transcriptcreator web viewaccording to your recollection, ... so that’s just a module, say, or...

AUSCRIPT AUSTRALASIA PTY LIMITEDACN 110 028 825

T: 1800 AUSCRIPT (1800 287 274)E: [email protected]: www.auscript.com.au

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

O/N H-762182

THE HONOURABLE M. WHITE AO, CommissionerMR M. GOODA, Commissioner

IN THE MATTER OF A ROYAL COMMISSION INTO THE CHILD PROTECTION AND YOUTH DETENTION SYSTEMS OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

DARWIN

9.34 AM, WEDNESDAY, 22 MARCH 2017

Continued from 21.3.17

DAY 19

MR P.J. CALLAGHAN SC appears with MR P. MORRISSEY SC, MR T. McAVOY SC MR B. DIGHTON, MS V. BOSNJAK, MR T. GOODWIN and MS S. McGEE as Counsel AssistingMS S. BROWNHILL appears with MR G. O’MAHONEY and MR C. JACOBI for the Northern Territory of AustraliaMR P. O’BRIEN appears with MS C. GOODHAND for Dylan VollerMS P. DWYER appears for North Australian Aboriginal Justice AgencyMS F. GRAHAM appears for the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid ServiceMR J.B. LAWRENCE SC appears for ADMR S. O’CONNELL appears for AD, AV and ANMS T. LEE appears for AA, AB and ACMS P. MORREAU appears for AS

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.3.17 P-1613©Commonwealth of Australia

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Mr Morrissey.

MR MORRISSEY: Yes. Good morning, Commissioners. My name’s Morrissey. Can I announce an appearance as the third Counsel Assisting. On this occasion I’m appearing with Ms McGee.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you, Mr Morrissey, and welcome to the Commission. I was going to say welcome to this happy band of brothers, but it isn’t always as happy as it could be. But it’s mostly pretty good. So thank you.

MR MORRISSEY: Yes. We will try to promote the general happiness and efficiency this morning. May I just mention to the Commission a couple of matters to start with. The witness AY will not be attending this morning. I have, this morning, advised the other parties affected. We will keep the Commission apprised of any developments with respect to AY that are relevant, but in the meantime Mr De Souza, Leonard De Souza is a witness and we were proposing to move directly to him.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you.

MR MORRISSEY: Just to indicate how that might be managed in a time sense, the Commission has received, obviously, a statement from him dated 21 February 2017. I would proceed through that statement, getting him to elicit – to expand on a large variety of matters contained therein. I expect to be something in the order of 100 minutes to two hours in that process. Thereafter, there are a number of persons who have sought leave, appropriately, to ask questions, and an hour or so should suffice. Thereafter, at about 12.20, the witness AS is listed and we expect that to proceed according to schedule and this afternoon the witness Mr Ferguson from the PSU will appear.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you for that indication, Mr Morrissey. Things don’t always go according to plan.

MR MORRISSEY: No.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: But we try.

MR MORRISSEY: Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you.

MR MORRISSEY: If it’s convenient to the Commissioners, I call Leonard De Souza.

<LEONARD JOSEPH MURRAY DE SOUZA, SWORN [9.36 am]

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.3.17 P-1614 L.J.M.D. SOUZA ©Commonwealth of Australia

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you, Mr De Souza. Would you kindly be seated.

MR MORRISSEY: Thank you.

Mr De Souza, would you just state your full name, please?---My full name is Leonard Joseph Murray De Souza.

Alright. And what’s your occupation?---Currently unemployed.

Alright. Are you a former Youth Justice Officer?---Yes. I’m a former Youth Justice Officer and training officer for the Northern Territory.

Yes. And were you appointed at relevant times as the training officer?---Yes. I was appointed the training officer for youth detention in the NT in 2011.

Very well. Now, for the purposes of this Royal Commission, did you prepare a statement that was dated 21 February 2017?---Yes, I did.

And have you had the opportunity to read and re-read that statement prior to attending the Commission today?---Yes, I did.

And do you say that the statement is true and correct to the best of your knowledge and belief?---Yes. True. To the best of my knowledge, it is true and correct.

Yes. Thank you. Very well. Now, do you have in front of you a copy of that statement?---Yes, I have.

Commissioners, may I seek – if there be no objection, that he have that in front of him and he can speak to that throughout the questioning.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes, certainly. Do you want to tender it now, Mr Morrissey?

MR MORRISSEY: Yes, I do. And may I offer that for tender.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Statement of Mr De Souza, exhibit 116.

EXHIBIT #116 STATEMENT OF MR DE SOUZA DATED 21/2/2017

MR MORRISSEY: Mr De Souza, the proposal is that I will work through the topics in the order they appear there, and perhaps if we could start by way of your background. Before you joined the Corrections Department in 2007, did you have a number of other businesses and employments?---Yes. Prior to joining Correctional Services, I worked for a small company, then purchased it quite early on in my


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

younger years, and then I ran the business for a number of years, approximately about seven years, and then I went into to working for a fence contractor so ..... my former business was in electronics, servicing in the Darwin metropolitan area.

Alright. The reason for pursuing that question at an early stage is that when you came to deliver some programs to the young people at Don Dale, when you started working there - - -?---Yeah.

- - - were you able to draw on your experience in the world as a worker, as a person who had been in the electronics industry, as a person with carpentry skills and so on?---Absolutely. I had a number of skills in the industry ..... when I first joined youth detention, I wanted to give something back to those people who I was going to look after, and I had a clear objective, in my view, to partake in all of the programs that was – was going to be there and then offer some things as well through my trade-related skills. It’s also my experience as a Christian and ..... some Christian values to those children.

One other matter about your previous business background: did you have any experience with rostering and with the juggling and construction of rosters?---Yes. I – as a shift supervisor and sort of middle manager at RAAF Darwin, I did a number of rosters for Serco, including Serco staff, and also Transit Security that was contracted to Serco during the Gulf War to manage probably about 40 people on the roster.

Yes. Alright. Now, could we just move to your initial period of time working in Corrections. When you first sought to become a Youth Justice Officer, what was the training that you received?---I initially received only a three day training program which was very brief. It was a bit – very concise. A lot of information jam-packed in three days including a PART program.

Could you just – by PART program, could you say what PART stands for?---Initially it stood for Professional Assault Response Training, and then was turned – was differently coined into Predict, Assess for Challenging/Aggressive Behaviour, so the acronym changed later on to that.

The acronym remained?---Sorry, the .....

But the meaning of the phrase altered?--- ..... Now, in terms of that training that you received, could you just say something about that, you said it was the PART training. In a few minutes I’m going to get you to explain a bit more about the PART?---Yep.

Apart from the PART training what did your training consist of?---Just an overview of the legislation, and then just some handcuffing and then just the dos and don’ts at Don Dale.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Alright. Now, were you also given some on-the-job shadowing training?---It was very brief. It was probably a day’s shadowing. I was expected to pick up a lot of the information by watching people and just getting the hang of it – and, you know, being assertive in an industry like that, asking questions, taking notes, and then spending some time in my own time, read whatever manuals, operating procedures they had at the time.

Yes. Alright. Now, in terms of those Standard Operating Procedures, you’ve indicated that you read certain documents in your own time?---Yep.

When you joined in 2007, were there Standard Operating Procedures that were readily available to you?---There was an operational manual which was dated or completed, supposedly, and signed off by the then-Commissioner, and it was 2006. It was out of date by the time I joined.

Alright. Now, can you just point out to the Commissioners what were the shortcomings that you perceived at this time with the Standard Operating Procedures that existed?---The documentation as a procedure manual didn’t really reflect the current operations of the day-to-day business at Don Dale for youth detention.

Can you give some examples of that? Of, if you like, shortfalls in the Standard Operating Procedures as compared to the real world at Don Dale?---Just on simple things like routines, because routines would constantly change. There was no way of providing routines from relevant shifts to what was probably stated in that manual in 2007. And different shifts would do their own thing ad hoc on – and what they felt was necessary at the time. So going on from that would be – detainees would actually see different – different things happening.

Yes. When we come to the 2009/2010 period I’m going to ask you to expand upon that?---Yes.

Now just – can I take you then to, if you like, ongoing or refresher training. In that period between 2007 when you joined and 2009, did you undertake any refresher training or was any offered to you?---From my memory, I don’t think there was any.

Very well. Was there at that time a youth justice trainer employed by Youth Justice?---Yeah. For the short period that I know of, was John Narris from 2007 to about 2009.

Alright. Was there an individual named Mr Len Dean?---Yeah. Thereafter what happened Mr Narris resigned, or I believe was terminated, for – for whatever reasons, and then Len Dean was an experienced officer, a Chief Correctional Officer from the prison and his main function was to look after the prison – or the correctional officers, adult correctional officers at the time, and he was an interim, or given the role to act in and look after youth detention as well as a training officer which he had, really, no experience in.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Alright. So you understood that Mr Dean had a background in training relevant to adult corrections officers?---Yep. That’s all he had.

Alright. Thank you. And was it that position which you ultimately applied for and in 2011 was granted?---Yeah, I applied for the position late in 2010 and I was awarded that position ..... it drew some controversy in 2011.

Alright. Now, thank you for that. Could I take you now to that period of 2007 through 2009. You’ve described in your statement – I think your phrase was a rather “happy-go-lucky” institution where activities after school were plentiful and the kids were engaged. Can you just explain, in your own words, to the Commissioners what Don Dale was like at that time and in particular what sort of programs were provided for the kids and how were they delivered?---When I initially started I was full of energy. I’m not saying I’m not full of energy still, but in the sense that I actually put a lot of proposals through the then-acting deputy general manager Tony O’Leary, and to get some programs going, I came up with a lot of ideas. My initial idea was to get some pushbikes from Northern Territory Police. Obviously, there was a lot of stuff being stolen from people’s homes, and I was hoping that by getting these pushbikes that were basically abandoned, weren’t going to be collected by anyone, we would basically refurbish them, some that could be used in the detention centre and then some that could be given back in the community. Also I did propose, and I did get some funding, for a music program which we did. We also had a theatre program. My background in electronics, I used to build simple kits with the kids, like little radios, teach them how to do some carpentry skills as well, because of my professional side with regard to my electronics background, I was able to build speakers or teach them how to build some stuff, and obviously in turns they would learn also some carpentry skills and obviously young kids, they love music, and so if you can build something that they can use, and it’s functional in the detention centre so it was something good that I did.

Alright. Now, you’ve listed at paragraph 14 a number of those, and I wonder if you could just expand a little bit more on how the music program worked in reality. What – how did the kids engage? What sort of time were you and other workers able to put into it, and - - -?---So the concept of using music as a therapeutic tool, for me anyway, was to see that Aboriginal kids loved music and so to get them to listen to some music, play the – their music on it and then have a dance-off. There were boys and girls, so we’d have music competitions where they can be dancing and other officers, obviously, would get involved and be part of the program as well. So we’d have little treats that was funded through the detention centre, through the tuckshop facility that we had, and so it was really good and it was really rewarding for them, for them – especially the maximum security detainees to see that and actually say, “Look, I want to go down to the medium section and actually be part of that program.”

Yes. And just noticing here in paragraphs 14 and 15 you describe how these programs were delivered. At paragraph 15, you noted that a normal afternoon would involve afternoon tea then activities for an hour and a half?---Yep.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Followed by the showers, dinner and chores. Now, you indicated that staff – about 25 per cent of the staff assisted on a voluntary basis there. Can you explain how that worked and how staff came to be involved?---Okay. I think initially it was to get some programs going and then basically look, ask people who might be involved, 25 per cent would be involved through the programs I was delivering. It wouldn’t be music programs every day, so depending on the shifts I had it was rostered that I would be down in the medium section and run specific program on different days and the music and the theatre program would be generally towards the weekend, it was a little bit longer, where they didn’t have school and they could enjoy their time a bit more.

Yes?---We got a good gardening program done through Mr Clee, Barrie Clee which was really good, and there were some other activities done through art and some drawings and stuff. So all the kids would have something that they can all do, so if they didn’t want to be obviously doing carpentry or metalwork with me, or didn’t want to do electronics. The electronics bit was really fun for them because all the kids – they could use and play with in their own time when it was sort of down time for them. And then also the art program that they would do, which they all loved doing because they all liked to draw and very artistic they were, so we encouraged that.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Mr De Souza, did you have any outside people coming in to assist with these programs, particularly with the art, or was it all - - -?---Later on, we did. We actually didn’t have anyone at the time, it was just done by the staff, because also a couple of indigenous staff there that was happy to encourage the young ones to do those sort of programs, yeah.

