Megahey, Norman 2004, 'Adaptation and resistance: the reaction of Fremantle Prison inmates to incarceration', Fremantle Studies, 3: 14-25.
In his classic study of institutional life, Erving Goffman describes a ‘self mortification’ process through which inmates on admission ‘begin a series of self abasements, degradations, humiliation, and profanations of self‘. Goffman continues:
the new arrival allows himself to be shaped and coded into an object that can be fed into the administrative machinery of the establishment, to be worked on smoothly by routine operations. 1
This paper examines ways in which inmates of Fremantle Prison reacted to their imprisonment. It will argue that the prisoners brought into prison values from the larger society and a set of assumptions about their rights. Far from being ‘shaped and coded into objects’, inmates actively resisted the prison regime, particularly if they perceived that their rights were being denied them.
The paper focuses on two periods. The first period, 1898-1911, began and ended with Royal Commissions which examined in some detail the workings of Fremantle Prison. The second period, 1968-1991, begins with the introduction of professional ‘experts’ into the prison system and ends with the closure of Fremantle Prison. These periods offer windows through which life within the walls of the prison can be glimpsed and through which important changes and continuities can be traced.
Much of what we know about prisoner behaviour comes from press reports and evidence brought before the 1898 Commission (The Jameson Commission) by prisoners. From these sources it is clear that prisoners were not as cut off from the wider community as one may suppose.
Prisoners developed a variety of means of communicating with the outside world. FCB Vosper, who had, through his roles as editor of the Sunday Times and MLA for North East Coolgardie, come to be recognised as a prison reformist and ‘friend of the prisoners’, described to the commissioners how prisoners, on their discharge, often visited him to provide him with information about happenings within the prison walls. Prisoners also managed through several means to smuggle correspondence out of the prison. Vosper claimed that certain prison officers, ‘in league with the prisoners’, did the smuggling. Some correspondence was also smuggled out by prisoners who were part of a gang of prisoners employed to work in the Fremantle Asylum grounds. Members of another gang employed at an outside quarry acted as couriers of letters and parcels which were hidden under stones. Contraband articles were smuggled in and out of the prison in the soles of boots, for example, which were hollowed out in the prison workshop to make secret compartments. Vosper also described a two-way communication system established by means of stones being thrown over the wall with letters and sometimes parcels attached to them. In short, said Vosper, ‘Nothing transpires inside or outside of the gaol the news of which cannot be readily transferred’?
Newspapers were banned within the prison but were nevertheless smuggled in. Thomas Cameron was found to have two copies of the Daily News in his possession and was sentenced to three days bread and water. Edward Butler was charged with having a copy of Truth and was cautioned, it being his first offence. Samuel Campbell was caught ‘fishing’, by means of a line dropped from an upper storey. The line was weighted by the heel of his boot which he had wrenched off. Contraband materials such as newspapers, pencils and paper, could by this means be transferred from one section of the prison to another. 3
Prisoner adaptation and resistance took the form of both individual and collective action. One officially recognised means of registering a complaint was the practice known as ‘backing the wall’. ‘Backing the wall’ was the custom according to which any prisoner having a complaint to make, fell out of the ranks at muster times and went to the front of the prison where he stood, with back to the wall, to await the arrival of a warder who would interview him.
