in J. E. Thomas & Alex Stewart Imprisonment in Western Australia:
Evolution, Theory and Practice UWA Press, 1978 pp.48-49
179 J. E. Thomas & Alex Stewart Imprisonment in Western Australia: Evolution,
Theory and Practice UWA Press, 1978 p.73
180 Prisons Act 1903 in Statutes of Western Australia, 3rd Edward VII, 1903,
pp.115-136
181 Thomas & Stewart, Imprisonment in WA, 1978, p.48
182 Thomas & Stewart, Imprisonment in WA, 1978, p.48
183 Thomas & Stewart, Imprisonment in WA, 1978, pp.87-88.
184 Thomas & Stewart, Imprisonment in WA, 1978, pp.87-88.
185 Thomas & Stewart, Imprisonment in WA, 1978, pp.87-88.
186 Megahey, N. A community apart: A History of Fremantle Prison: 1898-1991
Ph.D Thesis, Murdoch University, 2000 p.54
187 Megahey, N. A community apart: A History of Fremantle Prison: 1898-1991
Ph.D Thesis, Murdoch University, 2000 p.54

146

Appendices • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

188 Megahey, N. A community apart: A History of Fremantle Prison: 1898-1991
Ph.D Thesis, Murdoch University, 2000 p.54
189 Megahey, N. A community apart: A History of Fremantle Prison: 1898-1991
Ph.D Thesis, Murdoch University, 2000 p.55
190 Thomas & Stewart, Imprisonment in WA, 1978, p.101.
191 O’Brien, ‘The prison on the Continent’ in Morris and Rothman, The Oxford
History of the Prison, p218 cited in Megahey, N. A community apart: A History
of Fremantle Prison: 1898-1991 Ph.D Thesis, Murdoch University, 2000 p.56
192 Megahey, N. A community apart: A History of Fremantle Prison: 1898-1991
Ph.D Thesis, Murdoch University, 2000 p.56
193 Thomas & Stewart, Imprisonment in WA, 1978, p.149
194 Megahey, N. A community apart: A History of Fremantle Prison: 1898-1991
Ph.D Thesis, Murdoch University, 2000 p.57
195 Megahey, N. A community apart: A History of Fremantle Prison: 1898-1991
Ph.D Thesis, Murdoch University, 2000 p.57
196 Cited in Megahey, N. A community apart: A History of Fremantle Prison: 18981991 Ph.D Thesis, Murdoch University, 2000 p.58
197 Megahey, N. A community apart: A History of Fremantle Prison: 1898-1991
Ph.D Thesis, Murdoch University, 2000 p.58
198 Megahey, N. A community apart: A History of Fremantle Prison: 1898-1991
Ph.D Thesis, Murdoch University, 2000 p.61
199 Megahey, N. A community apart: A History of Fremantle Prison: 1898-1991
Ph.D Thesis, Murdoch University, 2000 p.63
200 Megahey, N. A community apart: A History of Fremantle Prison: 1898-1991
Ph.D Thesis, Murdoch University, 2000 p.64
201 Megahey, N. A community apart: A History of Fremantle Prison: 1898-1991
Ph.D Thesis, Murdoch University, 2000 p.66
202 Western Mail, 21 November, 1981 p6 as cited in Megahey, N. A community
apart: A History of Fremantle Prison: 1898-1991 Ph.D Thesis, Murdoch
University, 2000 p.67
203 Megahey, N. A community apart: A History of Fremantle Prison: 1898-1991
Ph.D Thesis, Murdoch University, 2000 p.68
204 Rees et al, Australian anti-discrimination law, 2008, pp.17-19, 252-253

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendices147

Appendix 3
Comparative Analysis Report
Other Sites/ Organisations
The following information investigates strategies for improving accessibility andinclusion in other comparative cultural heritage sites/organisations. The intent of
this section of the AIP is to benchmark these strategies against current practices
at Fremantle Prison, and to explore opportunities to improve access and inclusive
practices around the site. The Guiding Principle’s against which this benchmarked
are sourced from the ‘Come-In! Guidelines’ produced by Interreg Central Europe.

Table showing principles and strategies to improve cultural heritage
sites/organisations to be more inclusive.
Guiding Principle: people with disability have a right to be included in all
activities on site.
Site/ Organisation Strategies

148

National Trust ofWestern Australia(multiple Heritage
sites).

1. Use technology and sensory experiences to explore
properties and collection.
2. Make access and inclusion part of event and program
planning.
3. Include additional tours (Auslan, people living withdementia).
4. Use portable audio equipment for people with hearing
disability.
5. Provide a mechanism for people to identify if they have adisability prior to arrival.

British Museum(Heritage site).

1. Introduce quieter times for visitors and sensory maps.
2. Allow guide, assistance and companion animals on site,
as long as identification is provided. Nearest toileting area
information is provided online.

Rijksmuseum(Heritage site).

1. Sign language tours (guided tour in international sign),
experiencing objects with other senses, and dementiafriendly guided tours are provided.
2. Sensory-friendly evening viewings are provided for visitorswith sensory processing conditions.

Appendices • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

Guiding Principle: Engaging in a dialogue with people with disabilities to findout what they need and wish, and how to deliver it.
Site/ Organisation Strategies
National Trust ofWestern Australia(multiple Heritage
sites).

1. Strengthen connections with people with disability andorganisations that support people with disability toencourage information sharing and collaboration/ codesign.
2. Ensure all consultations are accessible.
3. Develop connections with organisations and volunteeringorganisations that support people with disability inemployment.

British Museum(Heritage site).

1. Dedicated access email address and phone number forenquiries and complaints.

Rijksmuseum(Heritage site).

1. Provide a stimulus free room for visitors to use, with
comfortable seating and low lighting.

Guiding Principle: Adopting the ‘social model’ when discussing disability issues.
Site/ Organisation Strategies
National Trust ofWestern Australia(multiple Heritage
sites).

1. Include the requirement for agents and contractors torecognise the AIP in procurement documentation.
2. Review the complaints process and ensure its easy to use
and complaints can be made in a variety of ways.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendices

149

Guiding Principle: Identifying and dismantling access barriers.
Site/ Organisation Strategies
National Trust ofWestern Australia(multiple Heritage
sites).

1. Participate and celebrate International Day of Persons with
Disability and promote business commitment.
2. Monitor and record complaints to identify any systemic
issues and opportunities for improvement.
3. Ensure council and other committees have accessible
meeting processes, venues and information.

EdinburghCastle, Historic
Environment
Scotland (Heritagesite).

1. Adjustable accessible website design: colours, contrast,
fonts, zoom-in, image adaptability, keyboard navigation,
speech navigation, audio screen reader, videos with
subtitles and captions.
2. Information is provided on currently inaccessible content
and areas of the website.
3. Information for website navigation assistance andreporting issues is provided.
4. Free entry for carers provided.

Rijksmuseum(Heritage site).

1. Planning your visit information is provided in easy-readformat with explanatory pictures. It also identifies what
staff area dressed like on site.

Smithsonian
National Museumof Natural History(Heritage site).

1. Website provides information tailored to disability i.e.
information for visitors who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing, orinformation for visitors who are Blind or Partially Sighted.

Guiding Principle: Adopting universal design principals.
Site/ Organisation Strategies

150

National Trust ofWestern Australia(multiple Heritage
sites).

1. Investigate funding for a Changing Places Facility.

British Museum(Heritage site).

1. Provide information on the nearest available Changing
Places toilet, as one is not provided on site.
2. Some accessible lifts are located in back of house areas,
requiring staff assistance.
3. Seating information is provided online, and lightweightfolding stools are provided free of charge at the Main
Entrance.

Appendices • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

Guiding Principle: Sustainable and supported recommendations.
Site/ Organisation Strategies
National Trust ofWestern Australia(multiple Heritage
sites).