Thanks.

MR MORRISSEY: In your statement, perhaps picking up from the Commissioner’s question, in your statement you’ve described Don Dale as a happy-go-lucky place for both staff and detainees. I think you’ve explained how it benefits detainees?---Yeah.

And you’ve said it gave the ones who were in a higher classification something to motivate them, because there was really something to join?---Yeah.

But could I ask about the effect on the staff. What effect did you feel it had on the staff that they were engaged in these programs?---I think it was quite good for the staff, because it wasn’t a mundane thing that they would come to work and just watch the kids, you know, do the basic routines. They all participated. They felt that they’ve achieved something, and a lot of the staff were – most of the staff were ..... good willed anyway, they would love to see the kids achieve something and not be bored with their life. And there was a point where we could engage the kids in conversation, and talk about – you know, how they could probably do things better on the outside and stuff like that. So it was a vehicle that we could use to probably better them – in – in the – sort of a behaviour tool as well.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Yes. So it’s safe to say that you saw it as not merely a management tool but as an engagement tool - - -?---Absolutely.

- - - relevant to their rehabilitation?---Yeah.

Alright. Thank you. Overall, in that period 2007/2009 did you see the kids as more or less settled in that period of time than they were in the later periods after 2010?---I’ve been with Don Dale for a long time and, compared to recent times, they were absolutely settled. Things were a lot better. I mean, we used to do a – once a month, a cultural event, food as well, so they would all participate in that as well, and the kids were very well settled in. We had a lot better management at the time as well, that would be forthcoming and assist staff, and also be aware of the needs of young people.

Could I ask you to just spell out some positives about the management that you’ve explained. You said better management. What was good about the management that captures your attention?---Initially, I would – I referred to this one person, Mr Tony O’Leary, from his background. I think he had a lot of experience working with Indigenous Aboriginal people in the Territory. Being a psych nurse also, he wanted to see the detention centre progress, you know, not become stagnant, and someone like myself who was new to the industry he would encourage, especially the ideas that I had, and my ability to – to assimilate and get these programs through, and then also motivate staff as well, to be part of it as well.

Could you explain how he assisted to motivate staff?---Well, we’d – we’d go through some meetings and talk about it. He’d also go out and ask staff who want to be part of the program, who want to run their own program, or want to assist in the program. And so everyone was able to put up their hand and be part of it, so was – no one was going to be left out, you know, to just sit there and do paperwork, or do the mundane, routine working in the detention centre.

There’s an issue that arises with other witnesses concerning the casualisation of the work force?---Yep.

According to your recollection, in that period 2007/2009, were there as many casuals working then as subsequently?---Look, from my memory I was probably one of probably three or four casuals in the pool and compared to about 20 or 30 permanent staff at the time. So that was the ratio, and then later on it changed subsequently from there, because of the lack of experienced staff and then some of, just through natural attrition, people leaving the workforce – you know, they wanted to change.

Alright. Given the positive things that you’ve said about that particular era - - -?---Yeah.

- - - do you see it as – or to what extent do you see it as relevant that there was the continuity of permanent staff as opposed to a high percentage of casuals?---From my training perspective it’s not really good to have a casual come through, train them,


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

put a lot of money into it, coaching and training, and then see them leave because you’re not able to – for money reasons, not be able to give them enough shifts, enough things to do. Certainly, my personal opinion, it was really stupid in regard to a lot of good casuals that we have that we would probably use them and then build on them for the future and keep them and retain them, but they weren’t able to provide them with shifts at the time and just through money reasons they would just cut costs and it was just a cost cutting measure thereafter.

Yes. Alright. Just before we get to the next phase of Don Dale, could I just ask you to explain how the back cells were used and in that earlier period, the 2007 to 2009, in what circumstances they were used, and then I’ll ask you some questions about documentation?---Okay. My recollection of the back cells was they were very rarely used, to be honest. The one particular person that comes to mind was [REDACTED INFORMATION]. Now, I believe that he had some mental health issues, and he was the only person that was kept frequently in the back cell. A lot of the detainees were a lot – settled, well managed by the staff at the time.

In what circumstances were – in that era was the – was a cell placement used and what would happen when it was used?---It would be extreme cases of violence, you know. And that would probably even be, in a sense, physical violence where the person has gone and assaulted someone, not just threatened someone, but assaulted someone.

And, in those circumstances, what would be done and how would the back cells be used?---Well, as per the Act at the time – so the cells would be probably eight hour or 12 hour placement and then from there on that particular person would be managed through the security management lounge.

Yes. And could you just explain how that worked. You’ve said the security management lounge. How would it – given a young person, be transitioned through that process?---So – so that person would be put, say if he was – he’s just assaulted someone physically, he’d be taken to the back cell, given some time to recuperate, to settle down, and then someone would go and see him, probably not the people who have just restrained him, and that was the – be the policy or the technique used, anyway, to calm a person down. Get him to deescalate all his anger and just talk about some of his issues that he’s probably had, why has he actually assaulted, was there any triggers ..... you know, so we could stop those triggers ..... and after his cell placement was done, so he’d always be able come out for his general hygiene and then have a meal, whatever – sorry, he’d have his meal in the cell and then he was managed in the security lounge. So he’d be given a talk to by the case management, the senior at the time and say, “Look, you know, you’ve done this or you’ve done that. Spend some time in the security lounge and we’ll slowly integrate you back into the general population.”

How were the expectations of Don Dale conveyed to a person going through the security lounge process?---Basically, just what I said in regards to sitting the person down and then, you know, spending some time, there would be a couple of youth


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

workers assigned to that person in the security lounge, and then we would get a feeling in regards to what his attitude or his perceptions are going to be like and you know, has he got rid of his hate? Has he still got some issues? And explain to him basically the consequences of – of him reverting back to some sort of violent stage where he would basically go and spend some time again and generally very few and far between would take on that option of going back in the back cells. They’d be happy to go into that security lounge placement, and it would be very short, really, probably another day or two. The person would calm right down and then he’d be more interested in going back in the general population again.

In that era what do you recall about the documentation that was required of Don Dale staff when placing a child, a young person, into the back cells and managing them out of them?---There would have to be a management plan for that particular person, how we were going to manage that person, so including meal times, when he’s actually coming out, officers assigned to him. Obviously, if he was restrained, there would be documentation for how he was restrained, use of force ..... mechanical restraints used.

Yes. And could I just ask you, as best you can recall, in what documents were those records kept, first of all in relation to the cell placement, secondly in relation to the transition out, and thirdly in respect of use of force and use of restraints?---So we had, I believe, three books. So there should be one for cell placements, then there’s a use of force register, and then obviously there was another A4 document for security lounge placement. And so there will be times the officers involved, and also the senior involved, and what other management regimes we had.

Alright. And what was the importance of including the times upon those documents?---Well, it was to give a very clear time period of the incident, what took place, and so it was all about clarity in regards to – we obviously had professional audits as well, in case there was a police matter, so it was part of the administration process that we had at the time.

And in terms of the young person’s own appreciation of the process?---Yeah.

How important was it to give them a clear indication of the expectations and of the time periods in which they were to comply?---A young person, you know, is vulnerable so – and also very excited in the sense that they want to know when they’re actually getting out. So you have to ensure that person – that this period, if you go eight hours, it’s clearly 8 hours, it’s not for an extended period, and keeping with those expectations with a young person, so you never tell he or she anything that you’re not going to do. And if you do that, then the expectations from the child would be – you know, detrimental to them – to their behaviour later on, because they would never listen to you after that.

Were you satisfied that, in that early period that we’re referring to, the 2007/2009 period that the use of the back cells was appropriate?---Yes, it was, and it was in extreme cases so - - -


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Were you also satisfied, or tell us whether you were or not, were you satisfied that the – that the young people were adequately told of the time periods they were to be there and of the expectations that they faced?---Yes, I believe so. They were all informed as much as possible or that we would convey. People who had issues in regards to language issues then, we would find someone that’s from their own community to talk to them ..... locked up at the time.

Very well?--- ......

Could I turn now to the next, if you like the next period, the period after Mr O’Leary departed and other managers took over. And you’ve dealt with this at paragraphs 19 through to 22 of your statement.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I wonder, Mr Morrissey, if we could just step back a little before we go to that.

I would just like to take up your last observation, Mr De Souza, about the use of language, and you would find somebody who could speak to the young person?---There was.

Can you remember an example to give us now?---Okay. So I’ve done numerous admissions through the process, so in finding out exactly where they come from, what are the issues they have, you know, for a lot of the – a lot of the guys in say, Central Australia, they don’t have English, obviously, as a first language, probably a third or fourth language. And so we would find someone that would help them to be more at ease in speaking up, so we’d try to find them a good speaker in their language, like maybe ..... or something like that and use them as an interpreter, and just to get them to – a young person coming into a new establishment, you know, it’s quite daunting on them, where they are, what they’ve been doing, and especially doing an admission where they’re being searched and being stripped and all that, and it’s just probably overwhelming for them as well. And so as much as we used – we could, we used someone that we could find in the centre, and the admission process was extremely important for us to get as much information as possible. The same when we used the back cells. This particular person has had a big fight in the centre, then we try and get someone, probably looking for – maybe in the medium section, is progressed, and use that to help that deescalation as well.

Alright. Thanks, Mr De Souza---Thank you.

MR MORRISSEY: So Mr De Souza, I just wanted to move on to the next era. Now, Mr O’Leary, you’ve described as having some strengths as a manager, one of which was that he had a presence on the floor?---Yes.

And you’ve also described some of his other strengths in terms of encouraging staff to engage. When he was replaced you’ve described that he was replaced by Mr Yaxley and that Mr Yaxley and also John Fattore as general manager had a different approach. Now, could you just explain what it was that changed from the kids’


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

perspective? It’s not a question at this point of commenting on those two individuals. Simply from the point of view of what was available to the detainees, what changed?---Okay. For a while when Mr Yaxley was the OIC for a very short period, of probably three months that I can remember, there was a continuation on fixing some of my speakers that I built. I was quite annoyed with it at the time. But the rosters changed for all of us, and there was not really an emphasis on programs anymore. I’m not sure whether other staff complained, but I particularly spent maybe too much time down in the medium, section but there was no one else volunteering to do any programs, really. And slowly it just dwindled out, really. There was no – it was more administrative, of what he had to do – sorry, from the kids’ perspective, they really needed something to do, and they didn’t get much of it after that really.

Alright. Now, bearing in mind that you’ve described that there was quite a good range of programs - - -?---Yes.

- - - involving a lot of staff, is it your account here that part of the problem was that there was a change in the style of rostering which took staff out of their ability to deliver those programs?---That was one of it, but I felt there was a big push for Education to take on these programs and, no disrespect to the education officers, and through even the principal ..... a number of years, but I didn’t understand why there was a big push for them to take on some of these programs. You know, the cultural food side that we did, the metal fabrication or the woodworking, some of those skills as well that was pushed onto the teachers. The – and this is my personal opinion, the Indigenous or the young boys and girls had very little literacy skills, numeracy skills and I think education, in my opinion, was – the sole focus to get them to a stage to be able to read and write and count, and leave some of those other activities to the officers, because we spent eight hours and plus more with these young people who would be better served – these – by having the officers actually engaged those people in a more positive way than education.

Alright. Just remaining with that topic for a moment, before we come to the other management issues, once the programs fell away as you’ve described, what did the young people do in the time after school and on weekends?---Well, they become a lot more agitated. The young population at the time needed something for them to do. I mean, being – being put in a centre, regardless how big or small it is, and having very little to do and just given a few things like – you know, colouring pencils or some drawings to do wasn’t really enough, and then – you know, doing mundane things like routines or chores, eventually it will wear thin for a young person. They won’t be able to – or won’t have the strength to just keep going and saying, “This is my – end of my sentence, I’m going to do something better.” They needed to be managed positively and they needed to be engaged positively and that wasn’t being done.