In 1898 the West Australian, under the headline ‘Mutiny at Fremantle Gaol’, reported the case of 65 prisoners who ‘backed the wall’ and refused to work until a prisoner in the punishment cell, whom they considered had been unfairly treated, was released. 4. The ‘mutiny’ continued into the afternoon, at which time the prisoner was brought before the visiting Justice, admitted the charge and apologised for his behaviour. He was let off with a caution. The 65 ‘mutineers’ were not so fortunate. Among these, seven, identified as ringleaders, were sentenced to 14 days solitary confinement, the first three days on bread and water. Another eight were given lighter sentences and the remaining 48 were given cautions. 5 In passing sentence, the press report continued, the Magistrate told the men that, as prisoners, they had no right to strike ‘simply because they thought an injustice was being done to one of their companions’. 6
In 1907, Truth newspaper, under the sub-heading ‘The Buck Manfully against Barbarous Blood-letting’, reported that 40 prisoners had ‘backed the wall’ in protest against the flogging of a prisoner named James Walsh, whom they believed was physically too weak to undergo this punishment. There were grounds for their fears, Walsh having three months earlier been declared unfit by the acting-Medical Officer, Dr White, because of a hernia. Dr Hope, however, re-examined Walsh, had him fitted with a truss and declared him fit to undergo his punishment of ten lashes. 7 The practice when a prisoner was to be ﬂogged was for the other prisoners to be put on parade to watch the punishment. During the parade on this occasion, 40 of the prisoners fell out of rank and ‘backed the wall’. They then proceeded to plead the case for Walsh, asking that Dr White be called to examine him. Their request was refused, George allegedly declaring that it was no concern of the prisoners. The prisoners returned to the ranks and the punishment proceeded. According to Truth:
There was no subversion of discipline. There was merely a privileged protest on behalf of a fellow prisoner whom it was proposed to cut up with the murderous cat-o’-nine tails, in direct defiance of every humane instinct, and in obvious opposition to the opinion expressed by a medical man of Dr White’s experience. 8
This was not the view of visiting Justice Fairbairn when he sentenced the protesters to solitary confinement on bread and water, a sentence which drew severe criticism from some sections of the press, including the Daily News. ‘It is simply a scandal’, the paper argued, ‘that men should be kept on bread and water for daring to harbour in their souls an amount of humanity’. Citing medical opinion on the high risk of flogging a prisoner who was suffering from a hernia, the Daily News concluded that, ‘the officials arrayed themselves on the side of brutality, and the prisoners on the side of humanity’. 9
Besides collective action were the actions of individual prisoners, ranging from outright refusal to accept discipline, or violent attacks on fellow prisoners or warders, to less serious actions such as complaining through the official channels about conditions.
In July 1903, William Holloway was reported for insolence to Principal Warder Rodgers. When sentenced to one day close confinement he immediately struck a second warder before being locked in the cells. Some time later, during a routine inspection of the cells, he attacked a third warder, giving him a bloody nose. This time the warder retaliated, striking Holloway several times. According to the report of the incident, Holloway then, ‘became quiet and has been ever since’. For his actions, Holloway was sentenced to 28 days solitary confinement, seven with bread and water. 10
One inmate, a long-term prisoner, resorted to both peaceful and violent tactics. Peter Gomez, a Nicaraguan, well known to the Western Australian public through press reports of prison disturbances, was first committed to Fremantle Prison in 1897 under a sentence of six months for larceny. He served a further two sentences of two years each before being sentenced to five years for theft in 1902. 11 Letters and petitions written by him suggest that he was an intelligent and educated person. A journalist who met and spoke with him judged him to be ‘a particularly level headed gentleman’. 12
Gomez was obviously aware of the official channels through which prisoners were supposed to air their grievances and he was not slow to use these. Early in 1900 he made a verbal complaint to the Sheriff about the conduct of the prison photographer who, he claimed, had shown a photograph of himself to his new employer after his last discharge from prison. This action, Gomez claimed, had resulted in his employer firing him. On being told by the Sheriff to put his complaint in writing, Gomez produced a well written and detailed letter which he forwarded to the Sheriff. In it, he asserted that on his previous discharge from the prison, warders had pointed him out to the police. This was a common complaint amongst ex-prisoners and so was likely to be true. Statements were obtained from the photographer and the employer, who both denied the accusations, and so the complaint was dismissed. 13 Gomez was, after all, only a prisoner and so had no credibility.
Other written complaints by Gomez were also dismissed. In 1901, he wrote to the Roman Catholic chaplain requesting him to support his application for remission in order that he might return to Nicaragua. Nothing came of this request. In 1904, he wrote to John Horgan, solicitor, asking if he could take proceedings against the Western Mail which had published his photograph. He was refused permission by the prison officials to send the letter. 14
Appearing before the 1898 Jameson Commission, Gomez had complained about the aggravating conduct of fellow prisoners. ‘I lose my temper’, he said, ‘when insulted and called names by other prisoners. This has got me into trouble more than once’. 15 It certainly got him into trouble in March 1904 when a fellow prisoner began mocking him by, according to the warder on duty, imitating his laugh. In retaliation Gomez fought him, managing to bite off part of the man’s nose before the pair were finally separated. Gomez was sentenced to one month in solitary with seven days bread and water. 16
Gomez stands out among the inmates of Fremantle Prison as one of several who refused to buckle under pressure. According to the Jameson Commission:
troublesome prisoners are ordinarily those who retain some vestiges of will power and of individuality, and the exercise of those qualities is tolerably certain to bring them into conﬂict with the prison authorities. 17
Such a prisoner was Gomez. Sometimes compliant, sometimes violently rebellious, he refused to be merely Prisoner Number 10525. He remained Peter Gomez, Nicaraguan national.