1. Monitor disability strategies and initiatives such as theState Disability Plan and National Disability Insurance
Scheme for funding opportunities.
2. Incorporate access improvements into capital works plans,
including parking and signage.
3. Promote the AIP internally and externally to highlightcommitment.
4. Responsibility for AIP rests with Deputy CEO.

Guiding Principle: Sensory Maps for visitors on the autism spectrum.
Site/ Organisation Strategies
British Museum(Heritage site).

British-Museum-Sensory-Map-PDF-Download.pdf‘Potter and
Ponder’, National
Trust UK (Heritagesite).

National Trust’s sensory map illustrated by William Hanekom |Outside In

Museum Victoria(Heritage site).

sensory_imm-floorplan_2019_fa.pdf (museumsvictoria.com.au)

Metropolitan
Museum of Art(Heritage site).

sensory-friendly-map.pdf (metmuseum.org)

Children’s Museum TCM SensoryMap11x17.pdf (childrensmuseum.org)
Indianapolis(Heritage site).
The Museumof Modern Art(Heritage site).

MoMA_Sensory_Map.pdf

Reading Museum(Heritage site).

edu_sensory_morning_map_june2021.pdf(readingpublicmuseum.org)

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendices151

Guiding Principle: Disability employment.
Site/ Organisation Strategies
National Trust ofWestern Australia(multiple Heritage
sites).

1. Comply with the Public Sector employment requirements– People with disability: Action Plan to Improve WA Public
Sector Employment Outcomes 2020–2025.

Public Sector
agencies (multiple
Heritage sites).

1. Use affirmative measures and disability employment
targets.
2. Provide workplace adjustment passports and flexible work
arrangements.
3. Internships and mentoring programs for staff withdisability.

Crown Resorts
1. Member of the Hospitality Disability Network of WA (not a Heritage site).
committed to the employment of people with disability
within the hospitality and tourism industry.
2. Disability Champion, Ambassador and Employee
Reference Group established to promote access andinclusion across the workforce.
3. Disability Employment Policy, Workplace Adjustment
Policy & Procedure, and Personal Emergency Evacuation
Plan developed.
4. Participate in the Australian Network on Disability’s
Access and Inclusion Audit and other Disability Confident
Recruiter programs.
5. Partner with JobAccess and other employment services– providing pre-employment, recruitment and postplacement support.
6. Provide an Accessibility Checklist for positions – withconsideration to reasonable adjustments and job-redesign.

152

Appendices • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

Table showing principles and responses to improve cultural heritage
sites/organisations to be more accessible.
Guiding Principle: Physical Access for visitors on the autism spectrum.
Site/ Organisation Response
National Trust ofWestern Australia(multiple Heritage
sites).

1. Provide accessible reception area.
2. Wherever possible, include improvements to disability
access in refurbishments or development work.
3. Provide support or flexibility as required to staff andvolunteers with disability.
4. Ensure temporary ramps are installed to facilitate access.

Buckingham
Palace, United
Kingdom (Heritagesite).

1. Provide step-free access.
2. Sensory garden tour.
3. Folding stools available.

Acropolis
Monuments,
Greece (Heritagesite).

1. Designed routes to make the Acropolis Hill accessible forpeople with mobility aids.

1. Premises reviews / audits – plan for ongoing compliance
Crown Resorts
with the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) and Building(not a Heritage site).
Code of Australia (BCA) standards.
University of Notre
Dame (multiple
Heritage sites).

1. Identify wheelchair accessible buildings and spaces.
2. Provide temporary ramps upon request.
3. Provide ergonomic seating for events upon request.

AccessibleArts(multiple Heritage
sites).

1. Use alt text / image descriptions in publications and onsocial media.

Guiding Principle: Information and Communication Access.
Site/ Organisation Response
National Trust ofWestern Australia(multiple Heritage
sites).

1. Provide maps locating accessible toilets and routes.
2. Include information on websites, brochures and fliers
about accessibility and availability of accessible toilets.
3. Include closed captions in video productions.
4. Review accessibility of website and ensure compliancewith Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Level AA.
5. Ensure publications are available in large print and otherformats on request.
6. Provide easily accessible information for staff andvolunteers on the accessibility options and how to provide
information in alternative formats.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendices153

Site/ Organisation Response
Boola Bardip(Heritage site).

1. Visual checklists and supports provided online to guide
visitors prior to visit.
2. Tactile map and braille visitor guide available.
3. Information on quiet times and quiet spaces provided
online.
4. Accessible parking information and wheelchair information
provided online.
5. Wheelchairs and walking aids are available from theinformation desk.
6. Auslan tours available.

FringeWorld(multiple Heritage
sites).

1. Dedicated email for visitors to specify their accessibility
requirements prior to their visit.

British Museum(Heritage site).

1. ‘Getting to the Museum’ information provided online.
2. Provided information on lighting levels and temperature.

Smithsonian
National Museumof Natural History(Heritage site).

1. Link to the public transport accessibility information andany transport outages is provided on the website.
2. Deep Time Audio Description App uses the accessibility
features native to a visitor’s phone to explore exhibitions
through a self-guided tour.
3. Use Aira Access mobile information and verbal description
service to connect to Aira agents using information
provided by the Smithsonian to better navigate thebuilding and collection.

Museum of London 1. Visual photographic guide.
(Heritage site).
2. Wheelchair accessible counters.
3. Magnifying glasses available.
4. Induction loop systems.
5. Neck loops and radio receivers.
6. Interactive sessions.
7. Ear defenders available.
8. Programs for people living with dementia.
Alcatraz East,
Tennessee(Heritage site).

1. Provide audio tours, transcriptions and torches.

1. Digital reviews / audits.
Crown Resorts(not a Heritage site). 2. Provide staff with an online awareness module to improve
communication access.

154

Appendices • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

Site/ Organisation Response
City of Mandurah(multiple Heritage
sites).

1. Provide their AIP and other publications in alternative
formats including Easy English, Audio and Tagged PDF for
screen readers.
2. Promote co-design and consumer testing.

Curtin University(Heritage site).

1. Wayfinding strategy.
2. Universal design guidelines covering properties, facilities
and development.

NDIA

1. Provide videos with captions, Auslan, voice over andtranscripts.

Fremantle Biennale 1. Tactile and audio described tours and performances(multiple Heritage
available.
sites).
2. Family and low sensory zones.
3. Auslan interpreted events.
4. Use icons for assistive services.
5. Include information on how to access each location,
weather and potential triggers.
Guiding Principle: Social Access.
Site/ Organisation Response
National Trust ofWestern Australia(multiple Heritage
sites).

1. Update procurement guidelines to ensure accessible
products and services are included in evaluation criteria.
2. Provide disability awareness training for staff andvolunteers.

Smithsonian
National Museumof Natural History(Heritage site).

1. Introduce immersive spaces for learning for adults andchildren that are tactile based.
2. Provide information for visitors with ‘Developmental,
Learning & Sensory Disabilities’.

City of Sydney(multiple Heritage
sites).

1. Provide Accessible Events Guidelines for people who use
or hire the City’s venues and spaces.

Museums andGalleries of NSW(multiple Heritage
sites).

1. ‘Museum in the Box’ or ‘Travelling Gallery” outreachprojects to engage hard to reach groups.
2. Welcome area / meeting point at the entrance wherevisitors can ask questions, share feedback and source
information on public transport and local amenities.

WA Maritime
Museum (Heritagesite).

1. Provide ‘Please Touch – Tactile Tours’ that include selected
objects from the Museum’s collection and displays.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendices155

Site/ Organisation Response
1. Provide staff with disability confidence training.
Crown Resorts(not a Heritage site). 2. Use accessible consultation and feedback processes.
3. Include people with disability in their media andpublications.
Fjords Cruises(Heritage site).