Just on that topic of doing the chores, you’ve described in the early period that after school the activities would occur and following the activities for an hour and a half the chores would fall to be done by the children?---That’s right.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And how did you find the children’s motivation to do those chores, first of all during the time when they did have programs and secondly when they didn’t?---Well, it was totally opposite. Obviously – I mean, they do the activities, whether it was a sporting activity – and, mind you, the sporting activities carried on few and far between after I stopped doing the programs, but because we had someone to arrange, the young person didn’t ..... to get bored, they’d go round and choose whatever programs, finish some of the programs that we were doing and say, “Look, I don’t want to do this today, can I do something else?” And they would be allowed to do it. And then, obviously, they would be motivated to do some of the things we were asking them to do, simple things like, “Move your linen, clean your room.” You know, go and take showers, and – you know, those things. So – and in contrast to that when they were just asked to do chores, “No, I don’t want to do it.” So - - -

Yes. Alright. Could I just turn then to the issue of what you noticed about management. You’ve indicated here that the general managers, Mr Fattore and Mr Yaxley were not such presences on the floor as Mr O’Leary was. In fact, Mr Fattore would never come down to the centre. What was your perception of the effect of that style of management on the staff?---It put a lot of strain on staff. It put a lot of strain on the senior youth workers at the time. Mr Yaxley would go and spend a little bit of time, because he has been a senior, so he would have a bit more of a rapport with the staff and some of the detainees. But I don’t know what the issue was with Mr Fattore. I’m sure he was a very, very busy man, but I think, working with people, you spend a bit more time with them as well.

Alright. And just finally you mentioned that there was a push to have Education deliver some of the programs that the staff had been doing?---Yes.

Who did that push come from?---I honestly believe it was from Mr Yaxley at the time. I have no idea why, because maybe Education didn’t have enough to do, but I think they had plenty to do in that time period, there was only eight hours a day. While they had – they had, as a general school, would have maths, English, science and sport, and then some of the activities that we were doing, were sort of taken off us, and I was quite annoyed with it. The gardening programs worked beautifully because all the kids liked to do just simple things like work in the garden, grow their veggies and stuff like that, and so that wasn’t being carried on after ..... removed from the centre as well, which – she went later on down to Alice Springs.

Yes. Alright. Can I turn then – and, sorry, one final question about that. What did you see – what was the effect on staff morale? You’ve mentioned that the senior youth workers had a take up a lot of slack of decision-making. What do you say about the effect on staff morale generally of that staff management?---People started to murmur and, you know, a lot of pressure put on the senior staff, so there was a lot of complaints amongst staff. Senior staff would feel that they had a lot of – had a lot more things to do in managing the young people, and they felt they weren’t supported, and so morale for staff, you know, started to become – it was a downward spiral really.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Alright. Now, you’ve indicated that overall you felt that there was a shift in emphasis towards a security model. Do you say that was present at this period of time when Mr Yaxley and Mr Fattore took over, or is that something that developed later?---It slowly was going to a stage where it was becoming more punitive and more a security role, but I honestly believe they – they had a lot of time to fix the issues then and there, and didn’t take on that opportunity.

Very well. Alright. Well, I’d like to move now to your moving to the training role?---Yes.

Now, you’ve explained that. I won’t take you to every step that you undertook in your training, because it’s in your statement there?---Yes.

But could you indicate this: when you first took an interest in training, did you, in your private capacity, undertake some studies?---Yes, I was – what happened was, after Mr O’Leary left and in my personal opinion, in my mind anyway, that things were getting a little – we were starting to get a growing population, a lot more young people coming through the centre for whatever reasons whether it was political – people were locking them up for whatever reasons. You know, I think at the time there was the campaign to make sure they were being tough on crime, so there was another issue there. And the issue I had was that staff on different shifts, because I worked with a lot of different staff, and we did different things and obviously our manual was out, long out, and nothing was done. It was a responsibility of the general management or managers at the time to ensure that the manual was updated and kept going, which wasn’t done, and then I wasn’t doing any more programs with these young people do there was an issue in itself to how to get staff to a point where they can all be working together as a team, and I seen there was internal bickering on – and you know, and young people liked also to play against staff, you know, if you’ve done something with one person today they cast up and say, “Well, I could have this today, why can’t you give it to me on ..... “

Yes?---You know? And so, having said that, and I also wanted to move forward. I was getting a little bit sick and tired, the way the system was being run there. All that documentation, there was no quality control with the documentation, so for example there will be emails being sent out by seniors, “We’re going to do this today.” And you know, fair enough, it’s a direction and a request for staff to comply with, but it should have been done properly and formally through their procedure manual.

Yes?---There was no SOBs at the time being written as well, and from my background administrative-wise it was really, really poor. There was no training being done as well in the centre, and so I said, “Well, I want to move forward, so I’ll put myself through training.” Because people would do ad hoc training, but there weren’t formal trainers in that system. So – and by that time John Marris had moved out the centre, Len Dean had just took on that role, and so in 2010 I enrolled in CDU, Charles Darwin Uni ..... my training assessment.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Very well. Alright. Now, once you had that VET, that qualification to allow you to be a VET lecturer, and in particular that you had the certificate IV, were you then asked by Mr Yaxley to go to Sydney and train as an instructor in a particular component of the training?---Yes. They were obviously requiring people to – it’s a five year contract with higher training, so after five years you’re required to do a refresher, and so I was more than happy to provide training and also I was asked by Mr Yaxley to become a PART trainer, which I undertook.

Very well. Now, did you have in mind, when you did that, that you wish to take on a more formal training role in Youth Justice?---Absolutely. From just – look, from any administrative point of view and any business, you’ve got to have a system that works in place, and you can’t have any system that doesn’t work when people are doing their own thing in a place. At the end of the day the outcomes, as what we’ve just seen: we’re going through a Royal Commission, where kids see different things on a daily basis and they don’t know what’s going on in the place.

Very well. So just to capture the drivers of why you did that, you noticed a decline in programs and the dissatisfaction that caused?---Yes.

You noticed there were no adequate Standard Operating Procedures in order to achieve consistency across shifts?---There was no formal training period.

Yes. Well, that was the third one I was going to put to you: there was no formal training being offered?---Training, yeah.

And what you describe as refreshers? You described ad hoc courses?---Look, there was no – really, refreshers after I came into the system after 2011 where – after their formal training, where they went through a Youth Justice Program for whatever time that was allowed and then asking young ones – or, sorry, asking the youth officers to come back and keep the basic qualifications like first aid and – you know, at-risk training, which is very important in the centre.

Very well. Now, I’m just going to ask you in a moment to expand upon the training that you administered, but I just wanted to ask you first some cultural questions or context questions. In 2010, you’ve indicated that you thought there was an increase in the population, perhaps in response to political pressures and tough on crime?---Yeah.

So-called tough on crime manoeuvres that increased the population of the centre. Another contextual matter that I want to ask you about is the casualisation of the workforce. Under the regime of Mr Yaxley and Mr Fattore, did you see any change in the nature of the workforce? In other words did you see an increase in the use of casual employees?---Definitely. The change in the workforce was – we started to get a lot more younger people. I mean, I was a young person at the time as well, in retrospect, to what – we had, a lot more senior staff, a lot more experienced staff, and then there was the – the need to have people on the floor, and so we were employing people from all backgrounds, not necessarily bad, but I think a selection of people


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

probably could have come from a background where they were more focused on delivering programs for the young people, which – I don’t believe that was the case at the time, yeah.

Yes. Now, Mr Yaxley and Mr Fattore both had the opportunity to testify in this Commission, and we’ve heard from them that they had real difficulties in constructing adequate rosters partly because of the people who were available. Did they appear to you, just as far as what you’ve observed, to be under pressure to compile rosters?---I believe so. I think a lack of administrative and probably management experience in this particular field, not necessarily that they couldn’t manage, but rostering was a particular skill that probably they both didn’t have, and probably should have been given some training probably from the prison how to roster. The other issue we’ve had, and prior to Fattore coming, Mr Fattore coming on board, we went through a roster committee with ..... at the time. I produced quite a number of rosters that would alleviate some of these programs, and then – and, as well, times where staff would not really be in the security sense, but actually come in on those days and actually deliver programs, and that wasn’t taken up. And also down time for the staff, you know, as much has been said – a lot of staff are under a lot of strain in regards to what was happening at the time. There was a compounding effect of things not being delivered, so obviously the kids would be out of control, and then it was just a spiralling effect then. Those rosters weren’t taken up, that I put together and gave a little – how it would work basically, a rundown, and I think there was a big issue with some of the software because they believed they had some software that they had to fit into that roster. And I – I don’t know why they did need to, because it was prior – I think there was – when Tony O’Leary was there, there was a mechanical ..... where the roster I think was mechanically being done in the sense – when I say “mechanically done”, it wasn’t being fed through a computer and they had one staff that they produced from department of – if I’m – correct me if I’m wrong, but I think from Department of Health and that had some quite rigid parameters that they weren’t able to do these rosters that I proposed. And so that also had a big negative effect on the centre.

Could I just – just to expand on that slightly for a moment, sorry, the rosters that you were proposing, were they designed to facilitate the delivery of the programs that you were keen on in the 2007/2009 era?---It had to be a win-win for everyone, not just for – just detainees, but also the staff who were going to be there, because you want someone to come in there refreshed, and so there was enough downtime for the staff to go and recuperate and if we really, really needed then those rosters could be used in such a way that you could get some of the staff to come back, but they would have a lot more downtime. So the main criteria for those rosters to work was 152 hours, obviously, working with the government, and which I was able to ensure that that was managed in those rosters. So it wasn’t so much that there was anything expected outside in regards of, you know, blowing the budget or anything like that, you know, but delivering a roster that would actually ..... the detention centre grow, and bring some stability to the place and that’s what my focus was anyway.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Yes. And just to pick up on the last answer that you gave, you felt that Messrs Yaxley and Fattore had been saddled with a software package that made it difficult for them to roster in a flexible way and adopt some of your ideas?---That’s right. And so, because of that, there was a big issue on being able to ..... that was more productive and positive for the detention centre. It was quite rigid, coming from head office. I think head office had a view that functionality – had to do certain things, that they had to at the prison, and I don’t know what the issues were, and I said, “If the staff do 10 hours here or an eight hour program there, then obviously at the end of the month they will still do 152 hours and we shouldn’t go any further than that.” Provided – we weren’t provided with overtime, and ..... overtime period but, functionality-wise, it would provide them ample time to have downtime and also provide programs for those young people.

Did anyone from head office come and speak to you or any of the workers on the floor as to the appropriate model of rostering?---Look, they sent a team down after there was a big fuss in regards to the big issue and obviously pays, we were short paid and Troy Walsh, Mr Walsh at the time, through – as being the union delegate, he was able to help us get some money. But there was a big kneejerk reaction, “We’re not going to be able to pay them this.” So there was managing the roster and making sure they never, ever paid us an extra cent. But the downside is that it was so constricted that staff would have very little time – turnaround time, which I think was really damaging to staff, and also damaging towards those young people, which in turn we had to look after, and certainly there was very little time for programs being actually formulated and .....

Thank you. I appreciate this is going into some fine detail about an operational matter of rostering, but I’m grateful that you’ve been able to give that level of detail. Could I turn now to the way in which the training you did was sought to be used by your management. Once you had completed the training in PART, as a PART instructor, what were you asked to do by management, in particular Mr Fattore?---Mr Fattore – we had some discussions in the – so the senior youth worker’s office in the old Don Dale and then had a partition in ..... back room, but it wasn’t really a back room and he asked me – basically he wanted me to sign off or ensure that they were ready to go on the floor, and I said, “Look, it’s not appropriate for me to sign off these young people.” One thing to do the PART training, but to say that they’re actually competent and to be on the floor is ludicrous. You know, I had very little training and then the reflection on the time that I’d been there, it would be unconscionable for myself to actually say, “It’s appropriate for this person to go with keys and then function.” If there was an emergency, say, for example, a code blue, even though we didn’t have code blues, it was a medical emergency, someone was suiciding or slashing their wrists, I mean, it really wouldn’t sit well with me, and I’ve been through quite a few at-risk issues with young people where they’re actually suiciding, and it’s not a good thing to have someone comes fresh off on the floor go into a situation where, you know, that person is put under so much strain, you know, and not just looking after the young person, and going away and saying, “What the hell did I go through? I didn’t get any training for this.”


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Yes. Just in that early period – I will come to that, that matter needs to be revisited, but in that early period you were trained as a PART instructor. I take it, from your answer, you were happy to deliver that training but you weren’t happy to sign off the young people trained as being, I quote, competent to be working on the floor?---Yeah, deemed fit to be working as a full-fledged Youth Justice Officer, definitely not.

What was the management response when you made that clear to them?---There was a lot of, well, in terms of you know, “Can you do it, why won’t you do it, we’re training you to do it?” You know, “I want you to do it, it’s a departmental responsibility to take on any risk associated with whatever happens.” And so after that discussion there was a further discussion, I think a week or two later, and then, “Are you going to do it, I need you to do it,” you know, and I said, “No, it’s – it’s not appropriate for me to do it.”