Other prisoners reacted with similar stubbornness. Even the unfortunate Walsh, following his 10 lashes, turned angrily to the ﬂagellator and declared, ‘You fucking bastard. I’ll see you outside for this’. 18 After Robert Davis had received nine strokes of the cat o’ nine in 1904, ‘he again faced officials [and] resumed his air of cynical bravado. He held himself erect and, curtly refusing a glass of water, started back to his cell before the warders had been able to place a wet towel across his shoulders’. 19
The ultimate form of defiance was escape. Not all escapes were as cheekily carried out as the one by Donald McPherson, who, while working outside the prison in the local quarry, calmly downed tools, informed the warder, ‘I’m off boss’, and walked away. ‘I called on him to stop’, reported Warder Jarvis, perhaps rather sheepishly, ‘but he took no notice of me’. 20
When Thomas James made a dash for freedom while marching to work with the quarry gang, he was not so lucky. James made the mistake of jumping over the fence of a cricket oval. From there he had no cover and, no members of the public being around, two warning shots were fired at him by the armed guard escort. James took shelter in a shed, but his freedom lasted only ten minutes, after which time he realised the hopelessness of his situation and gave himself up. He was placed in irons for six months. 21 Concerning his escape, James later told the commissioners that, ‘The weather was hot and the water dirty. I was tired of life, and would have just as soon been shot as not’. 22
Other escapes were not so spontaneous. When John Higgins escaped in 1905 by climbing through the roof of a workshop and scaling the perimeter wall, he had clearly planned his escape. Once through the roof Higgins changed into a suit of civilian clothes which had been planted in readiness. To scale the wall he used a length of rope attached to an iron hook, possibly purpose made in the blacksmith shop where he was employed. 23
In summary thus far, the inmates of Fremantle Prison, far from passively accepting the prison regime and allowing themselves to be ‘shaped and coded into objects’, reacted in a variety of ways to their imprisonment. They protested collectively and individually when they believed that their rights as prisoners or as human beings were being violated. To be sure, many - perhaps most - did buckle down and accept their punishment, determined to serve their sentences as quickly as possible in order to regain their freedom. But even for some of these men this was no passive acceptance; rather it was a conscious and rational decision. ‘I made up my mind to obey all orders, good or bad, and try and keep out of all trouble’, one prisoner told the Jameson Commission. 34
The convict built main cell block of Fremantle Prison seen through the Wray Gates, c. 1974. Courtesy Michal Lewi
In some ways the reaction of Fremantle Prison inmates to their imprisonment during the latter part of the century mirrored that of the inmates at the turn of the century. Prisoners were still being brought before the Superintendent charged with petty offences such as refusing to obey orders, disorderly behaviour or, in one case, ‘wilful damage to one copy of People valued at $1.70, being the property of the State of Western Australia’. 25
The social revolution of the 1960s and 70s impacted on Fremantle Prison in a number of ways. Prisoner protest became louder and more frequent as inmates demanded what they saw as basic rights. Mass sit-outs by prisoners replaced the practice of ‘backing the wall’. Riots occurred with more frequency. Illicit drugs and alcoholic home-brews took their place alongside tobacco as jail currency. Escapes continued, but often with more cunning and sophisticated planning as escapees sought to overcome increased surveillance and tighter security.
