A man who was detained at Tasmania's Ashley Youth Detention Centre (AYDC) on two occasions in the early 1990 alleges he was sexually assaulted, and threatened with physical harm if he reported sexual abuse allegations.
WARNING: This story contains details that some readers may find distressing
The man, known as CA, and who cannot be identified for legal reasons, also alleges he was left in an isolation cell for five days, naked with only a blanket for cover.
CA is one of the lead plaintiffs in a class action against the state of Tasmania.
The 101 claimants say they were whipped, kicked, bullied, encouraged to join gangs, sexually abused and stripped naked while detained at Ashley.
The oldest claim dates back to 1961, while the most recent is from 2019.
Following the plaintiffs' statement of claim, which was filed with the Supreme Court in August, the Tasmanian government has filed its defence.
CA and the other lead claimants will have to prove their claims in court, with most of them denied by the Tasmanian government.
Strip searches
CA alleged he was strip searched upon each admission to AYDC, including internal searches, without being properly informed of the process.
"CA was physically held down during admission to AYDC and stripped naked … CA was subjected to an internal cavity search, as a result of which he was in significant physical pain which lasted days," the plaintiffs' statement of claim reads.
"CA from time to time heard other detainees being subjected to internal cavity searches, and was traumatised by their cries which he understood marked instances when they were penetrated by the guards."
The claims were denied by the state.
It argued that during the time CA was detained at Ashley, the policy was that searches were only used on admission to the centre's secure unit and that strip searches were not used.
According to the policy that applied between approximately 2000 and 2010, which is included in the defence, detainees were strip searched on admission.
Another of the lead plaintiffs, known as JC, who was detained at Ashley on multiple occasions between 2006 and 2011, claimed that he was subjected to ad hoc strip searches including on one occasion where he alleges he was handcuffed and had his clothing cut from his body by staff.
This claim was also denied by the state.
The state admitted, however, that since about 1998 "some detainees at AYDC have been strip-searched from time to time in accordance with the relevant policy and procedure" of the time.
Scabies cream
Lawyers for the plaintiffs alleged the state, by its officers, servants and agents at Ashley, routinely applied a scabies cream or powder to detainees' bodies, or required the detainees to apply it themselves.
They alleged the treatment was applied without the consent of the detainees, without authority from a treating medical practitioner and without keeping records of the treatment.
According to the statement of claim, CA alleged he was stripped naked by Ashley staff who painted his entire body, including his genitals, with scabies cream using a brush, despite him not having scabies or symptoms of scabies.
Another claimant, RI, said he experienced a painful burning sensation following the application of the cream and suffered burns that caused visible scarring.
The state has denied these allegations, but did admit that some or all detainees were provided with a scabies wash or cream between approximately 1997 and 2006.
A record was not maintained — and that such a record was not required by law — and the provision of the scabies wash or cream was authorised under relevant legislation.
Detainees left unsupervised with 'predators'
It is alleged there was no adequate system for ensuring detainees were not placed in accommodation or left unsupervised with detainees who were known or suspected to be at elevated risk of committing violence.
The statement of claim refers to the latter as "predators".
The statement of claim alleges JC was tormented and ridiculed by other detainees after he reported an assault, and that staff "did not shield him from the harassment for protection".
The state denied these claims, but admitted that "from time to time during the claim period it placed detainees in the same accommodation units as predators".
It said it could not practically or lawfully keep "predators" separate from all other detainees, and that adequate systems were in place for the supervision and segregation of detainees.
Isolation
CA alleged he was isolated in an individual cell for four weeks after he was admitted to Ashley, with one hour per day of outdoor time in a caged area.
He also alleged that after he fought off a sexual attack by a staff member, he was assaulted by other staff members, knocked unconscious, and locked in an isolation cell naked for five days with only a blanket.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs alleged isolation was routinely used as a punishment and that there was no system to ensure episodes of isolation were accurately recorded.
The state said that while isolation was used from time to time, it was not used as a punishment and that some records "may have been lost since their creation".
It also said there were adequate systems in place at Ashley to ensure isolation was only used as a last resort, that detainees in isolation were appropriately monitored, and that it was reported and recorded appropriately.
Claimants have also alleged they were physically abused either before or after they were placed in isolation.
The state denied this, saying that "physical force was not used as a punishment".
"[The state] says that isolation and the use of physical force by AYDC staff from time to time are necessary components of a system for the security, good order and safe custody of detainees at AYDC," the defence reads.
Staff training and retention
Concerns were also raised by the plaintiffs about staff members they allege had been the subject of allegations of assault on detainees, had been the subject of allegations of sexual misconduct involving minors, or were members of, or associated with, outlaw motorcycle gangs.
In its defence, the state denied the allegations generally and said "the mere fact of an allegation … is not, of itself, sufficient grounds for the defendant to take disciplinary action".
In response to allegations that there was no reliable system for making complaints without fear of retribution, the state said an adequate complaints system operated at Ashley.
Lawyer for the plaintiffs Angela Sdrinis said while the state had not conceded liability per se, the government had accepted the state is vicariously liable for the acts of its servants.
An administrative hearing at the Supreme Court in Hobart is expected to be held in February.