Now, just – although you provided a great deal of detail about that, I wish to jump forward now, subject to any questions that the Commissioners may have, jump forward to you assuming the role as training officer. Just briefly tell the Commissioners how that came about and when it was that you were appointed?---Okay. So I applied in late 2010 for the training role. Honestly, there was no one that really wanted to fulfil that role, neither would they ever want to. At the time, I don’t know if they had the inclination of going in, spending the time in their own time, going to uni, obviously a lot of them had families as well, so I believe there was ..... people there to deliver training, but no one really wanted to do it and, you know, to be a good trainer you can’t just have a certificate in training, but you also have to have the – not just the knowledge but you really want to have to do it in your heart, otherwise you just won’t deliver. And so what happened was in 2010, after I applied and this issue with the then general manager, I – late in – I think it was through the Christmas period, I was – I received a formal document from HR saying that I was not successful for the job and – and I actually – and I thought, you know, whatever I said – I meant ..... to Mr Fattore in good faith, not being arrogant in any way and saying I was going to help, because I was always a person – I was forthright ..... to put my best forward, and I had good reason for saying no but, having said that, because I thought I was honest and I asked Mr Fattore to be one of my referees, and I asked him, “How did you go with my referee report?” And he said to me, “Well, Len, you have your own way of doing things.” And I thought, “My God, what has this guy said?” You know, he didn’t really elaborate any further but and then I put one and two together when I obviously got the document, obviously I wasn’t going to be the ..... and so I obviously wasn’t going to get the job, even though I – I felt in my own ability I’d done more than anyone has ever done in the last 20 years they’ve been there in that centre. I mean, a lot of good officers, but also a lot of deadwood in that place as well, so – and I was not given or afforded that opportunity at the time, but I was told then by – who became later on my training manager or general manager, Theresa Westmacott, “Hello, Len, blah, blah,” and the conversation went like this, he goes, “Look, the person that we were going to give the job to – apparently was a she, refused to take on that position, but we’d like to give you this role on a contract basis.” And I said, “Well ..... the next person in that


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

– would – run-up would be automatically be given to me, why should I get a job in a contract role?” And I honestly believe it was all – they just wanted me to be a yes man and to see whether I’m actually going to say no to certain things, and obviously if you don’t follow direction there’s obviously a discipline process. So - - -

Did you take it on that three month contract?---Yeah, later on I did. I ummed and ahhed about it, I said, “Look, I’ll think about it.” I had a chat with my partner, my then-partner, my wife, and then also with my work colleagues, my close friends, and said, “Look, I’m really passionate about training, I want to see this go through. There’s no one in the centre who’s ever done anything really in regards to training.”

Alright?---So, “I’ll just go and take on that role because it will hopefully, eventually, move my career forward as well.” So - - -

After the three month period did you take on the role on a permanent basis?---No, I wasn’t. I was strung along for about nine months and then paid as an AO3 on an AO5, so it was like a top-up wage in an acting role. I made a complaint to Mr Yaxley and I said, “Look, I don’t want to go and do this job because one it’s not paying me enough money, and you guys are just stringing me along so I’m going to come back to the centre.” And he goes, “No, no, Len, it’s an AO6 role. No, I believe they’re going to advertise an AO6 role.” And I said, “Look, are you sure?” And he said, “Okay yes, it will be an AO6 role.” I went to the interview and then – when I said I was just about to quit and move, and by then they had me do the ..... procedures and the manuals a few things, so they got the best out of me. Going back to the centre, “No, no, no, we’ll do this interview for you.” And I said okay, so, anyway, long story short I did win the role as - - -

Ultimately you did?---Yeah, I did.

Alright. Now, that’s the context of when you were appointed. When you were appointed, it seems from your statement, I’ll just – I’ll be thematic here just to control the information, it seems as if you took on, really, two major branches of what you’re doing. First of all, to deliver training in an appropriate manner, and secondly to develop the manuals in an appropriate manner, and I wish to take you to those manuals first, and then to deal with the training if that’s okay. So there were two manuals that you dealt with, the SOP, Standard Operating Procedures, and there was the emergency procedure manual. Can you just explain what happened with the SOP manual? How did you start, when did you finish and how long did it take before that actually became operational?---Okay. What happened was, obviously as a trainer, and no one – I think – in an educational role would ever deliver training or use a textbook that is four or five years out dated and be honestly – with a smile on their face, and say, “This is the textbook you’re going to refer to as a manual.”

Yes?---It was embarrassing for me, in my background, and then I said to the managers at the time, I said, “Are we going to update this manual, can you please update the manual.” “We won’t really have the time, it takes a long time.” And I said, “Look, I have some relevant knowledge with manuals, and coming from my


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

background, and being technical to them in my previous employment as well.” And I said, “Would you like some assistance with the manual?” And they asked me then to review that manual and update it.

And how long did that process – it seems from your statement that you commenced that shortly after January 2011. How long did it take you before you had a draft that was in working order?---It was about – about an eight month period and, and I have to say this: the manual wasn’t done just straight out of my head. It was a lot of consulting doing with the seniors at the time and talking to staff, also making sure the manual would reflect operational matters and as it was at the time so - - -

Just stopping you there for a sec, when you say “reflect operational matters”, do you mean the manual needed to be – needed to reflect the real environment as it existed at the time in each of the centres?--- ..... too many things were happening in that place, there was ad hoc – you know, either, “Stop doing these crazy things,” or we just put it in a document where we can say somewhere down the line we actually followed, and it also protects staff.

Yes. Alright. So just on that topic, you say it took about eight months so that takes us into approximately September or so?---Yeah, eight or nine months, yeah.

In 2011, when you were able to provide a draft of the Standard Operating Procedures. How long was it before those Standard Operating Procedures appeared on the staff intranet or in a way that they could be accessible easily by the workers and their immediate superiors, in a sense?---I was a little bit shocked to see the manual suddenly pop up on the intranet in 2014, I believe that was the right time, 2014, by the Director of Youth Justice, which was Russell Caldwell, and I asked him because my manual had draft in green all through it.

Sorry, had a watermark of draft?--- ..... yes, draft.

And it popped up on the intranet in that form?---Yeah. I said, “Wow.” I completed the manual and I pushed and pushed for this manual to be published and it wasn’t published and now suddenly it just appears and I said – and then I got really annoyed because I’ve done so much work for this unit, no – no one who was head office has actually come in and thanked me for the work I’ve done, and I’ll be honest to this very day, you know, even – and I’ll talk about the emergency manual as well, and then for it to just pop up and credit is given to the head office and Salli Cohen’s crew and whatever they were doing, they employed a person to be a project officer, I don’t know what work he actually did with the manual, of he ever did any, and I thought it was quite sad to see a manual that was still in its watermark draft form suddenly appear, and it was said that we’re going to use it as a guide, you know, and if – that manual should have been updated yearly.

So by the time it appeared on the staff internet in 2014, had there been changes to procedures that rendered parts of it out of date?---Things were obviously going out of control, just because management had absolutely no idea with regards to – they were


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

two or three years behind the time – how to manage these young people coming through the centre. You know, we’ve had a lot of drug issues coming through the centre, you know, young kids on ice, and so there was an operational procedure – I think should have been done just for those young people, managing their drug related issues, that could have been put in the manual as well.

Just as a structural issue, if this worked the way it should, if the Standard Operating Procedures as produced by you had been accepted or settled and signed off on, where would the Standard Operating Procedures have been accessible to the lower end managers and to the staff Youth Justice Officers on the floor?---Everyone would have a hard copy both in the medium section, the maximum security section, and the old system should to be that the manual was also given to the Youth Justice Officer to take home to become familiar with it as well.

Yes. So a Youth Justice Officer, there was an expectation in discharging their duties as an employee - - -?---Yes.

- - - to familiarise themselves with the - - -?---Absolutely.

- - - procedures?---I mean the Youth Justice Officer can’t – the Youth Justice Officer can’t say, “I didn’t know,” because it’s there in the manual, you’ve been given a manual, you’ve been – the requirements as a worker working with young people, vulnerable people is to ensure that you actually know your operational requirements.

But instead of that, because this didn’t appear till 2014, where did the lower line managers or the Youth Justice Officers turn when they needed to know what the procedures was. Was it simply to – in the discretion of the shift supervisor of the day?---Yeah, absolutely and the same routine of doing their own thing on each shift and – which really brought chaos to the centre.

Yes?---Operational issues weren’t done properly. I mean, the routines of taking someone to court, yes, okay, but you know, general operations within the centre and structure, because they moved things around, and the compounding issues of not having enough staff as well was another big issue.

Well, would you say a little bit about that, that’s an important issue, which I was going to get to. But as you’ve raised it, what were the issues concerning staff?---Okay. Just for routine on a day shift you’d have to have a certain amount of staff to do the issues – with just say chores, which required the chore officer or the domestics officer to do – prepare meals, ensure bed linen was changed, ensure these detainees had appropriate showers and hygiene taking place at the right appropriate time, preparing them for school. Then there was officers obviously – say this is the maximum security. The senior would be inundated with court appointments, ensuring – I mean, the ..... phone would go off constantly from people from outside management, you know, just whatever was taking place that particular senior was so busy and shift supervisor, and then the issues not having enough staff. So, not having enough staff, kids obviously have needs and if they don’t get what they want


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

straightaway because we didn’t have enough staff, there’s a time delay, and then just the compounding effect of young people just becoming agitated.

Can I just stop you there for one second. I’m at staff issues, before we come to the effect on the kids. Was there an issue with absenteeism, people taking sick leave at short notice and so on, and what impact did that have?---It had a spiralling, downward spiralling effect. The staff were at a point where we were running back-to-back shifts. I remember – and actually telling a couple of the staff, “Work health and safety reasons, shouldn’t go more than 12 hours, and you’ve done a 16 hour shift,” and I’m pretty sure the record ..... some will have done a 16 hour shift, it’s really detrimental to your health and one of the things with rostering is ensuring these people have enough sleep so they can function the next day. And, obviously, if they won’t – I mean, some of them were looking towards the money, it was really good money to be on shift, you know, do overtime and all that, but in obviously having a youth justice centre what was running, functioning the way it should function, and everyone was given their 100 per cent, that wasn’t taking – that wasn’t taking place, because of all the issues we’ve had with staff. And staff would book off because they’re burnt out or they’ve been assaulted, because just – of these issues that we’ve had, children not getting what they want at the right time, and for good reasons, obviously, if they want something that’s not appropriate, obviously they won’t get it, but their needs won’t be met and so – and those issues just compounded in that centre.

Alright. So I appreciate you’ve raised issues that are broader than just the Standard Operating Procedures there?---Yes.

But just to summarise what you’ve said then is it accurate that the absence of firm and settled operating procedures had a negative effect on the day-to-day management of the institutions and had a negative effect on the inmates detainees?---Definitely.

.....?---A poorly run – a poorly run system, in any business, is detrimental to the business. Having no structure for the staff and having no structure for the detention centre is the outcomes we see today.

Just on that topic of staffing, can you explain to the Commissioners what you viewed as an appropriate ratio of staff to detainees, and I don’t mean the particular special needs detainees, but just as a general principle?---As a general principle, there was a five to one ratio, but that wasn’t obviously kept because of all the issues we’ve had with staff. Sometimes with the influx of detainees you’d probably have seven, or eight or more even. And, my personal opinion, you should have at least had three to one and I’ve mentioned that also through my earlier on conversations with – through the rostering program and obviously the issues we had before operational needs. And, now, the reason I say that – and I’ll give you an example, so we talked early on in regards to the domestic chores and all that, so having one officer there – so there for a day shift, there will be a senior and two other officers, three other officers in H block or high security, so one officer was then obviously doing chores and too busy to do anything else, the senior is in the – in the office doing, taking phones, getting


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

court stuff prepared, and the second person generally has to get ready now to ensure showers are done and then ..... person also will then go with the detainees to school and education, so that one person was left then to manage, and that was really not enough. It was dangerous for staff and also, if the officer can’t obviously do the right thing and prevent an altercation with two detainees, then obviously we weren’t doing what we were supposed to in regards to duty of care, so - - -

I’ll jump forward – I’ll come to the PART training in a minute, but the PART training presumed that you had two persons to deal with the - - -?---Absolutely, yes. Always two people to restrain, never one person.

Very well. Just – so I want to come now to the emergency procedures manual, but I did want to ask something I should have asked earlier on, and it arises here. In the earlier period, the 2007 to 2009 period, were there female detainees at Don Dale?---Yes, there was.

And you appreciate that later on an issue arose and it was said that the solution to that was to build a wall?---Yes.

A time honoured solution to problems?--- ..... everyone there.