1. Provide targeted and themed tours for different groups ofpeople.

Mississippi
1. Universal access covers 7 senses – touch, taste, sound,Children’s Museum
smell, sight, vestibular and proprioception.
(Heritage site).
2. Interactive website with online activities.
3. Easy read sensory guides with photos.
4. Social stories to assist good behaviour around exhibits.
5. Sensory backpacks with headphones, sunglasses andfidget toys.
The London
Dungeon (Heritagesite).

1. Provide an Accessibility Guide that covers the bookingof tickets and information for people with mobility
impairments, people with autism or neuro-diverse, people
with sensory impairment and people with hidden disability.
2. Include accessibility symbols and photos of the venue.
3. Consider the needs of visitors with epilepsy,
photosensitivity, pacemakers, claustrophobia and panic
attacks.

Guiding Principle: Economic Access.
Site/ Organisation Response

156

National Trust ofWestern Australia(multiple Heritage
sites).

1. Comply with the Public Sector employment requirements.

FringeWorld(multiple Heritage
sites).

1. Provide an online ticketing and booking system that
accepts Companion Cards, making it easier to purchasethe tickets prior to the event.

Museums andGalleries of NSW(multiple Heritage
sites).

1. Consider ways to improve participation including free entry
or entry by donation for disadvantaged groups.

WA Maritime
Museum (Heritagesite).

1. Free entry on the second Tuesday of the month.

Appendices • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

Appendix 4
Materials PaletteMaterials
The following information investigates the types of materials used on comparable
cultural heritage sites when introducing new fabric to improve accessibility. The
intent of this section of the AIP is to benchmark these materials and asses theirsuitability against current accessible infrastructure at Fremantle Prison. The
objective is to design a suite of accessible infrastructure for installation around sitethat is cohesive, practical and considerate of the end user.
Type

Description

Ramps and new
handrails at HydePark Barracks.

Contemporary steel framed ramp and handrail in matteblack. Note the gravel containment strip below the loose
patterned gravel artwork to facilitate mobility access.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 4

157

Type

Description

Internal handrails at
Premier Mill Hotel,
Space Agency

Brass handrail ‘Grapple’ by Alloy, bracketed off heritage
fabric, with brass TGSIs as an obvious contrast to
surrounding materials palette.
Note LED strip lighting below handrail to provide additional
visibility.

Internal handrails at
Como The Treasury,
Kerry Hill Architects.

158

New handrail shown on opposite side of the staircase to
the original handrail and balustrade with a simple L-shapedbracket mounted on the wall.

Appendix 4 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

Type

Description

New balustrades at
Como The Treasury Kerry Hill Architects.

Steel framed balustrade with mesh infill rests independentof the original plastered balustrade.

Woven wire mesh (black) to enclose balustrade whilst still
providing visibility through.

Woven wire mesh threaded on steel cable and attached to
Infill on existing
balustrades at various the side or underside of existing posts or handrails.
sites.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 4

159

Type

Description

De-mountable steel-framed structure with glazing enclosure
Passenger lifts at
Hyde Park Barracks - and stainless-steel doors. Obviously contemporarylift installation, JPW. compared to surrounding heritage fabric. Glazing allows forvisibility beyond the structure.

Steel framed lift structure with glazed enclosure & steel
Passanger lifts at
Premier Mill Hotel - lift mesh lining.
installation, Space
Agency.

160

Appendix 4 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

Type

Description

Carpet: Tarkett Linon– Desso Linon AA839965 B8 50x5.0

Commercial carpet with low pile height (max. 6mm) andglue fixed to the substrate with a vinyl backing (less than4mm) and no padding.

Car parking: Blue
bollards.

1300mm height made of flexible material.
1 accessible parking bay is required for every 50 carparking
spaces (up to 1000 carparking spaces).
Image provided by Barrier Group, 2020.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 4

161

Type

Description

Changing Places

Changing Places provide suitable facilities for people
who cannot use standard accessible toilets. A Changing
Places facility allows people with high support needs tofully participate in the community. This may include people
with an acquired brain injury, spinal cord injury, cerebral
palsy, multiple sclerosis, spina bifida, and motor neurone
disease, as well as many other people with a disability.
• a height-adjustable adult-sized change table• a constant-charging ceiling track hoist system• a centrally-located peninsula toilet• circulation spaces as defined in the design
specifications• an automatic door with a clear opening of 950 mm at aminimum (1100 mm for beach and lake locations)• a privacy screen.1

1162‘New Changing Places Design Specifications 2020’, Equal Access. Sourced
from New Changing Places Design Specifications 2020 Update & Download(disabilityaccessconsultants.com.au). Accessed on 5 February 2021.

Appendix 4 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

Type

Description

Signs are modular and interchangeable and don’t compete
Signage at City
Recital Hall, Sydney - with the surrounding architecture.
Minale Tattersfield.

Signs are obviously contemporary, matte black and provide
good contrast for visibility, including a tactile sign below.

1 receiver is required for every 25 persons or part thereof,
up to 500 people.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 4

163

Type

Description

Signage at Manjaree
Trail Interpretive
Signage Suite Publik.

Proposed for external use around the site. Internal signs
could tie in aesthetically in line with the Fremantle Prison
branding guidelines. Refer to the Landscape Management
Plan Style Guide for further information.

Tactile ground surface DTAC brass TGSIs.
indicators at Como
The Treasury - Kerry
Hill Architects.

Nosings at PremierMill Hotel - Space
Agency.

Brass DTAC nosing provides high contrast against stair tread.

Website Accessibility: www.sydneyoperahouse.com/visit-us/accessibility.html
Sydney Opera House Accessibility at the Museum | British Museum
and British Museum
Accessible Education: Access and SEN | British Museum
British Museum

164

Appendix 4 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

Appendix 5
Consultation Report
Table showing Fremantle Prison AIP feedback and recommendations from
Reference Group (RG), and Community Consultation. Also shows Proposed
Actions and comments from Working Group and Consultants, Obrien
Harrop Access (OHA), Visability and John Massey Group (JMG).
Recommendations

Proposed Actions and Comments

Physical Access• New ramps, flooring, doorways etc tomeet standards, and test with different
mobility aids.
• Lights on the ramps and pathways fornight tours.
• Opportunities to sit down on tours.
• Platform lift access for Tunnels Tour if
possible.
• Have a virtual reality tour of thetunnels.
• Lift access for the upper levels (eg.
for True Crime tour), to remain within
heritage guidelines.
• Make the garden more physicallyaccessible for visitors and volunteers
with disability.
• A wheelchair accessible path aroundthe grassed area.
• New pathways to be uniform poured
limestone.
• Better (compliant) ramps, matting foraccess and egress. Check doorways
with different chair sizes.
• Audit colour contrast not just on thewebsite but in all areas with public
information.
• Move the benches and council binsaway from the signage.

• Implement recommendations from
JMG access audit where possible
and prioritise those involving safetyissues.
• Consider feedback on proposedmaterials palette provide by OHA.
• Invite RG members to test andprovide feedback on proposedsolutions eg. mock-up ramps.
• More seating/spaces for reset andreflection generally and in tours.
• More shading devices through tours.
• Lock gates open.
• Have two different types of torches
for tour.
• Ramps and stairs illuminated –ambience to suit the tour, butsafety first eg. theatre style, motion
activated.
• Platform lift for Tunnels Tour likely not
feasible – significant work and cost.
Potential feasibility study. Instead
virtual reality experience, or tour
guide wears Go Pro.
• Lift access to upper levels could be
explored eg. new division.
• Prioritise main tour routes.
• Relocate bins away from signage.

• Review ramp incline and matting at theentrance to café.
• Open access to the outside café area.
• Make sure wheelchair accessible lifts
operational and serviced regularly.
FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 5165

Recommendations

Proposed Actions and Comments

Physical Access cont’d• Provide both visual and verbal
hazard information.

