Labor blasted for restricting prisoner rights after gangland boss’s court victory

Labor has faced sharp criticism for proposing legislation that would restrict the basic right of Victorian prisoners to access fresh air daily, following a recent court ruling in favor of a notorious gangland boss. The proposed changes, backed by the opposition, aim to make open-air access subject to “operational considerations,” effectively allowing authorities to limit or suspend the practice indefinitely. This move has drawn condemnation from human rights advocates, including wrongfully imprisoned academic Kylie Moore-Gilbert, the Victorian Ombudsman, and international legal experts. The legislation, set to be debated in the upper house this week, directly contradicts Victoria’s human rights charter, which guarantees prisoners the right to spend at least an hour outdoors each day. Opponents argue that the measure violates internationally recognized standards, including the Nelson Mandela Rules, which outline minimum conditions for the treatment of prisoners. The bill’s explanatory memorandum states that amendments to the Corrections Act will permit the state to restrict open-air access “on an ongoing basis or for extended periods of time,” raising concerns over potential abuse. Kylie Moore-Gilbert, who spent 804 days in Iranian detention under false espionage charges, highlighted the irony of the proposal. She pointed out that even the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, widely regarded as a repressive regime, granted her at least 30 minutes of outdoor time per day, even during solitary confinement. “Why on earth is the Victorian government proposing to lower its human rights standards beneath those of even the despotic regime in Iran?” she asked, expressing deep frustration over the perceived regression. The controversy stems from a landmark Supreme Court case involving George Marrogi, a convicted murderer and drug trafficker known for running a $55 million illicit enterprise from within prison walls. In January, Justice Claire Harris ruled that several high-security units, including parts of Barwon Prison and the Metropolitan Remand Centre, failed to meet the standard of adequate open-air access. Her decision cited the lack of a clear definition of what constitutes “open air,” though she emphasized that exposure to natural elements like rain, wind, and sunlight was essential. Marrogi’s legal team argued that the existing system posed risks, including the possibility of escape, self-harm, and contraband entry. They claimed that specialized roof mesh was necessary to secure the facilities, yet the court found that the measures taken fell short of providing meaningful outdoor access. The ruling has since been appealed, with the government asserting that the changes are necessary to avoid costly litigation and ensure institutional safety. Corrections Minister Paul Hamer acknowledged the challenges in implementing the policy, stating in parliamentary testimony that “there may not be any suitable infrastructure solutions available” to accommodate high-risk inmates like Marrogi. He emphasized the need to prioritize staff safety, particularly given past incidents involving violent behavior and attempted escapes. Despite these arguments, critics warn that the proposed reforms could lead to widespread violations of prisoners' rights. Opposition police spokesman Brad Battin admitted that while the changes might be logistically difficult, they were supported due to their practicality. “It is important that the management of the prison can make a decision in the best interests of staff, not in the best interests of prisoners, to protect the staff who are within that prison,” he stated. Meanwhile, the Victorian Ombudsman, Marlo Baragwanath, warned of the broader consequences of passing the legislation. “If these changes are passed into law, they’ll have wide-ranging and significant human rights implications for anyone in custody,” he cautioned. Marrogi’s lawyer, Zyg Zayler, condemned the move as a reflection of declining societal values, arguing that altering the law post-Harris’ decision undermines public trust in justice systems. As the debate intensifies, the focus remains on whether the proposed restrictions will ultimately serve institutional security or erode fundamental human rights protections. The outcome of the legislative process will likely shape the future of prisoner welfare in Victoria for years to come.