Yes. So somebody said they wanted to build a wall, and the wall was built, but back in the 2007/2009 period how was the presence of both genders managed?---In 2007 to 2009 there was some issues with, obviously – young kids obviously, you know, growing up, their hormones going, the kids want to have a boyfriend or a girlfriend, so the issue was then we would move all the girls down to the medium section. They could still manage them in their classifications down there and after, obviously, the riot they built that great wall and put all the girls in the maximum security area and then it became extremely difficult to manage the girls and the boys because there’s only limited space, and everyone will want to be in the basketball court and kick the footy, and do stuff, and so once again the compounding effect of not having enough staff to manage court issues and ..... and stuff.

But perhaps if you could just help assist the Commissioners here in terms of what is the right way to manage the situation whereby you have a facility and there are both female and male detainees?---Well, I think – look, my personal opinion, I think, in retrospect looking at it, I think they should never have moved those young people down in medium section, especially those young girls, even though after the situation with the riots we were happily managing those young people down in the medium section, there was a great big oval for those young girls to go down there and run around as well. The issue of building a wall just really – sorry, I’m repeating myself here, but it really upset a lot of staff and also didn’t really work in anyone’s favour and more importantly for those young people as well.

Were you consulted, or were any of the staff on the floor consulted, about the building of this wall and whether it was a good idea?---I was on shift and when that wall was constructed I said, “What are you guys doing?” And, “We’re building a


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

wall.” I said, “Whose idea is this?” And an issue there we had was overpopulation, understaffed – you know, and then to divide an area that was already congested, to then segregate those young people, especially those maximum security guys, if you wanted them to move forward, then you give them some space. It didn’t give them any space, you know, and I talk about it in my statement, how bad that was for the young fellows down there.

Alright. Just leading into the break, it will become time to have a short rest soon. I just wonder if, before we do that, we can just turn to the emergency procedures manual. Can you just say what did you do, did you introduce a code system, how long did that take?---Yep. Okay. So I was told also at the time to work on an emergency manual. There was zero emergency procedures as a manual itself. There was a brief – like, a card holder just for cyclone emergency, bomb threat, and fire evacuation. There was nothing formal done. Also the introduction of having codes, I did some research, and also because the prison was used in the case of a big riot and I said to myself, “Well, if we’re going to use the prison then it will be good to have the same codes as the prison.” You know, we’re not going to call it yellow meaning something else and blue meaning something else. Obviously keep a standard process and so I introduced it. So Mr Fattore called me early on, when I was also working on the other manual, and said, “I have a job for you.” And I said, “What is the job?” I was actually driving at the time, and I picked up the phone, and I said “Look, what is it?” “I need an emergency document, can you do it for me?” I said – well, I was a bit, you know, I said, “This is really far more than they are paying me as an AO5.” Not that I’m not capable of doing it, if I wasn’t capable I wouldn’t say yes to it. And so he goes, “The Minister wants a document, because we don’t have an emergency manual.” I said how, “Long do I have?” “You’ve got less than a month to do it, produce a draft.” I said, “Well, it will take probably longer than that. I will see what I can come up with.” So I did some research once again and there’s – most agencies, most businesses, most corporations would have an emergency document, how they go from.

Could you perhaps tell – give a little bit of detail to the – just to the Commissioners as to the codes that you introduced, the colours – you said that you took those colours from the prison system. Can you just very briefly explain what do the colours indicate?---So obviously a code blue for medical emergencies, a code red for fire, a green for absconding, and that was in line with the prison as well. So if we called a code green, obviously external patrols, they’d use the prison also to do the search. And so if we called the code white which was I say a muster, then obviously it wouldn’t be an absconding. So anyway I made sure that was aligned with prison. So – because a big emphasis for Mr Middlebrook at the time was, “In case there was anything serious, I’ll get my prison staff to come in there and look after you guys.” You know, like we weren’t enough in the sense ..... doing our own work.

Could I just?--- ......

Sorry, just to interpose there, could you just indicate to the Commissioners, what’s the importance of holding drills in support of those codes and of the emergency


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

procedures manual?---Look, I think there is – it would be ludicrous to have a document, like a manual, and not study it and practice it and then get all the bugs out of it. And so to have a manual sitting on a shelf and not do a drill for emergency would be detrimental if there was, say, a fire. Now - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Can I just interrupt you there. Before your EPM was developed, did you have drills of any kind?---Cyclone – cyclone emergency drills. That’s it.

No fire?---Fire, they’ll say there was an alarm going, don’t move, it’s all good, but there was no evacuation procedures, there was no formalised drills, because after my manual was produced, I did do some drills, very late on into the – after the riots and all that, and then it was like, “We need to do drills, we need to do this.” And I said, “The most important one was the fire drill.”

Well because, in fact, the young people are in a detention centre, they’re not such free agents as perhaps other people who need to be evacuated from a building in the event that there is a fire alarm. So was there no practice for suitable escape routes? Who would manage keys in that event and things of that kind, who would escort the young people out?---There were, but there was no formal procedure written, you know, it was all, the emphasis was all, “The senior is responsible,” but if I was a new worker how would I actually know about it, you know? There was nothing written properly for me to go and drill, know exactly where I need to go in a muster period, where a muster area would be.

So what would happen if there were – was there a drill in this period before the manual about – for fire?---No. So after I produced this manual there was a fire drill, obviously, and then obviously fire training also, how to deal with fires and stuff, and the emphasis was ensure that we had enough fire breathing apparatus, but I produced a manual for a while that sat on the shelf and didn’t get drilled, and it’s in my manual that you have to drill these operations for – to get a sense of, you know, how to do them and where to do it. You know, it’s all well and good to have something on a piece of paper and put on the shelf, but if you don’t tell your staff you need to do a drill, and get all the bugbears out of it, because also doing account as well, obviously, which was ..... fire drill, you do a count of everyone that’s in the centre, that’s obviously detainees, most vulnerable people, and all your staff and then any contractors that might be in the building as well and making sure that they go to – for me anyway, is to muster point A or muster point B, and in my manual that I produced I ensured, because of all my prior knowledge in work health and safety, was to ensure there was a gate that was meant to be cut out and there was nothing done even well and truly after I came and did an audit as well.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Perhaps, Mr Morrissey you might like to explore the gate to allow the detainees out in due course.

MR MORRISSEY: Well, perhaps I will deal with it now, as it has arisen, just to keep my train of thought?---Sorry.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

That’s okay. No, it’s alright. It’s just – alright, so we’ll come to that in one minute. I just wanted to ask, you in the follow-up to the questions I was asking you, what efforts did you make to engage the management both in the centre, both centre management and at head office with the need to – for staff to engage in these drills?---I don’t think anyone could be said, in regards to – as much as I could deliver verbally through also having meetings and producing a manual before the riot, as well, that was one of the things that they needed to do in the case there was a riot which is one of the codes as well, and ensuring that they could operationally know exactly what to do, when it do it, and how to do it. They didn’t do it. So – and obviously that fell apart and it was really sad to see that complacency set in from a management point of view, “Len, you just did a manual, yeah, it’s good, but where is the practice and procedures in this it because it’s all routine in there and it’s all spelt out that you need to do it?”

Were you given an explanation as to why the drills were not happening? Was it said that it was a money question or - - -?---No, it wasn’t a money question. Operational needs, “We don’t have enough staff, we can’t get it together,” basically. You know, I think from an operational perspective it’s not hard to have a small lockdown, get the drills in order, and then ensure that obviously as an actual event took place, making sure that staff and detainees also knew what to do in the event of an emergency, and prior to the 2011 riots, Boxing Day riots, sorry, the manual sat, nothing was actually done.

Yes. Returning now to the Commissioner’s issue about the fire drills and what was needed, was there any security concern about engaging the detainees in fire drills? In other words was it thought that might be a dangerous thing from a security point of view?---No, there wasn’t. I mean, the issue I had in regards to – or for the danger for the young people, and for anyone else really in that place, is that you can’t have an exit against a burning building, and so having an exit against a burning building, obviously there’s so much heat coming through – and I’m sure anyone who’s done any emergency training will know this, is that – and so the proposal, and it was signed off, it was a far corner for an exit gate to be cut. Even after the 2011 riots, there was no exit gate cut, and it was deemed that the exit point for anyone in an emergency would be those gates. The reason - - -

Just would you – just to clarify, just the Commissioners may not know, but the existing gate was one which was indeed too close to the building?---Absolutely. And also using a big heavy gate to move in an emergency, that was so close to a heavy building – also there was two gates, the corridor that was going down to the medium section, there was a gate there that was too close, and also an emergency gate because ..... vehicles come in and out, was too big and also the control of actually having, you know, young people go in and out, not just have everyone go out in a hurry, but obviously have someone go through that far end or diagonally across from a burning building was a lot more safer. And so it was all signed off and I said, “Look, this gate needs to be cut in case of an emergency,” and it was never done.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

When you say it was signed off, on who was it signed off by?---The then-general manager, Mr Fattore.

Alright. Did you ever get an explanation - - -?--- ..... also with the other managers I reiterated through Mr Yaxley, Peter ..... I’m sorry

Peter Rainbird?---Peter Rainbird, as well, that gate needed to be cut.

Yes, alright. Did you ever get an explanation why it wasn’t?---Money was an issue, or I don’t know, it was just crazy. We also had, you know, sheer luck that that particular officer, or shift supervisor, Gavin Johns putting out a fire at the time, you know, and the whole building could have gone up on fire, because we – the roof that we had in the maximum security was made out of wood, and how easy would have had – that lit up, you know, and in an emergency that we couldn’t get the kids out, because of smoke billowing out from that area, the heat. It was really dangerous, absolutely, and we were able to get there on time and put it – I was there at the time, so I could see.

Were you present when a fire broke out?---Yes, I was, and one of the fluoro lights caught on fire and started to billow up into ceiling.

And was fire starting a genuine risk given the presence of cigarette lighters that might be smuggled in?---Absolutely.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Is that a convenient pause time, Mr Morrissey.

MR MORRISSEY: Yes, it is. Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Alright. We’ll take a break then nor 20 minutes, ladies and gentlemen.

ADJOURNED [11.04 am]

RESUMED [11.31 am]

MR MORRISSEY: Thanks, Commissioners.

Thanks, Mr De Souza. I asked you about the manuals before the break and now I just wanted to take you to some specifics about training. I appreciate you’ve given quite a lot of detail about training, but what I wanted to ask you about was the training package that you put together at the start of 2011, and if you could just explain to the Commissioners, when you had the full package, the four week package, can you just explain what were the key competencies within that package


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

that you thought were necessary and then I’ll ask you what happened to that package, was it cut down, over what period, and what excuses were you given?--- ......

Can you see the folder, yes. Sorry, ..... yes, sorry, he witness has just asked to have the ..... folder of documents brought to him. Is that - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes, that’s fine.

MR MORRISSEY: Thank you. Perhaps if this could be shown on the screen. It’s at tender bundle 80.

We’ll just advise you which page we want to go to, so point 4015?---Yes.

Very well. Now, have you got in front of you there a running sheet for a training module?---Yes.

And I won’t – I’m not going to take you to each step of that, but you can refer to it if you need to refresh your memory about any particulars, can you just tell – not to be document dominated, tell the Commissioners what were the key competencies, the key areas, that you felt needed to be traversed in a proper training course for Youth Justice Officers in 2011?---Look, in regards to the operational requirements for a Youth Justice Officer they really need to have a good understanding of the ..... legislation, legislation requirements and you know, how they ..... with that and also the responsibilities as a Youth Justice Officer. So as you can see in that document there, there’s parts and sections of the Act that was obviously thought ..... courses and especially code of conduct. The other thing, too that was an issue for staff and making sure that they can actually have an idea of ..... clientele that actually will be in there with mental health – youth mental health program. That was very, very important.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Mr De Souza, did the training involve – and it’s been raised with us a few times - - -?---Yes.

- - - scenario training like, of observed cell removals, deescalation?---Yes. So – so just talking bits and pieces about the program, so the PART program is a training package and a certificate ..... being given to the person after he has done the competencies through that book, the manual, and also the work as well, and then I issue a certificate to that person, so that’s just a module, say, or a subject matter in itself. So it’s a behavioural management course, and how to deescalate, and in that itself there’s legislation requirements which obviously would be tailored for that program, and saying that the PART program is a generic program that’s delivered to education and ..... and so forth and so on. But for ..... teaching the Youth Justice Officer, I would obviously get the current legislation that pertains to the Youth Justice Officer in his role and his responsibilities and then deliver it within that framework, so for legislation requirements. And obviously the dos and don’ts within that program. So that was just – one module.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR MORRISSEY: May I just ask you to expand on that slightly…picking up the Commission’s question, in terms of deescalation techniques?---Yes.