• Explore ideas re visual/verbal signage
with Visability eg. Beacon technology.

• Staff training in describing visual
information to people who are vision
impaired.

• Tours to identify more tactile andsensory opportunities eg. BMR
collection, smellscapes in cells andkitchens, soundscapes.

• Identify items that can be touched
and train staff in conducting touch
tours.
• Consider access to written
information for people using
wheelchairs eg. location.
• Clear masks for guides.
• Include captioning on audio guides
with Auslan and a larger device.

• Clarify what can and can’t betouched.
• Getting replicas of items madespecifically for touch tours.
• Upgrades to audio guides. Auslaninterpreter to visit site and make sureelements can be interpreted.

• An audio menu on the audio guidewhere the numbers and theircorresponding stories are narrated.

• Reach out to WA Institute for Deaf
Education (WAIDE) and Access+for feedback on design of Auslaninterpreted tours.

• Declaration Form with tagging for ascreen reader and section to sign.

• Explore hearing loops that the guides
could wear to connect to hearing aids

• Re-write the Declaration Form totake into account people may notknow how they will be on the tour.

• Consider training for guides on
wearing microphones if on a large
tour group.

• Re-make the Tunnel Tour safety
video so that the instructions
and images are clear and include
captions and voice over. Test withpeople with different access andinclusion needs.

• Get advice from Better Hearing
Australia and purchase some hearing
devices eg. loops or microphones.

• Descriptions of the tours that provide
enough information for the visitor
to make an informed decision onwhether the tour is right for them.
• For the tour guides to use
microphones if there are a lot of
people on the tour.
• Encourage visitors to give feedback
via the website, on paper or via
TripAdvisor.
• Provide social stories about booking,tours, exhibitions etc.

• Consider clear masks if guides want
to wear a mask.
• Improve signage:• Appropriate height for wheelchairusers; and• Larger font size
• Re declaration form:• Have an example of declaration
form online.
• Consider having a e-version on sitewith a reader option on an iPad.
• Have cut-out template for signing,as long as the visitor has been able
to read information prior.

• More touch based communications eg.
an embossed plan of the site, Braille.

166

Appendix 5 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

Recommendations

Proposed Actions and Comments

Physical Access cont’d• Re website:• Consider updating safety video toinclude captions and voice overs –• Full website audit with different tools
co-design with RG.
and on different operating systems.
Test using screen readers and read
• Have a safety harness for people
aloud tools. Test colour contrast, Altinterested in Tunnels Tour to see/text, scrolling etc to meet WCAG
touch at the front gate.
AA.
• Show tour routes on arrival experience• Include the Acknowledgement ofCountry on the website

maps and note stairs etc that might
impact accessibility.

• Celebrate the staff on the website
eg. have the staff present a video.
• Could include information aboutalternative routes being available forphysical access and some tours canbe flexible.
• Remove information that may
make assumptions about people
and include enough information
for people to make an informed
decision.
• Encourage people to ask a question
if they require any modifications or
accommodations.
• Some more photos and maps.
• Include weather forecast on either
the header or footer so that it
appears on all pages.
• Clearer information about audio
guides.
• Accessibility page.
• Consider advising to check weather
before a tour as you’re going to beoutside for much of the tour.
• Social story videos from tour guides.
• Video teasers online.
• Ensure iPad are at accessibleheights.
• Consider having a few example
cells in 3D on the website. Put thisinformation on iPad if people can’t
get into a place/ room.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 5167

Recommendations

Proposed Actions and Comments

Social Access• Disability confidence training torecognise that everyone is different.
No assumptions. People withdisability can provide the training.
Include deaf awareness training.
• Disability confidence training on
what you can or should not ask
the person with disability plus
understanding visible and hidden
disabilities. Have people withdisability undertake the training, how
to navigate the prison etc. Staff totry out assistive tech and equipmentused by people with disability.
• Tour guides to wait for everyone tobe present before continuing withthe tour.
• Better lighting solutions forinterpreters on Torchlight tour.
• Identify potential triggers and train
staff in trauma informed care.
• Trigger warnings on the website andat the beginning of each tour so thatpeople are prepared.
• Small group options for people who
are unable to do tours that include a
lot of people.
• For visitors to be asked if theyrequire individual assistance. To
clearly explain why this assistance
may be required if it is required aspart of a health and safety policy.
• Tour guide to be mindful of theneeds of the wheelchair user, tostay with the group to make sureeveryone gets through rather thangoing ahead.
• Staff training of invisible disabilities
plus neurodiversity. Treating visitors
equally which may mean not singlingout people because of a visible
disability regardless of the goodintentions.

168• Agree disability confidence training
for staff essential including:• People with disability involved inproviding the training;• Deaf awareness;• Audio description;• Working with interpreters;• Using microphones;• Potential triggers at the site;• Trauma informed care;• Invisible disabilities;• Neurodiversity;• Adapting tours to range ofvisitors;• Assistive technologies;• Offering assistance without
offending; and• Assisting people with safety
equipment eg. harness etc for
Tunnels Tour.
• Further training and good practicetips for tour guides.
• Use better/ alternative torches forinterpreters – consider head torches.
• Let visitors know in advance of thetraumatic history of the site before
they get here.
• More information online, flyers at
front gate, include short videos/snapshots of areas.
• Accessibility website page.
• Reasonable adjustment page on
website – what we can offer/ isavailable for visitor.
• Mock-up tour experience forvisitors who can’t travel down into
the tunnels. Consider accessing
the Pump House shaft, objects for
touching, reservoir, etc.

Appendix 5 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

Recommendations

Proposed Actions and Comments

Social Access cont’d• More public information to show that
Fremantle Prison welcome people
with disability, are committed tomaking the prison as accessible
as possible and can make someaccommodations. For example, “letus know in advance if you require
any flexibility as there may be somethings we can arrange to make thistour more accessible for you.”• Let visitors know that we can tailor
tour group sizes if they let us know inadvance. Show on accessibility page.

• Tour guides to be mindful of weather
conditions as some visitors may be
too polite to speak up if too hot /cold.

• Let visitors know at the gate
and online to ask for additional
assistance if needed.

• Encourage visitors to give feedback
via the website, on paper or via
TripAdvisor.
• 3D tours of inaccessible spaces eg.
Moondyne Joes cell.
• Re Tunnel tour:• Provide enough information about
the Tunnels tour so that visitors
can make an informed decision(eg., weight of equipment, heightof tunnel, timings of each sectionof the tour, sensory conditions etc).
• Have a Reasonable Adjustment
page on the website.
• Have a mock-up of the equipment
and boat so people can make an
informed decision. Make it intoa fun addition to the Fremantle
Prison tourist attraction and agreat photo opportunity.
• Remove the part of the tour where
the hatch is slammed, on the walkup to the tunnels as this could betriggering.
• Training for staff to assist
someone who is blind to try out/
touch the equipment before usingit.

• Let visitors know in advance about
potential to experience loud noises
on tour.

• Advise of quiet times and periods
throughout the year.
• Advise location of bright lights, busy,
loud areas – sensory app.

• Train guides to ask directly if
people with visible disability requireassistance on tours, otherwise try
to encourage asking for assistanceonline prior to visit so we can plan
for an additional guide.
• Awareness training, potentially afloating tour guide if necessary onlarge groups with mobility device
users.
• Trigger warnings on website.
• Being conscious of shade spots
to stop at on tours. Disclose on
website about being sun-smart andbringing water/ hat/ etc.
• Confirm feedback page on website.
• Provide information about groundsurfaces so people can choose what
mobility device or tyres to use.
• Provide a range of mobility/comfort
equipment eg. wheelchairs, cushions
or encourage people to bring in.
• Annual schedule of tailored tours
eg. low sensory, Auslan interpreted,
wheelchair/limited mobility.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 5169

Recommendations

Proposed Actions and Comments

Economic Access• For Tunnels Tour consider other fee
options for those on low incomes /pensions etc.
• Opportunity to try out/touch theequipment before committing toTunnels Tour.