At an individual level inmates adopted a variety of strategies to cope with their imprisonment. When Ronald Morley began his nine year sentence for bank robbery in 1984 he soon developed a comradeship with a small group of fellow inmates who were clearly intent on serving their sentences quietly and who supported each other in adapting to the prison routine. Writing about his experience as a Fremantle Prison inmate, Morley later expressed his gratitude for ‘the support and gruff kindness that I received from some of the other prisoners’. 26 Nevertheless he experienced moments of great despondency. Here he describes his feelings on his first night in his cell:
Sitting on the bottom bunk I lit a cigarette and gloomily reﬂected on the day’s events. I then thought of Liz and wondered what she would be doing at that moment. A feeling of utter desolation swept over me, a mixture of utter remorse, sadness, nostalgia and despair. I broke down and wept bitterly ... Come on - snap out of it!, I eventually muttered to myself. Get yourself busy and your mind occupied before you succumb to self-pity. 27
Later, at work in the tailors’ shop, he again found himself thinking of his wife and family and his predicament as a prisoner. ‘Get cracking boy before you start to crack, I told myself, picking up a selection of scrap material to practice on’. 23 Morley survived by sheer determination and by keeping himself mentally and physically active. He began a 5-year correspondence course to qualify as a real estate agent and obtained a study pass to enable him to stay in his cell at weekends whenever he wished, thus providing him with an avenue of escape from the monotony of the prison yard. 39
While Morley found solace in the company of fellow inmates, others tried to withdraw psychologically from the prison environment. One inmate, who wishes to remain anonymous, reacted to prison life by withdrawing from contact with fellow inmates. ‘You literally live your life in your head in institutions’, he remarked. ‘You create your own fantasies, you make your plans for the future, you plan robberies, you live in your head’. This man found himself unnerved by prison life, fearful of both inmates and officers. Two things in particular unnerved him; the silence of the night ‘that’s broken periodically by someone going a bit crazy’, and:
[the] staring that goes on The prison officers stand at the gate and they stare around. The prisoners sit at the walls and they stare around. The guy in the tower looks down and in your cell you look up, and there’s an eye at your door.
A common reaction to the effects of imprisonment was self mutilation, ‘for various reasons, to get to the hospital, to get sympathy, [or] just because you hate your own damned body’. In the case of this inmate self mutilation took the form of tattooing, for which offence he would have been liable to a sentence of solitary confinement. Other prisoners took more drastic actions. In 1984, in response to a number of suicides, the section of the prison known as the New Division, (quite a misnomer, the division having been opened in 1907), was designated a placement area for ‘emotionally disturbed and vulnerable’ prisoners. A review of the operation of the Division carried out in 1987, at which time 60 prisoners were being held there, reported that 20 per cent of the inmates had at some time attempted suicide. 30 In the 18 months between mid-1987 and December 1988, 44 incidents of suicidal behaviour were recorded in the Occurrence Book for the observation and punishment cells. Twelve of these were actual suicide attempts, mostly the slashing of wrists or attempts at hanging.
Gambling and the use of illicit drugs provided inmates with other avenues for coping with imprisonment. Ex-inmate Terence Maller remembers that gambling was widespread, particularly at weekends when bets were made on the racing with Champion Ruby tobacco as the currency.
By the end of the day we were overrun with tobacco which was then taken out of the prison by an officer and sold at a tobacconist and the prison officer got part and we got part which we invested at the TAB. 31
According to Maller, as much as 40 packets of tobacco went from the prison each week under this scheme. He also remembers a transistor radio being smuggled into the prison in the 1960s, dismantled during the day and hidden before being reassembled in the evenings to listen to the trots. ‘So there were constant schemes you were dreaming up to get around the system, mainly to keep your mind active and to alleviate boredom’. 31
Throughout the seventies and eighties the use of drugs by inmates became widespread. According to one prisoner, by 1983 the use of heroin was widespread. 'You just could not avoid during the course of a day seeing someone shoot up somewhere,' Maller recalled. 33
A variety of means were used to smuggle drugs into Fremantle Prison. Hash, in the form of pellets, was passed from visitors to inmates when kissing goodbye, the pellets swallowed and later recovered from faeces. 34 Cannabis was sometimes thrown over the prison walls and retrieved by an inmate. 35 Morley’s friend, John, claimed that bent prison officers were the main suppliers of heroin, although no officer was ever apparently directly implicated in the practice.