Did you use scenario training in the sense, where you were delivering that sort of training, did you take trainees through particular scenarios, including scenarios when it was one on one, or scenarios where you had a person who was needing to be deescalated who was in an agitated group of people?---As you just mentioned – so there’s a one on one and also a group. So there has been – there will be a number of scenarios put up to the person who’s trained for deescalation, and I did deliver that as a scenario as well, but it was limited through time constraints, so the PART program itself was a package and - - -

COMMISSIONER GOODA: But I mean, scenario training when – one jurisdiction actually had actors, to come in to play the role of detainees, for instance. I’m not suggesting that, but were people taken through how to - - -?---Yes. To a point.

- - - time and time again, because they would be – I was told the more they do that the more it becomes part of their normal operating system, that they just fall straight into a response because they’ve been trained in it?---Okay. Now, just going probably sideways a little bit, just to say the PART program – as much as I could deliver and the amount of people I delivered it, I did deliver using some scenarios, but not to the extent to the operational side of things, you know, so we’re talking about having a person – having a person become confident to an operational standard was never there in that PART program.

Okay?---And subsequently for some of the other issues we’ve had as well, that could have been delivered better, and that’s something that I’ve mentioned many times through my course as a trainer, that certain things need to be drilled operationally, and not just theorised and given a case where the person is given very limited exposure to certain things and not really have full understanding of what is required, yep.

MR MORRISSEY: Now, PART – it’s evident that looking through this – if I may just lead on this matter, to move through it, it’s evident that the package that was on the document viewer before you covered a variety of matters, PART training, it covered the mental health issues that you referred to?---Yes.

In the first week, later in the week, you had training in IOMS, in the operation of the electronic system, and then subsequently Carina Frew delivered the youth workers’ mental health first aid for juvenile detention segment?---That’s right.

It appears from this running sheet in your training package you attempted to engage some of the senior people from the Department. And – sorry, if I can take you towards the very end, Mr Ferguson, who’s a witness coming this afternoon was engaged to present, I think on – sorry, I’m just struggling to find that now?--- ..... of conduct.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

But in any event, wherever it is, it’s to present the code of conduct segment. So were you attempting to go beyond the mere PART training component and to give them a holistic view of what their procedures were?---Absolutely.

Yes. Alright?---So Mr Ferguson’s role was from ..... from head office or the department as a whole, overarching everyone, was to ensure that everyone in a correctional facility, regardless of their function, would actually conduct themselves with integrity and not bring the department to disrepute.

Alright. Now, jumping over some of the step that have occurred, by the end of 2011 was this program cut back to approximately a week in duration?---Unfortunately, it was. Some of the things that I believe were cut – I think we – we didn’t really do a full program with work health and safety. Some of the codes were also cut and also, I believe from memory – I’m not sure whether we actually did the youth mental health at the time. So yeah. A few things that should have been done weren’t done.

What was the explanation given to you by management as to why that was?---“Sorry, Len, we need staff on the floor, we don’t have time. We need people on the floor.”

Alright. Now, in your statement – I’m – you have referred at paragraph 75 and onwards to the evidence - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Can I just go back a bit.

MR MORRISSEY: Of course.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Are you going to tender that document?

MR MORRISSEY: Yes. I’m sorry, because it’s now been referred to directly I seek to tender that document.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Thank you. So that will be exhibit 64.80.

EXHIBIT #64.80 TRAINING PACKAGE

MR MORRISSEY: Thank you. It’s apparent – sorry, I was taking you to paragraph 75 and following, and you had delivered to raise your concerns between 2011 and 2014 in many different areas?---Yes.

And I won’t ask you to repeat all of those, but I just want to take to you some specifics about all of that. So apart from the regular raising of the concerns, at 76 you’ve referred to conducting refresher course for YJOs, but they wouldn’t attend as there was no one to replace them?---Yes, the excuse was always and it was really, really frustrating for me as a trainer, because I’m trying to get – and I put myself in the training role to ensure that there’s some order and, you know, some structure in


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

the place so that I can just facilitate a program that’s going to benefit the centre and they always use an excuse, “Operational matters come first, Len, we can’t replace the staff.” I could understand maybe once or twice, but it was always the situation for myself to hear, after I’ve arranged all these courses, you know, I’ve also had to have people come from outside agencies as well, like first aid and we’ve also allocated money to these people, so for someone not to turn up it’s, (1), it’s embarrassment and plus it’s operationally, from a training point of view, I’m not delivering what I’m being asked to do because we can’t deliver it.

What sort of numbers did you get to the refresher courses?---I would always try and take a small number, about four to six at a time, sometimes eight, depending on the amount of detainees that were in the centre, but then there will be suddenly two people turn up or no one turn up.

Yes. Alright. Did you bring this to the attention – it’s obvious from your statement that you brought it to the attention of centre manage?---Yes, so - - -

You referred to Rainbird, Yaxley and others?---I brought it to my training manager, general manager, Theresa Westmacott.

To whom did that person report?---She reported to the executive officer, I believe at the time ..... and directly to Ken Middlebrook anyway.

Alright. Thank you. So go on, you mentioned that you report – that you raised it with her?---Yes. So I reported it to them, and then I’ve also made every effort to talk to senior management in Don Dale as well.

Yes. Look, you’ve given some details about that, if anyone has questions about detail about that you’re in a position to answer, but just for reasons of time I might proceed to a couple of other matters, unless the Commission has particular matters that you would like raised.

HER HONOUR: No, thank you.

MR MORRISSEY: Could I take you back to life in Don Dale in that period of 2011/2014. As well as being the training officer, you also worked shifts as a regular Youth Justice Officer from time to time; is that correct?---That’s right.

Alright?---And being in the training position I was in, it was unique, and also things are changing fast, and also as a quality control for myself is ensure that the training I was providing was being kept up in the centre. So the way I looked at it was to ensure that staff were meant to do what’s expected after they came out of training, so it was meant to be a way for me to assess staff.

Right?---And whilst they were actually in a job role.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Two aspects of that I wanted to ask you about. First of all, did that allow you – now, you’ve indicated you had some trouble getting the numbers to training sessions, and you also had some trouble getting – having the training sessions being as long and as thorough as you wanted. But as a backstop, did you, having discussed the matter with Barrie Clee at one point, did you institute a sort of ad hoc on the job training which you could deliver when you were on shift?---Yeah. So what happened was, due to the – the failure to produce staff when I required them to do refreshers and ongoing training, I was left with a position where something had to be done. So I was able to discuss this matter with Mr Clee at the time, who was really forthright in helping me in getting some training done, and so I placed a request through my manager, Teresa Westmacott, and she allowed me then to go into the facility as a trainer on day shift and then deliver three days training and then come back to the – my training office and report and then do what necessary paperwork there was.

Yes?---And that worked well for about eight months, until Mr Clee was sent down to Alice Springs.

Alright. And you’ve indicated in your statement why that was ended. I won’t trouble you with that, other than to say that what coverage of staff did you have when you were doing that on-the-job sort of ad hoc training? Was it simply the people who happened to be on shift with you that you reached or were there more?---So what happened was I’d go through and have a discussion with all the seniors and shift supervisors and see and target the officers that needed help. So, just for an example, so someone who actually had – really had no experience in doing admission, I’d go to that person, because we also used IOMS training.

Yes?---And so I’d go through that particular person and do the IOMS training with them and do the admission process and get them – which wouldn’t really happen otherwise because the seniors are too busy to go the training, shift supervisors are too busy. And so I used the opportunity then to ensured that some competencies could be gained by myself going back into the training centre and ensuring that person got to the level that they can train themselves up and fulfil their duties in the centre.

The other issue I wanted to raise, arising from your experience on shift, was the matters that you have raised at paragraph 68 through to 70, and including paragraph 74. Here you’ve spoken of some of the difficulties that were caused in the unit as a result of staff rostering and staff shortages. And I was going to ask you not to repeat what’s there, but simply to see if you can think of some examples, to give a bit of reality to the situation. So at paragraph 68 you describe that it was, as you said earlier here in evidence, that it was next to impossible to attend to all of these duties, and you’ve referred to the showering, washing linen and so on. But you indicated this:

It led to numerous times when detainees would be locked down for hours at a time, simply because there was not enough staff on shift.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

?---Yeah, so going back to what had taken place at the time was that the – it was just a compounding effect of events, so not having enough staff, so operational matters obviously came first, getting people from court and delivering them back and forth, especially in the evening and then after kids finished school the general routine was provide – prior to it becoming, you know, very difficult in that place, we’d have afternoon tea, do programs, get them relaxed before they actually have anyone do their – their basic chores. And so what happened was after the 2011 and that big wall bloody went up, it just became really, really hard for staff to manage them because having the girls wanting to go at the same time, having the boys wanting to go at the same time, having court runs and so the staff ..... became tremendously difficult. So what happened was – so, for example, detainees – we had a number of court runs, so the officers at the time would be obviously sent to court, and this small period of time before they could have their meals, they needed to be out doing some activities in the yard, and this obviously wouldn’t take place and the time constraints would be narrowed down to almost nothing. So having a young person, obviously, sitting in a room for a length of time not having anything to do would compound effects on the safe – on the – on the young people.

Can I just ask you, just to interpose there, you’ve said, “In my view this led,” or “This, in my view, led” –

…this increased tension among detainees and in my view led to an increase in violence among detainees against each other and staff.

?---Yes.

Did you see a direct correlation between the frustrating lockdowns that happened after school?---Absolutely. If there’s – if the kids didn’t get their time out, no matter how small it was, even for 30 minutes, they’d kick and punch the door.

You’ve – sorry?---The issue with that, once they kick and punch the door, they’ll be locked down and have their food in their room which compounded even more, because now they’re not sitting in the dining room having meals, they’re sitting in the – in their room and then after that it will be evening time and then they’ll kick, punch the door and start swearing, threatening staff.

Yes. So – and I take it that the next sentence in paragraph 69:

Due to the lack of staff there was poor planning of activities during afternoon shift and weekends.

That’s consistent with what you were saying about the spiralling effect?---Absolutely. Yes.

Yes. Alright. Thank you. You’ve drawn a conclusion at paragraph 74, and I just wanted to take you to that, if I could. You’ve said:


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

In my view, in addition to the inconsistency mentioned in 33 –

paragraph 33 –

and the increasing numbers of detainees held in detention, the matters described in paragraph 68 above 73 led to an escalation of violence and misbehaviour at Don Dale.

Now, do you see that as crucial to the incidents that actually developed over those years 2011 to 2014?---Yeah. Having a young person in a confined space, even as a – most people believe that they had somewhere to go and play and kick the footy, was not enough really to keep them active and giving them a positive look for their mental health in a situation, you know, and obviously after 2011 everything just spiralled out of control, and that basically went for both – you know, for all detainees in the maximum security and in H block and also down in medium section as well.

Yes. Thank you. Now, I won’t take you to the various efforts that you made to raise training with the managers over 2011, ‘12 and ‘13. I just wanted to have a case study, if you like, in relation to one particular one and that was in 2014. In 2014, did you approach Mr Sizeland, who had taken over as deputy general manager at Don Dale, and indicate to him that you thought there should be a planning schedule, a planning program put in place?---Definitely. I ..... Mr Sizeland, I introduced myself for the first week, I believe, he was there, introduced who I was, I already knew of him from the prison, but he didn’t know me, so as a trainer doing the right thing, going ..... myself to the deputy there, and – and also reiterate the need for certain aspects of training, especially the spit hood masks, that was a directive from Mr Middlebrook through PSU, to ensure that training was conducted appropriately by all and that – who could use that spit hood, when it was done, because there’s a policy around it, and I made – as much as I could – an effort to talk to him about having some training happen as soon as possible, because it wasn’t happening after Barrie Clee went down to Alice Springs and I was back in the training centre.

Yes. Could I just ask that supplementary bundle 220 – supplementary tender bundle 220 be displayed. This is a document headed Agenda. Now, is that the agenda that you prepared for the meeting with Mr Sizeland?---Yes, so – yes, absolutely.

Right?---And so as you can see then in that document, there was a couple of people I wanted to witness on my side for the training which was Len Dean, and Len Dean was the chief trainer in the training officer for correctional services of – for - - -

Just to be clear, Len Dean had responsibility across adult corrections as well?---That’s right. But by then he was no longer the training officer for youth at all.