• Reconsider concession fees. May
need to discuss with Treasury.
• Alternative topside “tunnel tour”
eg. virtual reality or mock-up
of equipment should have analternative fee.

• Consider how people with invisible
mobility impairments and otherpeople with disability who may notreceive the mobility concession
could be included.
Booking and tickets• Being able to book all tours online.
• Access to the booking systems andcalendars for people who use screen
readers.
• Clearer explanations on what
concession cards are accepted.
• Add Auslan interpreters to the ticket
section with the carer / companion
card concessions.
• Provide information about thewheelchairs for loan to be available
on the website.
• Mobility Concession added to thewebsite and pamphlets.
• Availability of cushions.
• Improve access to the outside kioskor have some consistency as sometickets could be purchased from thekiosk, some from the gift shop.
• Improved advertising of the audio
guides.

• Standard question for ticket sellers
to ask visitors “Do you have any
comfort or access requirements to
help you get the best experience on
your tour?”• Explore why all tours can’t bebooked online.
• Clearly outline what concession
cards are accepted.
• Improve access to ticket office – why
are there multiple locations?
• Consider standalone ticket kiosks(like at the movies) for people to use
during peak periods.
• Currently mobility, disability andsenior concession – don’t wantpeople to have to prove theirdisability.
• Make it clear interpreters don’t haveto pay.

• A number to call re accessibility.

170

Appendix 5 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

Recommendations

Proposed Actions and Comments

Getting there and parking• More accessible / shaded seatingarea outside the prison.

• Parking area to be redeveloped andwill ask for RG input.

• Clearer signposting.

• OHA noted angled parking moredifficult for reversing and accessfrom all sides of vehicle.

• Parking map on the website andpamphlets.
• Make the parking bays angled.
• Include clearer information on thewebsite about parking and how
much it is for ACROD permit holders
and what the time limits are.
• Make it clearer that people can parkoutside the prison and don’t haveto use the busy car park below theprison.
• Move ACROD bays to be closer tothe prison entrance.
• Have more shading in the carpark.
• A later bus service from the prison to
the train station.
Arrival and entrance• Information on website and by phonethat work is being carried out at the
Prison so people can plan ahead.

• Include information on website ofworks impacting the accessibility ofthe site.

• More staff training of the needs ofpeople with more invisible disabilities,
neurodiverse. To pick up on whensomeone may require assistance andto know the best ways to ask the
person.

• Identify exactly where tactile paving
required – RG input.

• Safe WA QR codes to be clearly
signposted.
• Clearer signage. Signpost in the
courtyard and/or near the entrance toshow where the various buildings areplus bigger signage on the buildings.
• Tactile paving.
• Shaded protection over the benches
and/or put the benches undercover incase of rain or heat.
• Accessible and comfortable seating.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 5

171

Recommendations

Proposed Actions and Comments

Other• More signage for people who areblind. Not sure if this information
was on the audio guide but if not toinclude all areas.
• Have audio guides that can be usedstraight from the phone rather thanhaving to book a device.
• Have an option to go on the tour
yourself with the handheld audio
guide, go at your own pace.
• Advertise the English audio guides.
• Check videos don’t flash.
• Adequate lighting.
• Lower the signage and iPad / tabletsand make the font bigger to read in
all the exhibition areas. Lower theexhibition tables.
• 30 Years: Unlocked Exhibition. Either
decrease the film size on the wallor move the seating backwards tobehind the big picture, that is restingon the floor, near the entrance to thebuilding.

• Build accessibility into design
process.
• Consider how to make exhibitions
available in multiple sensory formats
eg. audio guides, QR codes etc.
Discuss with Department of Justice.
• 3D tours of exhibitions, online
exhibitions.
• Confirm no flashing on videos.
• Accessible exhibition furniture andsignage eg. lower tables, display
cabinets and signage.
• Consider preparing exhibition
guidelines or an accessibility events
checklist for event providers.
• Concert promoters to be aware ofaccessibility standards of the siteand ensure ticket purchasers can get
accessible seating for events.
• Participate in Disability Pride Week –AUSLAN specific tours, etc.

• Insider Art Exhibition - put the
number, title, price, and the locationof where the artwork was created,on or near the art exhibits.
• Staff training in assistive
technologies.
• Opportunities for staff to provide
feedback.
• Review accessibility of emergency
procedures with people with lived
experience of disability including
vision impairment.
• Enough space between displays toturn wheelchair.

172

Appendix 5 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

Recommendations

Proposed Actions and Comments

Café• Where exhibitions use film, ensure
film size is appropriate to seating
placement.
• Online menu to comply with WCAG
AA accessibility.

• Not under control of Fremantle
Prison.
• Speak to tenant about online menu,
providing dietary information andtraining.

• Greater range of options for people
with dietary needs and this to beclear on both online and printed
menus.
• Better customer service plus training
in dietary requirements.
Toilets and locker facilities• Review access to the toilets forpeople with different types ofwheelchairs / mobility aids.
• Address the issue of the poleoutside the toilets.
• New matting.

• Agree multiple issues and a longerterm project.
• Relocate toilets (eg. compactus
space, workshops).
• Short term can improve signage andinstall hooks.

• Automatic door for toilets / changing
area.
• Signpost at the entrance could help
people find the toilets and lockers.
• Lights on the signs of the buildings,
so that people can see the signagein the dark.
• The edge of the roofing, covering thecorridor to the toilets, to be lifted or
made higher.
• Hook installed on the inside of the
toilet door to hang bags etc.
• Consider relocating the toilets if
possible, closer to the entrance,easy to find and in a safe location.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 5173Appendix 6
Prioritised Action List
Introduction

The purpose of producing this task list of priorities is to ensure themanagers of Fremantle Prison can address, in a scheduled manner, thefeedback gained from the Accessibility and Inclusion (AIP) ReferenceGroup, staff working groups, visitors and the wider public on how tomake the site more accessible and welcoming for all.
In 2022, the AIP Reference Group was formed to held provide feedback on a rangeof accessibility issues highlighted during experiential access audits of the site. At
this time, people with different lived experiences of disability were invited to attendsite tours offered at Fremantle Prison and provide their feedback on the experience.
This audit involved experiencing the entire service chain at Fremantle Prison.
A series of questions which were used in a public consultation survey were formed,
based on the experiential groups feedback. Whilst public commentary was minimal,
the feedback that was obtained has been included in this report.
Once this process was complete, the findings were discussed in four accessworking groups (physical, information and communication, social and economic)
comprised of staff who work on site, supervisors, tour guides, ticket sellers andofficers from the wider Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (DPLH)
accessibility team. This feedback was then added to the previous consultation
process and helped to establish a broad understanding of which issues can beprioritised, and which will require further discussion and funding over a longer periodof time.
The following list is a summary of the above-mentioned consultation processes,
which have been categorised into the following three priority rankings:• High Priority Actions• Medium Priority Actions• Low Priority Actions
The tasks have been assigned to either the Heritage Conservation Team (HCT) or the
Visitor Services (VS) team at Fremantle Prison.

174

Appendix 6 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

Table showing High Priority Works and who they are assigned to.
Access Type

ActionAssignedTo

PhysicalAccessInstall a wheelchair accessible path around thegrassed area, including to routes used on theConvict Prison Tour, Behind Bars Tour, True crimeTour and Torchlight Tour.

HCT
assigned.

Move the benches and council bins away from thesignage.

HCT
assigned.

Make sure wheelchair accessible lifts areoperational and serviced regularly.

