An inmate has failed to use the ACT's human rights legislation to avoid a ban on him visiting his prison lover.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Armed robber and recidivist offender Christopher John Miles, 38, used his human right to communicate with legal advisors to try to circumnavigate decisions by prison management not to allow him visits with his partner behind bars.
Miles had argued his partner, a man in his 20s who has completed half a law degree at the Australian National University, was his legal advisor.
He said he needed to visit the younger man to help prepare for a looming appeal on his sentence.
The pair have been together for about 12 months, and the younger man had told authorities that their relationship was non-sexual, and instead they had an emotional connection and enjoyed companionship.
But they were separated for disciplinary reasons, and now reside in different parts of the jail.
Miles launched an ACT Supreme Court application to force the prison to allow the visits, after attempts to secure "inter-gaol" visits were knocked back by Alexander Maconochie Centre management.
The ACT's Human Rights Act stipulates that those charged with a criminal offence must have:
"Adequate time and facilities to prepare his or her defence and to communicate with lawyers or advisors chosen by him or her."
Another part of the legislation makes it unlawful for a public authority, like jail management, to act in a way that is incompatible with that right.
But evidence presented to the court by Alexander Maconochie Centre staff painted a different light on the relationship between Miles and the younger man.
According to prison staff, Miles' lover was a vulnerable, high-risk detainee, due to his small stature and open homosexuality.
He has been under duress and threat in every area he has been housed in the prison, authorities say, and the only way to keep him safe was in total segregation in the facility's management unit.
Prison area manager Wayne Mark Baynham told the court the younger inmate had suggested he was using Miles for protection, and that he had made attempts to distance himself from the older man.
It was also suggested their behaviour in the AMC was better when they were physically separated and had limited contact, and that placing them together may exacerbate the younger detainee's "existing vulnerabilities".
Their handwritten letters to each other contained little discussion of legal matters, Mr Baynham said.
Mr Baynham suggested the idea the younger man would act as Miles' legal advisor only appeared to have arisen after other avenues of securing a meeting failed.
That left three real questions for Justice John Burns to answer; can the younger man be considered Miles' "legal advisor", and, if so, has Miles been given adequate time and facilities to communicate with him, and has the prison limited his rights unlawfully.
But the judge did not get past the first question.
He said he was not satisfied that Miles wished to communicate with the younger man for the purposes of obtaining legal advice.
Justice Burns pointed to the pair's letters, which contained no real discussion about legal issues, but instead focussed on their relationship and desire to be together.
He said Miles had given no real explanation as to why he wanted the younger man as his legal advisor, rather than a qualified lawyer.
"The advice [the younger detainee] could give the applicant must, of necessity, be limited by the fact that [he] has not completed undergraduate studies, and has no relevant experience," he said.
"In the absence of such an explanation, his choice of [the younger detainee] as an advisor on the basis of any particular skills possessed by [him] seems improbable."
Justice Burns also found that their current method of communication, a relatively slow mail service, had not been shown to be inadequate for the purposes of legal advice.
He also found it was reasonable for the prison to limit their contact because the younger man was vulnerable, while Miles was much older, had an extensive and violent criminal record, and much poorer rehabilitation prospects than the younger man.