Yes?---As soon as I assumed the role in 2011. And so ..... the training calendar, and when I say “training calendar” there for youth justice, so I’m talking about not just doing a program which was for just kids coming on board who just started say a


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

casual or – you know, just entering the youth justice space, but also ongoing training which was very, very important in regards to keep their core skills up.

Yes. Could I just, in terms of that training, were you aware of a group, a particular group of Youth Justice Officers, friendly to Mr Sizeland, who you thought in particular needed some training?---Yes. I did.

Did they have a name, that group or a slang name among the workers?---This is how I came about knowing these guys were doing some training with Mr Sizeland. It wasn’t authorised by myself, it certainly wasn’t authorised by the training centre and as far as my knowledge I don’t think Mr Middlebrook at the time knew what he was doing either. Having said that, I walked in the cell just to talk to him and I found him doing some cell extractions I believe with a group of staff that he handpicked, and this is not my phrasing, this was from the other staff at the time, they were called the turtles, the Don Dale Turtles.

The Don Dale Turtles?---Yeah.

And did you know what that came from, why they were called the Don Dale Turtles?---Well, I think it was the catch phrase from the ninja turtle group, you know, you’ve seen the movies. But yeah – and I did make reference to it, and I said, “Look, it’s not authorised training, you haven’t gone through me.” And by then, obviously – I’m sure you’re going to ask me this question, but I produced an extensive manual in regards to other alternatives in regards to restraints which he was just – I don’t know, he was flippant with everything I said to him. I offered my advice to him plenty of times, and offered to sit with him with in meetings and talk about training, but he obviously – he didn’t listen to anything I said and his commentary was, “It’s beyond my pay grade.”

So just in terms of this agenda that’s on the screen here – perhaps, Commissioners, could I tender that document.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Exhibit 117. Thank you.

EXHIBIT #117 SUPPLEMENTARY TENDER BUNDLE 220 DOCUMENT HEADED AGENDA

MR MORRISSEY: Just in terms of that agenda, did the occasion when you saw Mr Sizeland administering his own type of training to the Don Dale Turtles, did that come after this meeting or before?---I believe – I think it came after this meeting anyway. Anyway, from reference ..... knew clearly, when having this meeting with him, he said that – and this is not something that I found in any documents in Darwin Correctional Services, but he said he was a commander in Alice Springs in IAT, which is – it’s a response unit anyway, and he was noting himself as someone who


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

was very well experienced in ..... and being able to carry out training, and also how he would basically action a response in regards to an incident in the centre.

Alright. Now, there’s a couple – I appreciate there’s many things in your statement which – not all of them are going to be covered in questioning here?---Yes.

But others may have questions for you and they might seek to do that. I still have a couple of other matters before I cease. One of them concerns the issue at the BMU. Following – this occurs at paragraphs 108 and following at your statement. Following the Boxing Day incident, you recall that an email came around and – concerned the renaming of the cells. Now, by “the cells” are you referring to what were previously known at the Don Dale – the old Don Dale, as the back cells?---Yes, it was.

And they had previously been called the “cells”?---Yes, it was always been called the cells as I understand it.

And you understand – you understood, at the time, that the word “cells” carried with it some legislative obligations about their use?---Definitely under the Youth Justice Act at the time the cells was for – only operational use for in – for extreme violence, as the superintendent seen fit, and it wasn’t for anything else.

Alright. Now, you saw that the change in nomenclature was that the cells were now to be called the Behavioural Management Unit; is that correct?---Yes.

And without any reference to the term “cells”?---That’s right.

Now, what did you understand to be the purpose of that email?---I think after the 2011 riots – this is my professional opinion, and what I believe took place was that head office and the management at the time did not know how to deal with the issues that were spiralling out of control. And so, to be flippant, they just wanted to manipulate the Act, which I thought was quite ignorant at the time, and use the term BMU instead of the “cells”, so they could actually – the times, because the cell placements had very – administrative-wise, in regards to administering a cell placement had a 12 hour – you know, a 24 hour, 48 hour and 72 maximum cell placement, and so by using the word “BMU” you could actually say you’re not placing someone in a cell under the Act, and the Behavioural Management Unit was manipulated as – as and when they could see fit.

Now, you’ve pointed already to the absence of a Standard Operating Procedures Manual, but with this change, that came via an email, was there any predictable or regular change to procedures governing how the cells, now renamed the BMU, were to be used?---Not really. I mean, it was just – it was used really badly, in a sense, because the BMU placement was used also – which is a cell or that particular area was used to keep young people, if it was overcrowded, and strictly shouldn’t have been used at all.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Yes. Did you notice a change in the frequency with which those cells were now being used?---As much as I know when I was there, the cell placements was, yeah, in retrospect and what was used previously earlier on, compared to what was in 2014 being used, it was – it was 180 degrees, really. It was just totally different. It was – cell placements were constantly being used to manage behaviour and ..... they really didn’t have any tools to – to manage young people.

Yes. Alright. And that’s in the atmosphere that you’ve described?---Yeah.

Where, because of the collapse of the programs and the increased use of lockdowns, that you had a more agitated client group?---Yes.

Or detainee group. Very well, thanks. Did you raise that issue with – you’ve just detailed how it was raised with Mr Clee at paragraph 110, but did you raise the issue with anyone more senior than Mr Clee, in other words with your line manager or with Salli Cohen or anyone similar?---Salli Cohen came in later on, into that area, the behavioural unit was long being manipulated to control detainees for their behaviour. I did mention it to Clee, Mr Yaxley at the time, but it fell on deaf ears, really. They said head office sanctioned it and basically, “Shut up and put up”, basically.

Could I just ask you about another specific matter. That’s the Boxing Day riot, it’s described as Boxing Day riot, 2011. You indicated at 101 in your statement that the issues you believe contributed to the Boxing Day riot included:

Poor management, inadequate planning, insufficient training and inexperienced staff.

Would you mind just explaining what you meant by each of those four comments in relation to that incident? Poor management?---First thing in regards to poor management was first, and myself being a manager operating a business as well, would you put someone in an area where a junior staff member was with very little experience. Now, for you to become a senior in the old days would be three or four years, and you would get to act in a position with ..... basically shadowing you as well. So for a junior staff to act as in a senior role within a six month period – it was just not heard of, you know, and that was really poor management. Also the other issue as well – there was an emergency manual being produced and the – there was no drills.

What was the relevant code for that incident?---For the - - -

For the Boxing Day incident in terms of drills that should have been administered under the manual?---I believe that was a code yellow.

Alright. Were you aware of any drills under code yellow having occurred up to?---No, nothing.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Sorry. I interrupted you, so continue?---So there was absolutely no drills even though there was a manual being produced and also the – the issue that I also had was that they had all three junior staff on the same shift.

Yes?---You know, you need to mix and match a senior who has actually had some relevant experience in how to manage a fire drill because that’s how it was triggered. It was triggered through a fire alarm, and then because they didn’t drill it, you know, they also had a lack of staff which has always been an issue for me in this issue for night shift, regardless of whether the children are sleeping or not, you should have more staff on that, but, obviously, it came down to a money issue and, obviously, they just weren’t – poor thinking at the time.

Now, Mr De Souza, there are many issues that one could expand upon here?---Yeah.

But others also have a stake in asking you some questions. So would you just excuse me a moment. Sorry. Commissioners, I went on a little longer than I thought, but there are others who have questions to ask which seem to be appropriate, and I’ve had discussions with some of those, and although the normal order might be different, we have agreed that counsel for NAAJA might go next.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes.

MR MORRISSEY: To assist, and then there will be others who will take their cue from that.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. Thanks, Mr Dwyer.

MS DWYER: Commissioners, can I ask that there would be a document placed on the screen for the benefit of Mr De Souza. It’s tab 154 of tender bundle from 9 March 2017.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: That 194.

MS DWYER: 154. Thank you, your Honour. It’s on the screen there. I’ve notified Counsel Assisting. Mr De Souza, I’m going to take you to a document, which is an email from yourself to Mr Russell Caldwell. You can see it on the screen. I’ve taken the liberty of printing it off. Would you prefer it in hard copy?---No, that’s fine.

Could you just take a minute to refresh your memory about that document?---Yeah.

Or have you seen it recently?---I have seen it.

Do you see there that you are notifying Mr Russell Caldwell of a number of things that concern you in the centre as at 17 October 2013?---Yes.

And you list the things that are concerning you in bullet points. I’m going to ask you about those bullet points. You say you’ve spoken to staff on an individual basis and


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

reported these matters to senior Youth Justice Officers, shift supervisors and management over the years, some of your pet hates, play fighting. Can you tell the Commissioners who was it of the guards in October 2013 that you were concerned with respect to play fighting?---Look, in regards to – because we had a fairly young crew come through after the 2011 and 2012, 2012 it really started taking place, the lack of professionalism, even though as much as I could say ..... that they got from PSU, from myself right through training. It wasn’t just said once and forgotten. A lot of staff were play fighting with the children. And the reason play fighting was a serious no-no – because things get out of control.

There was more than one young staff member involved in that play fighting?---Absolutely. Yeah.

Were they the group known as the Ninja Turtles?---Look, I couldn’t point just to them. There were probably some other staff involved.

Did it include that group though?---Yeah, some of them.

Did that include Conan Zamolo?---I couldn’t say specifically, but, obviously, there’s enough been seen already in regards to Conan’s behaviour.

Do you have a memory of him play fighting with the children or not?---Look, quite a number of them did.

So you don’t single out Mr Zamolo?---Yes. I put a lot of them in the same – you know, if I had to really say so many names, I mean, from memory, and I know I’ve spoken to them about it.

Do you include Ben Kelleher in that category?---Ben very rarely play fought. He was quite strict actually with the detainees and he kept a more professional approach.

What about John Walton?---Yeah, Mr Walton. Yes, he would play fight and joked and carried on which is not part of the training that we provided for him.

Did you pull Mr Walton up about the play fighting?---Yes, and a few other things.

And what was his response to you?---He was a bit flippant.

Then second bullet point is teaching detainees how to kick and punch?---Yes.

Was that the same group of young officers who were involved in that?---There were some other guys as well which wasn’t part of the Ninja Turtle group or the Turtle group, the Don Dale Turtles. Particularly, I spoke to him on two occasions with regard to kicking and punching, and I said “absolutely no-no, Because I’m trying to keep staff safe. You’re teaching them how to fight.”


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Was Ben Kelleher that person?---I’ve never seen Ben actually teach them. Obviously, he has taken – it’s in my statement he has taken a particular person which I had issues with to train where he did in MMA.

But this is another person, not Mr Kelleher?---No ......

A young guard?---Yes, a young guard.

And he was teaching the kids how to kick and punch?---Yes.

And that was concerning you?---Absolutely. I mean, as a trainer and professional person in the organisation, you know, we’re trying to keep people safe in the area where they are and providing a positive role model. I mean, how could you provide a positive role model if you’re teaching them how to punch and kick.

Did you raise that particular issue with that staff member?---Absolutely.

And did that staff member respond to you by stopping their conduct or not?---At the time, yes.

You also refer to hand pumps. What’s that?---Look, so just as a, from a training point of view, keeping a professional space between a detainee – I’m not saying that we’re not friendly, and the phrase I always gave, and we said to them, we are friendly people to the detainees, but we’re not becoming their friend, and so – and the reason we say hand pumps, you know, knuckles joined together and calling each other, not a professional way, you know, where we’ would say by the person’s name or sir, and then calling them bruz, cuz, and it ..... okay to the detainees, but when you had to pull them up for an incident or there was some issues that they were not quite doing what they’re supposed to in the centre, then it would be really hard because you’ve, basically, gone from where you’re supposed to be as a professional near the point where you can’t actually then pull them up.

Do you agree that would be confusing for the children who were the detainees?---Absolutely.

And that in turn might cause them to be hurt and act out?---Yes.

Did you notice from 2013 through to 2014 a problem with staff not understanding what the boundaries were between them and the detainees?---I don’t think they didn’t understand. They didn’t care. Some of them didn’t care to respond appropriately because, you know, they’re just – there was a culture in that place that some of the things that you can get away with and thought they could do and – and, at the end of the day, I mean, I did as much as I could as a trainer. I’m not trying to defend myself here, but, I mean, the record speaks for itself, but there was only so much I could do. I made as much as I can mention to even the professional standard unit, not formally, of speaking to the guy that did the audit, not Dave Ferguson. I can’t get his


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

name now, but he’s on one of the sheets, and all the management. So in regards to professional conduct and behaviour, that is, you know, untoward a child.

Mr De Souza, do you say that you raised these issues with someone in the professional standards unit on an informal basis?---Yes, I did.

And you did that because they were of such concern to you?---Absolutely.