HCT
assigned.

Implement recommendations from JMG accessaudit where possible and prioritise those involving
safety issues, including:HCT
assigned.

• Install handrails, warning tactile ground surface
indicators (TGSIs) (in required luminancecontrast) and warning strips to the nosingof the tread of steps (in required luminancecontrast) to stairways in public access spaces
and on tours.
• Replace any ramp at a doorway that has a levelchange of 190mm or less, with one that has
a gradient no steeper than 1:10, ensuring theramp has the required safe sides to meet step
ramp requirements.
• Replace any ramp at a doorway that has a levelchange of 190mm or greater, with one that has
a gradient no steeper than 1:14, ensuring thepedestrian ramp has the required handrails
and kerb rails to both sides and warning TGSIs
installed at the top and base.
• Install handrails and kerb rails to both sides ofall pedestrian ramps in public access spaces
and on tours (that have a gradient shallower
than 1:14).
Invite RG members to test and provide feedback
on proposed solutions eg., mock-up ramps.

HCT
assigned.

Have two different types of torches for tour.

VS
assigned.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 6

175Access Type

ActionAssignedTo

PhysicalAccess cont’d

Ramps and stairs illuminated – ambience to suit
the tour, but safety first eg., theatre style, motion
activated.

HCT
assigned.

Remove loose mats from ramp surfaces and at
doorways. Where a mat is required (eg. to trapwater), ensure it is secured and has a ramped/
bevelled edge so as to not pose a barrier.
Where a mat has been used to provide a transition
surface or to address lips or gaps, repair the lips
and gaps by another means to create a safe,
traversable surface.

Information
Access176

Prioritise main tour routes.

HCT
assigned.

Clear masks for guides.

VS
assigned.

Include captioning on audio guides with AUSLAN
and a larger device.

HCT
assigned.

An audio menu on the audio guide where thenumbers and their corresponding stories are
narrated.

HCT
assigned.

Re-write the Declaration Form to consider people
may not know how they will be on the tour.

VS
assigned.

Encourage visitors to give feedback via thewebsite, on paper or via TripAdvisor.

VS
assigned.

Appendix 6 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

Access Type

ActionAssigned
To

Information
Access cont’d

Website:VS
assigned.

(1) F ull website audit with different tools andon different operating systems. Test using
screen readers and read aloud tools. Test
colour contrast, Alt text, scrolling etc. tomeet WCAG AA.
(2) Include the Acknowledgement of Country
on the website.
(3) Some more photos and maps.
(4) Clearer information about audio guides.
(5) Accessibility page.
(6) C onsider advising to check weather before
a tour as you’re going to be outside formuch of the tour.
(7) Ensure iPad are at accessible heights.
(8) E ncourage people to ask a question
if they require any modifications or
accommodations.
(9) R emove information that may makeassumptions about people and include
enough information for people to make an
informed decision.
Clarify what can and can’t be touched.

HCT/VS
assigned.

Upgrades to audio guides. Auslan interpreter
to visit site and make sure elements can beinterpreted.

HCT
assigned.

Get advice from Better Hearing Australia andpurchase some hearing devices eg., loops or
microphones.

VS
assigned.

Have a safety harness for people interested in
Tunnels Tour to see/ touch at the front gate.

VSassigned.

Show tour routes on arrival experience maps andnote stairs etc. that might impact accessibility.

VSassigned.

Where tour participants are obstructed, forexample, due to a stair flight or narrow/obstructed
accessway, provide directional signage for the
return, accessible route to the meeting point, toresume the tour.

HCT
assigned.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 6

177

Access Type

ActionAssigned
To

Information
Access cont’d

Provide directional signage from banks of maleand female (only) toilets to the closest unisex
accessible toilet (UAT).

HCT
assigned.

Depending on the context, provide sufficient
information to ensure people are able to locate
the UAT (use an arrow, state distance, location inwhich building, signage provided along the route ateach location where a directional decision needs tobe made).

Social Access

Install Braille and raised tactile text and symbol
signage to all unisex accessible toilets, and maleand female toilets (as per BCA D3.6 requirements).

HCT
assigned.

Tour guides to wait for everyone to be present
before continuing with the tour.

VS
assigned.

Better lighting solutions for interpreters on
Torchlight tour.

HCT
assigned.

Trigger warnings on the website and at the
beginning of each tour so that people areprepared.

VS
assigned.

Tour guide to be mindful of the needs of thewheelchair user, to stay with the group to makesure everyone gets through rather than goingahead.

VS
assigned.

VS
More public information to show that Fremantle
assigned.
Prison welcome people with disability, arecommitted to making the prison as accessible aspossible and can make some accommodations.
For example, “let us know in advance if you require
any flexibility as there may be some things we canarrange to make this tour more accessible for you.”Tour guides to be mindful of weather conditions assome visitors may be too polite to speak up if too
hot / cold.

178

Appendix 6 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

VS
assigned.

Access Type

ActionAssigned
To

Social Accesscont’dRe Tunnel tour:VS
assigned.

(1) P rovide enough information about the
Tunnels tour so that visitors can make an
informed decision (eg., weight of equipment,height of tunnel, timings of each section of
the tour, sensory conditions etc).
(2) H ave a Reasonable Adjustment page on thewebsite.
(3) R emove the part of the tour where the hatch
is slammed, on the walk up to the tunnels as
this could be triggering.
(4) Trigger warnings on website.
(5) Confirm feedback page on website.
(6) P rovide information about ground surfaces
so people can choose what mobility device
or tyres to use.

Economic

Opportunity to try out/touch the equipment before
committing to Tunnels Tour.

VS
assigned.

Booking andticketingexperience

Clearer explanations on what concession cards are
accepted.

VS
assigned.

Add AUSLAN interpreters to the ticket section withthe carers / companion card concessions.

VS
assigned.

A number to call regarding accessibility.

VS/HCT
assigned.

Standard question for ticket sellers to ask visitors“Do you have any comfort or access requirements
to help you get the best experience on your tour?”VSassigned.

Explore why all tours can’t be booked online.

VSassigned.

Make it clear interpreters don’t have to pay.

VS
assigned.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 6179

Access Type

ActionAssignedTo

Planning
your trip andparking

Parking map on the website and pamphlets.

VS
assigned.

Make the parking bays angled.

HCT
assigned.

Move ACROD bays to be closer to the prison
entrance.

HCT
assigned.

Information on website and by phone that work is
being carried out at the Prison so people can plan.

VSassigned.

Include information on website of works impacting
the accessibility of the site.

VS
assigned.

Confirm no flashing on videos.

HCT
assigned.

Arrival andentrance

Other
exhibition
spaces –visitor’s room,art gallery,garden etc.

Toilets andlocker facilities

180

Lower the signage and iPad / tablets and make the HCTfont bigger to read in all the exhibition areas. Lower assigned.
the exhibition tables.
Build accessibility into design process.

HCT
assigned.

Opportunities for staff to provide feedback.

VS/HCT
assigned.

Review accessibility of emergency procedures withpeople with lived experience of disability including
vision impairment.

HCT
assigned.

Review access to the toilets for people withdifferent types of wheelchairs/ mobility aids.

HCT
assigned.

New matting.

HCT
assigned.

Automatic door for toilets / changing area.

HCT
assigned.

Hook installed on the inside of the toilet door tohang bags etc.

HCT
assigned.

Appendix 6 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

Table showing High Priority and who they are assigned to.
Access Type

ActionAssignedTo

PhysicalNew ramps, flooring, doorways etc. to meetstandards, and test with different mobility aids.

HCT
assigned.

Install threshold, step or pedestrian ramps atentranceways and thoroughfares where currently
steps prevent access for persons with disability(and the access route beyond the ramp is ofsufficient width to accommodate a wheelchairpassing through).

HCT
assigned.