There were, of course, other substances to which Fremantle Prison inmates had recourse; glue used in the woodwork shop, paint thinner used in the paint shop, even window cleaning solutions mixed with vinegar to produce alcohol. These were all utilised by prisoners as a means of getting a fix. 36 Moreover, there was little that the prison authorities could do to prevent determined and innovative prisoners finding ways of manufacturing alcohol, as the following extract from the prison records suggest:
29 March 1984 Brew and carton of glue found in No 3 yard
4 April 1984 Brew found in No 2 division
25 April 1984 Brew found in No 2 division
26 April 1984 Two brews and tattooing instruments found in No 2 division
7 May 1984 Brew found No 1 yard
4 May 1984 Equipment for brew found in No 2 yard
8 May 1984 Equipment for brew found in No 3 yard
9 May 1984 Equipment for brew found in No 2 yard
13 May 1984 Equipment for brew found in No 2 yard
14 May 1984 Equipment for brew found in No 2 yard 37
Home brews and drugs were not the only contraband articles concealed in various places by prisoners. A search carried out over a two week period in 1986 uncovered the following items; 25 litres of home brew, 40 hand made knives and steel spikes, 20 hand made keys and templates, a four-metre ladder which had been welded in the workshop and buried in the yard, hypodermic needles, heroin and cannabis, hand made fake business cards and civilian clothes. 38
The existence of contraband articles could come to the authorities’ attention as a result of random raids by officers, by a prisoner being obviously under the inﬂuence of drugs or alcohol, or through information passed on by other prisoners.
It was the rare prisoner, however, who would have been brave or foolish enough to grass on his fellow inmates. Evidence from inmates and officers alike bear witness to the high level of retributive violence among inmates. A major difference between the prison regime in the 70s and 80s and that of earlier years was the absence of officers from the yards. Following major disturbances in the yards in the late sixties, officers were withdrawn from yard duty and took up positions behind iron grille gates from where they could observe prisoners. 39 With direct contact between officers and inmates removed, the inmates gained more control over yard politics. According to Terence Maller, much of the discipline in the yards:
was discipline imposed by the prisoners on prisoners. You’ve a couple of hundred blokes and they’re left to their own devices, so a natural human thing is for a pecking order to evolve out of it. 40
Other individuals, by dint of ingenuity and cunning, were extremely successful at manipulating the system to their own ends. One dramatic sequence of events was described in the 1972 Jones Report into Fremantle Prison. The two main protagonists were William Cobalt and Owen Hooper. Both men were employed at radio, television and electrical repair and maintenance work throughout the prison.
During a previous term in Fremantle, Hooper had been involved along with other inmates in the tracking of weather observation balloons operated by the French Meteorological Department. He now applied for, and obtained, permission to resume this work. Together with Cobalt he constructed a receiving set which was capable of monitoring weather satellite signals and which would enable him to furnish the French government with reports. Remarkably, the two then persuaded the prison authorities that in order to successfully monitor the satellites they would need a cell well away from the radio cell, and so they were shifted to a cell in the New Division, from which, along with a third inmate, Stanley Stone, they began monitoring the weather satellites. The entire manoeuvre, the Jones Inquiry concluded, was an important part of their escape plan, New Division building being much closer to the prison walls.
The next problem was how to effect their escape. This took several days planning and work. Attached by screws to the ceiling of their new cell was a bank of fluorescent lights. By attaching a hinge to one end of the bank they were able to raise and lower the lights much like a trapdoor. With the lights lowered they cut a hole in the ceiling of the cell which gave them access to the roof of the building. When not working on their escape the lights could be raised to cover the hole.
On July 7th, 1972, at around 4 o’clock in the morning, the two inmates, along with Stone, climbed out on the roof armed with lengths of wire, some cable and a home-made field telephone, and made their way to the northern extremity of the building. From there they were a mere twelve feet from the prison wall. The cable was attached to the wire so as to make a running loop and a large hook was connected to the wire. One problem remained; there was no way of getting across the wire without attracting the attention of the duty officer in the tower. Undaunted, Hooper telephoned the officer using his field telephone, pretending to be the gate officer, reported suspicious activity in another part of the prison and instructed the tower officer to keep a watch on it. With the officer’s attention diverted, the trio made good their escape.