Evaluate the doorways on the main tour routes andshould the clear open width not achieve 850mm,
consider the following options:HCT
assigned.

• Install an off-set or parliament hinge.
• Remove the door leaf.
• Remove the door leaf and frame.
• If access cannot be achieved through adoorway, consider an alternate route to thesame destination (on tours).
Install a timber rod (or similar) into deep sliding
door/gate runners to fill the gap and provide a
traversable surface without any gaps. Where thedoor is to be opened/closed, tour guides to place
the trim into the gap once the door has been
opened.

HCT
assigned.

Where ramps or paths have wide apertures (eg.,steel grating such as Webforge) (in excess of 8mm),
replace with a traversable surface. Where drainage
grates have apertures wider than 8mm, replace witha compliant grate (such as a Heelsafe grate).

HCT
assigned.

Evaluate the access routes on all tours and identify
where grates and service/pit lids create a gap, or avertical lip in excess of 3mm.

HCT/ VS
assigned.

Barricade or divert the tour around areas ofsignificant hazard and investigate solutions toaddress the uneven surfaces.
New pathways to be uniform poured limestone.

HCT
assigned.

Better (compliant) ramps, matting for access andegress. Check doorways with different chair sizes.

HCT
assigned.

Consider feedback on proposed materials paletteprovide by OHA.

HCT
assigned.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 6

181

Access Type

ActionAssigned
To

Information
AccessProvide both visual and verbal hazard information.

VSassigned.

Consider access to written information for peopleusing wheelchairs eg., location.

HCT
assigned.

Declaration Form with tagging for a screen reader
and section to sign.

VSassigned.

Descriptions of the tours that provide enoughinformation for the visitor to make an informed
decision on whether the tour is right for them.

VSassigned.

For the tour guides to use microphones if there area lot of people on the tour.

VS
assigned.

Provide social stories about booking, tours,
exhibitions etc.

VSassigned.

Re website:VS
assigned.

(1) C ould include information about alternativeroutes being available for physical accessand some tours can be flexible.
(2) Include weather forecast on either theheader or footer so that it appears on all
pages.
(3) C onsider having a few example cells in 3D
on the website. Put this information on iPadif people can’t get into a place/ room.

182

Explore ideas re visual/ verbal signage with
Visability eg., Beacon technology.

HCT
assigned.

Tours to identify more tactile and sensory
opportunities eg., BMR collection, smell-scapes incells and kitchens, soundscapes.

HCT
assigned.

Reach out to WA Institute for Deaf Education(WAIDE) and Access+ for feedback on design of
AUSLAN interpreted tours.

VSassigned.

Consider training for guides on wearing
microphones if on a large tour group.

VS
assigned.

Consider clear masks if guides want to wear a
mask.

VS
assigned.

Appendix 6 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

Access Type

ActionAssigned
To

Information
Access cont’d

Re declaration form:VS
assigned.

(1) Have an example of declaration form online.
(2) C onsider having a e-version on site with areader option on an iPad.
(3) H ave cut-out template for signing, aslong as the visitor has been able to read
information prior.

Social Access

Disability confidence training on what you canor should not ask the person with disability plus
understanding visible and hidden disabilities. Have
people with disability undertake the training, how
to navigate the prison etc. Staff to try out assistive
tech and equipment used by people with disability.

VSassigned.

For visitors to be asked if they require individual
assistance. To clearly explain why this assistance
may be required if it is required as part of a healthand safety policy.

VS
assigned.

Staff training of invisible disabilities plus
neurodiversity. Treating visitors equally which may
mean not singling out people because of a visible
disability regardless of the good intentions.

VS
assigned.

Encourage visitors to give feedback via thewebsite, on paper or via TripAdvisor.

VS
assigned.

Re Tunnel tour:VS
assigned.

Training for staff to assist someone who is blind totry out/touch the equipment before using it.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 6

183

Access Type

ActionAssigned
To

Social Accesscont’dAgree disability confidence training for staff
essential including:

HCT/VS
assigned.

• People with disability involved in providing thetraining;• Deaf awareness;• Audio description;• Working with interpreters;• Using microphones;• Potential triggers at the site;• Trauma informed care;• Invisible disabilities;• Neurodiversity;• Adapting tours to range of visitors;• Assistive technologies;• Offering assistance without offending; and• Assisting people with safety equipment eg.
harness etc for Tunnels Tour.

Economic
Access184

Further training and good practice tips for tour
guides.

VS
assigned.

Use better/ alternative torches for interpreters –consider head torches.

VSassigned.

More information online, flyers at front gate,include short videos/ snapshots of areas.

VSassigned.

Train guides to ask directly if people with visible
disability require assistance on tours, otherwise try
to encourage asking for assistance online prior tovisit so we can plan for an additional guide.

VS
assigned.

Awareness training, potentially a floating tour guideif necessary, on large groups with mobility device
users.

VS
assigned.

Being conscious of shade spots to stop at on
tours. Disclose on website about being sun-smart
and bringing water/ hat/ etc.

VSassigned.

Consider how people with invisible mobility
impairments and other people with disability who
may not receive the mobility concession could be
included.

VS
assigned.

Appendix 6 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

Access Type

ActionAssigned
To

Bookings andtickets

Being able to book all tours online.

VSassigned.

Access to the booking systems and calendars forpeople who use screen readers.

VS
assigned.

Provide information about the wheelchairs for loan
to be available on the website.

VS
assigned.

Mobility Concession added to the website andpamphlets.

VS
assigned.

Include clearer information on the website aboutparking and how much it is for ACROD permit
holders and what the time limits are.

VS
assigned.

Make it clearer that people can park outside theprison and don’t have to use the busy car park
below the prison.

VS
assigned.

More staff training of the needs of people withmore invisible disabilities, neurodiverse. To pick up
on when someone may require assistance and toknow the best ways to ask the person.

HCT/VS
assigned.

Identify exactly where tactile paving required – RG
input.

HCT
assigned.

Advertise the English audio guides.

VS
assigned.

Adequate lighting.

HCT
assigned.

30 Years: Unlocked Exhibition. Either decrease
the film size on the wall or move the seating
backwards to behind the big picture, that is restingon the floor, near the entrance to the building

HCT
assigned.

Planning
your trip andparking

Arrival andEntrance

Other
exhibition
spaces –visitor’s room,art gallery,garden etc.

Enough space between displays to turn wheelchair. HCT
assigned.

CaféConcert promoters to be aware of accessibility
standards of the site and ensure ticket purchasers
can get accessible seating for events.

VS
assigned.

Participate in Disability Pride Week – AUSLAN
specific tours, etc.

VSassigned.

Opportunity to really embrace the theme “No
Escape Cafe” … making it a fun part of theexperience.

HCT
assigned.

Online menu to comply with WCAG AA
accessibility.

HCT
assigned.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 6

185

Access Type

ActionAssignedTo

Toilet andLockerfacilities

Address the issue of the pole outside the toilets.

HCT
assigned.

Signpost at the entrance could help people find the HCT
toilets and lockers.
assigned.
Short term can improve signage and install hooks.

HCT
assigned.

Table showing High Priority Action Works and who they are assigned to.
Access Type

ActionAssignedTo

PhysicalAccessLights on the ramps and pathways for night
tours.

HCT
assigned.

Have a virtual reality tour of the tunnels.

VS
assigned.

Audit colour/luminance contrast not just on thewebsite but in all areas with public information.

HCT
assigned.

Review ramp incline and matting at the entrance
to café.

HCT
assigned.

Open access to the outside café area.

HCT
assigned.

Install directional signage to public accesstoilets if they are not apparent from the tour
route, public access spaces (eg. function rooms)
and concert locations.
Information
AccessStaff training in describing visual information topeople who are vision impaired.

VS
assigned.