The entire saga is a clear example of how determined prisoners could manipulate the prison system to their own end. The excitement which could be stirred up among the inmates following an escape is well described by Morley:
‘Dimitri’s gone walkabout’, someone whispered in my ear, ‘just watch the fun and games when they find out’. ...The first announcement of Dimi’s escape was featured on the 6 o’clock news and a spontaneous roar of gleeful jubilation swept through the prison accompanied by the pounding clatter of the steel doors being struck with whatever objects came to hand. The lift in morale the following day was quite remarkable and was no doubt caused by the inmates’ universal acclaim that the system had been beaten. 41
Collective protest figured prominently in prisoner behaviour during the seventies and eighties, and in forms which mirrored the new forms of protest which were developing in the broader community. Sit outs by prisoners occurred frequently after 1968. Common grievances were poor food, poor medical facilities and the behaviour of a minority of officers. Sometimes sit outs would end up in rioting. In 1968, there was a riot at the prison, the first since 1929. The disturbance began on 4 June when, after lunch, the prisoners staged a sit down strike in protest against having been given, they claimed, contaminated meat. Eventually the prisoners capitulated and returned indoors, but not before three had been injured by shrapnel as bullets bounced off yard walls. 42
None of the prisoners’ demands were met but the incident did succeed in bringing to public attention conditions within the prison. An editorial in the West Australian the next day called for a full inquiry into the prison and, pre-empting the possible findings of such an inquiry, remarked, ‘it would find overcrowding and the inadequacies of living and rehabilitation conditions as major influences’. 43
One of the arguments of this paper has been that prisoners bring into prison a set of assumptions about their rights and that when these rights are denied them they will protest in a number of ways. Prisoners, although shut away physically from society, are nevertheless products of society and remain, even as prisoners, members of society. The forms of protest which prisoners adopt will reﬂect, to some extent at least, wider social values and beliefs. The development of mass protest by Fremantle inmates during the seventies merely paralleled developments in the broader community.
Presented at the Fremantle Studies Day
28 October 2001
1 Goffman, Erving, Asylum: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients, Pelican, Middlesex, 1970, p 26.
2 Report of the Commission to enquire into the Penal System of the Colony, 1898, (The Jameson Report), in Minutes, Votes and Proceedings of the Parliament of Western Australia, 1899, Vol. 1 Q 605, PP 48-49.
3 Truth, 3 September 1904, p. 4.
4 The West Australian, 30 December 1898, p 5.
5 AN 9678, ACC 123/2, folio no. 5, 1899, Battye Library (BL).
6 The West Australian, 30 December 1898, p 5.
7 AN 9678, Acc 123/2, folio no 574/07, BL.
3 Truth, 3 March 1907, p 8.
9 Daily News, 23 February 1907, p. 10
10 AN 123/2, Acc 968, folio no 1955/03, BL.
11 ibid, folio no 334/9.
12 Truth, 27 August 1904, p 4.
13 AN 123/2, Acc 968, folio no 216/100, BL.
14 ibid, folio no 334/09.
15 Jameson Report, Minutes of Evidence, Q 232, p 19.
16 AN 123/2, Acc 968, folio no 334/09, BL.
17 Jameson Report, p 13.
13 AN 123/2, Acc 968, folio no 594/07, BL.
19 Truth, 15 October 1905, p. 4
20 ANl232/2, Acc 968, folio no. 2280/04, BL.
21 ibid, folio no 252/98.
22 Jameson Report, Minutes of Evidence, Q 18, p 4.
23 AN 123/2, Acc 968, folio no 3283/05, BL. See also reports of Higgins’ escape in The West Australian, 1 December 1905, p 5, and the Daily News, 30 November 1905, p 8.
24 Jameson Report, Minutes of Evidence, Q 580, p 45.
25 Superintendents Register 20 April 1988-Z2 December 1988, WAS 747, Cons. no 4329, Item 8, 21 September 1988, BL.
26 Morley, Greybeard, Fremantle Arts Press, Fremantle, 1990, p 152.
27 ibid, p 145.
28 ibid, p 164.
29 ibid, p 174.
30 Brown, Ian A Preliminary Study of Prisoners in New Division, Fremantle; Being a report on the placement of prisoners in New Division, AN 55, Library Services Branch, Ministry of Justice.
31 Maller, Terence, OH 2230/29, p 36, BL.
32 ibid, pp 37-38.
33 ibid, p 51.
34 Ibid, p. 50
35 Security Management File 1978-1988, WAS 743, Cons. 4646, 30 December 1985.
36 Departmental Memoranda 1968-1984, WAS 763, Cons. 4354, 7 January 1985.
37 Security Management File, 5 March 1984.
38 The West Australian, 20 November 1986, p 3.
39 OH2230/6,, p. 12.
40 Maller, p 16.
41 Morley, Greybeard, pp 189-190.
42 West Australian, 5 June 1968, pp 1-2.
43 West Australian, 6 June 1968, p 6
Garry Gillard | New: 31 December, 2017 | Now: 1 January, 2018