Identify items that can be touched and train staff
in conducting touch tours.

VSassigned.

Re-make the Tunnel Tour safety video so that the HCT
assigned.
instructions and images are clear and include
captions and voice over. Test with people withdifferent access and inclusion needs.
More touch-based communications eg., anembossed plan of the site, Braille.

186

Appendix 6 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

HCT
assigned.

Access Type

ActionAssigned
To

Information
Access cont’d

Re-website:(1) Celebrate the staff on the website eg.,have the staff present a video.
(2) Social story videos from tour guides.
(3) Video teasers online.

VSassigned.

Improve signage by adopting the principles of
HCTgood signage across in the site, for informative,
assigned.
interpretive and directional (way finding) signage.
• Any information provided on signs should beclear and unambiguous to read.
• Lettering (size, type, layout) to be clear andlegible (larger font size)• Avoid the use of ALL CAPITALS.
• The sign is not to reflect light nor be placed
behind glazing.
• To be located at a height between 1200–
1600mm from the finished floor surface,where it will be most visible to people seatedand standing. Where space within the 12001600mm zone is not available, the sign can beextended downward, no lower than 1000mm.
• Should the sign be obscured at any time (eg.,by crowds at a train station or in a foyer) it
should be placed at least 2000mm high.
• The sign should be in contrast to thebackground surface.
• Letters to be in 30% luminance contrast to thesign.
• Letter height to be appropriate to the required/anticipated viewing distance.
• Best practice indicates directional signage is tobe located consistently along the path of travel
so that it can be readily found.
• Directional signage to be located at key
decision-making points.
• Signage should not obstruct the accessible
path of travel.
• Set signage off the path of travel, set the signon a hard stand at least 1540x2070mm indimension.
• Ensure signage cannot be obstructed byfoliage and the like.
Consider updating safety video to include
captions and voice overs – co-design with RG.

VSassigned.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 6

187

Access Type

ActionAssigned
To

Social Access

Disability confidence training to recognise thateveryone is different. No assumptions. People
with disability can provide the training. Include
deaf awareness training.

HCT/VS
assigned.

Identify potential triggers and train staff intrauma informed care.

HCT
assigned.

Small group options for people who are unable
to do tours that include a lot of people.

VS
assigned.

3D tours of inaccessible spaces eg. Moondyne
Joe’s cell and the cells in the Female Division.

VSassigned.

Re Tunnel tour:VS
assigned.

(1) H ave a mock-up of the equipment andboat so people can make an informed
decision. Make it into a fun addition to theFremantle Prison tourist attraction and agreat photo opportunity.
(2) M ock-up tour experience for visitors
who can’t travel down into the tunnels.
Consider accessing the Pump House
shaft, objects for touching, reservoir, etc.

Economic
AccessBooking andtickets

Provide a range of mobility/comfort equipmenteg., wheelchairs, cushions or encourage people
to bring in.

VSassigned.

Reconsider concession fees. May need to
discuss with Treasury.

VS
assigned.

Alternative topside “tunnel tour” eg., virtual
reality or mock-up of equipment should have analternative fee.

VS
assigned.

Availability of cushions.

VS
assigned.

Improve access to the outside kiosk or havesome consistency as some tickets could bepurchased from the kiosk, some from the gift
shop.

HCT
assigned.

Improve advertising of the audio guides.

VS
assigned.

Improve access to ticket office – why are there
multiple locations?

HCT
assigned.

VS
Currently mobility, disability and seniorconcession – don’t want people to have to prove assigned.
their disability.

188

Appendix 6 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

Access Type

ActionAssignedTo

Planning
your trip andParking

Parking area to be redeveloped and will ask for
RG input.

HCT
assigned.

Arrival andentrance

Safe WA QR codes to be clearly signposted.

VS
assigned.

Clearer signage. Signpost in the courtyard
and/or near the entrance to show where thevarious buildings are plus bigger signage on thebuildings.

HCT
assigned.

More signage for people who are blind. Not sureif this information was on the audio guide but if
not to include all areas.

HCT
assigned.

Insider Art Exhibition - put the number, title,
price, and the location of where the artwork was
created, on or near the art exhibits.

HCT
assigned.

Other
exhibition
spaces –visitor’s room,art gallery,garden etc.

Consider preparing exhibition guidelines or an
HCT
accessibility events checklist for event providers. assigned.
Cafe

Toilet andLockerfacilities

Greater range of options for people with dietaryneeds and this to be clear on both online andprinted menus.

HCT
assigned.

Better customer service plus training in dietaryrequirements.

VS
assigned.

Speak to tenant about online menu, providing
dietary information and training.

HCT/VS
assigned.

Lights on the signs of the buildings, so thatpeople can see the signage in the dark.

HCT
assigned.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 6

189

Table showing Medium Priority Action Works and who they are assigned
to.
Access Type

ActionAssignedTo

PhysicalAccessOpportunities to sit down on tours.

HCT/VS
assigned.

Make the garden more physically accessible forvisitors and volunteers with disability.

HCT
assigned.

More seating/spaces for rest and reflection
generally and in tours.

HCT
assigned.

More shading devices through tours.

HCT
assigned.

Social AccessAnnual schedule of tailored tours eg., low sensory,
AUSLAN interpreted, wheelchair/limited mobility.

VSassigned.

Economic
AccessFor Tunnels Tour consider other fee options for
those on low incomes / pensions etc.

VSassigned.

Booking andTickets

Consider standalone ticket kiosks (like at themovies) for people to use during peak periods.

VS
assigned.

Planning
your Trip andParking

More accessible / shaded seating area outside theprison.

HCT
assigned.

Have more shading in the carpark.

HCT
assigned.

Arrival andEntrance

Tactile paving.

HCT
assigned.

Shaded protection over the benches and/or put the HCTbenches undercover in case of rain or heat.
assigned.

Other
exhibition
spaces –visitor’s room,art gallery,garden etc.

190

Accessible and comfortable seating.

HCT
assigned.

Have audio guides that can be used straight fromthe phone rather than having to book a device.

HCT/VS
assigned.

Staff training in assistive technologies.

VS
assigned.

Consider how to make exhibitions available inmultiple sensory formats eg., audio guides, QR
codes etc. Discuss with Corrective Services.

HCT
assigned.

Accessible exhibition furniture and signage eg.,lower tables, display cabinets and signage.

HCT
assigned.

Appendix 6 • FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023

Table showing Low Priority Action Works and who they are assigned to.
Access Type

ActionAssignedTo

PhysicalAccessPlatform lift access for Tunnels Tour.

HCT
assigned.

Lift access for the upper levels (eg., for True Crime
tour), to remain within heritage guidelines.

HCT
assigned.

Lock gates open.

HCT
assigned.

Platform lift for Tunnels Tour likely not feasible– significant work and cost. Potential feasibility
study. Instead, provide a virtual reality experience,or tour guide wears Go Pro.

HCT
assigned.

Lift access to upper levels could be explored eg.,
new division.

HCT

Clearer signposting.

HCT
assigned.

A later bus service from the Prison to the train
station.

VS
assigned.

Other
exhibition
spaces –visitor’s room,art gallery,garden etc.

Have an option to go on the tour yourself with the
handheld audio guide, go at your own pace.

VSassigned.

3D tours of exhibitions, online exhibitions.

HCT
assigned.

Toilet andLockerfacilities

Consider relocating the toilets, if possible, closer to HCT
the entrance, easy to find and in a safe location.
assigned.

Planning
your Trip andParking

Relocate toilets (eg., compactus space,workshops).

HCT
assigned.

Construct a unisex accessible toilet (UAT) to
service locations where male and female toilets are
currently provided, and locations where demand
for toilets is evident.

HCT
assigned.

FREMANTLE PRISON | ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2023 • Appendix 6

191

This page has been left blank intentionally.