And you felt your own supervisors or managers were not acting on them accordingly?---Absolutely. And they said, “Look, Len, we can’t get involved until management make a call.” So the way professional standards worked that I believe, unless it’s something that’s, you know, an actual – a big incident takes place they would, obviously, be called in but professional standards work where they’re called in by senior management to do the investigation.

If senior management isn’t doing their job, then professional standards don’t take action?---Unless there’s an audit process.

Even the audit process relies on managers and staff properly reporting the incidents, doesn’t it?---Absolutely.

Can you recall now who that person was in professional standards unit?---Kevin Granfield. I spoke to Kevin.

And around what time?---Especially in regards to training, staff not attending training, just the crazy behaviour of some of the staff.

And do you feel that you imparted to him the sense of urgency that you felt at the time?---Yes. I can recall many times through training, especially given the code of conduct, he would ask me, “Len, what would you like me to say or emphasise on?” I would say play fighting and, you know, swearing at detainees is a serious no-no in our work environment. It actually doesn’t do any justice to us.

And did you ever hear back from Mr Granfield anything positive about what professional standards might do about it?---No. He wouldn’t discuss that with me.

The fourth bullet point is cuddling detainees. Did you see male staff members cuddling female detainees?---No, I never did, although there was an incident reported to me, but I reported it to senior management as a duty of care. But I’ve also pulled up female officers cuddling male detainees, including at the time a case manager who was quite young and dressed inappropriately for the workplace and environment and pulling her in the office, and then she made a complaint, and I said, “Look, I’m trying to help you do your job properly, and it’s inappropriate the way you are carrying yourself out because it gives the young person also the wrong ideas about who you are and your job role”, and also, I mean, if it’s someone who has got some history of, you know, sexual offences and all that, it really doesn’t do well for that particular person, so yes, I have.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And the incident where the male detainee cuddled a female detainee, that was reported to you; is that right?---No. The male detainee – sorry. Male detainee cuddling - - -

Was there an incident, I’m sorry, where a male worker was cuddling a female detainee that was reported to you?--- ..... inappropriate act that was – yes, it was reported to me. I subsequently told the shift supervisor. The shift supervisor asked a number of questions, and I had made sure I kept myself clear under the Child Protection Act and reported it through.

What was the incident?---The incident was that the particular person had touched the female detainee inappropriately, or the allegations at the time were such, and then the female, not the particular person that the incident happened to, but another female detainee reported it to me.

Touched them inappropriately in a sexual way?---Apparently. I have no idea because I wasn’t present. It was just .....

Who was the supervisor that you reported that to?---I reported it to Gavin Johns, and then I cc’d my officer and also I reported it to Teresa Westmacott. I cc’d her on it, yeah.

So there would be a paper trail in relation to your raising that complaint, correct?---Absolutely.

One of the other bullet points is name calling and swearing at detainees. You also refer to racist remarks?---Yes.

By those three bullet points you’re intending to convey that you witnessed staff at the detention centre using derogatory racist remarks towards detainees; is that right?---Yes. Quite a number of times ..... please don’t ask me for specific names. There was quite a number doing it, particularly when they used the radio comms through the intercom they would agitate the young person through that.

What’s an example though of the sort of language that you heard?---Look, I can say one. I was really, really angry at this particular person, but, “You black cunt.” Sorry, if I can’t say that.

What did you feel when you heard that language used towards a detainee?---It was disgraceful under the code of conduct. It definitely – it was everything against what a youth worker should be or a Youth Justice Officer should be. It was totally – you know, I expect that outside in a pub or somewhere, but not in a detention centre.

Were you concerned about the impact on the behaviour of the young people and the welfare of the young people in hearing that language?---Yes. And, once again, I reported to management, but it fell on deaf ears. So I said to them, I said, “How can you build a rapport with this particular person if you bring your standards down,


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

regardless of what they say to you?” You know, racist remarks. We keep all sorts of racism outside – you know, and it should never, you know, be said or carried out in a workplace like ours, and, you know, a child who is vulnerable who has also got some issues with race or whatever, all you do is reinforce these ideas on the child and you call people those sort of derogatory remarks which is really hurtful and .....

You agree that that sort of conduct, using that language, if it came from a child, would mean that the child could be disciplined or would be disciplined?---Yes.

And that’s confusing for a child, isn’t it, when the staff can do one thing and then if they do it, it lands them with a punishment?---Yes.

Your Honours and Commissioners, I do have a bit more to ask but I’m conscious that there’s a vulnerable witness to be called, and so I wonder whether the vulnerable witness should be interposed.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Just see how we can manage this because there are a couple of other people who want to do some cross-examination. So I will just check how that fits in. Thanks, Ms Dwyer.

MS DWYER: Thank you, Commissioner.

MR MORRISSEY: Commissioners, the vulnerable witness is at the Commission and, as I understand it, would proceed by remote facility and in closed session. So it may be that it would be the most convenient, although it’s inelegant to interpose witnesses, it may be in this instance that it’s .....

COMMISSIONER WHITE: It is. Perhaps we could enquire if it’s convenient for Mr De Souza to come back after lunch to finish the cross-examination. That’s at 2 o’clock. That’s providing the other witness is completed. And I see Mr McAvoy is here. You’re not – are you taking the next witness, Mr McAvoy?

MR McAVOY: Yes, Commissioner, I am. The next witness is a vulnerable witness.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes.

MR McAVOY: And he wishes to be conducted in closed court. The witness is being referred to as AS.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Because Mr De Souza is still being asked some questions by counsel and has a little way to go, I’m trying to give – he has indicated that he can return after lunch to complete the cross-examination for which we’re much obliged to you, Mr De Souza, but we would just like to give him a reasonable indication of when that might be.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR McAVOY: Yes, Commissioner. Well, I can indicate that I’ve had some discussions with my learned friends from the Solicitor for the Northern Territory about the process we’re hoping to engage in with respect to AS. I understand that there’s a need to get some instructions on that side which might remove the need for some argument and I – my understanding is the Solicitor-General might need some time. I’m hoping that could be done by, say, quarter to 1, and then we could come back and perhaps sit to 1.30. The reason is that the witness is at the remote location, and keeping witnesses waiting for long periods of time is always difficult, especially for those of tender age, Commissioner. And so I’ve just – I was just waiting to speak to Mr O’Mahoney, in fact, to see if we could reach some agreement about the timing. He’s on his way back to court, I understand. But my preference is to come back at 12.45.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: We will just keep going until you come back then. Is that the idea?

MR McAVOY: Well, the thing – the problem is that I expect – and the Solicitor can speak for herself, Commissioner, but I expect the Solicitor would want to be part of those discussions which Mr O’Mahoney is undertaking with his instructors.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: She has a junior with her. That’s the role of juniors, to wait to serve.

MS BROWNHILL: I’m more than happy for Mr O’Mahoney to sit here while Mr De Souza gives evidence while I have a conversation with Mr McAvoy about a proposal that has only just been provided to me. So I have no difficulty with proceeding in that way.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: We will just continue.

MR McAVOY: If you could continue with this witness, and perhaps I will be able to give some further enlightenment on the position shortly.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Alright. Thanks, Mr McAvoy. Thanks you, Ms Dwyer. It looks as though you’re not going to have to leave the stage. We will just keep going, Mr De Souza and see how things play out. Thank you.

MS DWYER: Mr De Souza, in relation to that email you raised the issue, you were just telling us about the racist remarks that you heard. You must have been following the proceedings this week for the Royal Commission?---I’ve seen a few a things.

You will have seen the videos that Mr Zamolo took that were played?---Yes.

You heard that the language included, “Who’s going to suck my dick”, and, “Suck my dick, you little cunt”, and, “You little gay dog.” Did that surprise you in the light of what you’ve told the Commission?---Look, I was actually shocked to hear Mr


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Zamolo to actually say that. I know he is a bit of a clown and he clowned around and he played, you know, which even to a level that was not appropriate. But to speak in that sort of tone, and definitely I was taken aback by it, yeah, to listen to some of those comments.

What do you think, given your experience with young people, is the likely impact of that sort of language in that tone?---Look, any sort of sexual connotation in regards to referring to a young person as a gay person or, you know, “Come and do this sexually to me”, or whatever, is just not appropriate, especially if that person has been abused on the outside. As everyone knows, it doesn’t help mentally for that particular person to recovery in any way in the short time that they have.

Doesn’t help mentally. Do you think that, in fact, it could have a detrimental effect on the mental condition of that young person?---I’m not a psychiatrist or a clinician, so I can’t give a clinical view but in the sense that – yeah, it is definitely not good in simplest terms that a person will be any good with themselves for quite a while.

You raised this with a number of your supervisors. This email was sent directly to Mr Caldwell. Do you feel like he responded in a way that was appropriate to the concerns that you were raising?---No, I don’t think so, really. Because this sort of behaviour continued and there was a big push from myself to, especially the play fighting which was really, really out of control. Detainees – you know, the kicking and punching, I know there was a separate issue with – you know, there’s a group of officers taking a particular detainee out, but in regards to you know, the name calling, it was quite common in that area, trying to control behaviour by name calling and trying to build a rapport which is unprofessional with a detainee, against code of conduct, against all the training I’ve delivered, yeah, absolutely disgraceful.

You – my learned friend showed you a document which is now exhibit 117, if that could just come back on the screen.

MR MORRISSEY: I just suggest, perhaps Commissioners, I would tender the document that was just on the screen.

MS DWYER: I’m grateful to my learned friend.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Thanks, Mr Morrissey, that can be exhibit 118.

MS DWYER: Do you see there that number 8 on that document which is sent in March 2014 is poor performance by senior staff during the shadow shift period?

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I beg your pardon, that was document 159 from the tender bundle, wasn’t it?

MS DWYER: 154, I think your Honour.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: 154. Yes, we’ve got a different way of naming those exhibits. So that’s exhibit 64.154.

EXHIBIT #64.154 EMAIL

MS DWYER: Thank you, your Honour.

THE WITNESS: Yes, the poor performance of senior staff in regards to shadow shift. Look, as I recall the shadow shift should have been managed a lot better, because they had issues with shortage of staff, and so the shadow shifts were not being managed in a way that was designed to, to have a senior to mentor people coming on the floor.

Did that lack of a senior or appropriate mentor contribute to this breakdown in the behaviour of junior staff, do you think?---Yes, but also a lot of other things as well. You know, it wasn’t just that.

That document can come down. Mr De Souza, during the course of questioning by learned Senior Counsel Assisting, Mr Callaghan, he asked Mr Zamolo about those videos?---Yes.

And he said you wouldn’t film a child in your own home doing – urinating?---Yeah.

You wouldn’t film or pretend to film a child who was masturbating outside Don Dale. You wouldn’t film a child while you swearing at them “suck my dick” outside Don Dale. He said to Mr Zamolo, “What was it about the culture of Don Dale that meant that you, Mr Zamolo, did it in Don Dale?” And Mr Zamolo, if you take it from me, didn’t particularly answer that question. Can you tell the Commissioners, after reflecting on it, what do you think it is about the culture of Don Dale that meant that he did it there?---Look, if you want to split the blame on people, it was seriously poor management in regards to the operations. First and foremost that that young person – not the young person, the officer should not have taken a phone in the centre. That was a serious no-no. In a correctional facility, in a – an environment, in the confines of Don Dale, or even in an adult prison, you would never take a phone through. And then I know that – from my memory anyway, I recall Mr Zamolo being chastised, I don’t know to what extent, but he was also asked not to bring – he had some gym or weight session and he was taking photos, and I believe anyway they were on Snapchat or whatever, I don’t know. And that was like, you know, really poor conduct for that particular person too, because it was a reflection on the operations – you know, where they’re being asked to put their phones in a locker, maybe they were, but did they check on these particular people, did they get the appropriate discipline that they were supposed to? I mean, from a – from the operations manager, if I was the operations manager, more than likely, he would have been suspended immediately for – for his behaviour.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

So Mr De Souza, you knew prior to Mr Zamolo being dismissed at the end of October 2014, you knew that he had placed videos on Snapchat?---No, I was – it’s through the incident report that was mentioned.

Okay?---Yeah.

Do you agree with me that during 2013 and ‘14 there was a culture at Don Dale where whatever rules were supposed to be applied for officers, they didn’t really matter, they were being ignored?---Yes. I do recall a number of times taking new staff through and they flippantly would say to me, “It’s okay, when Lenny goes, we’ll show you the way we do it.”

It’s okay, I’m sorry, I missed that?---“After Lenny leaves we’ll show you our own way of doing it.”

Who would say things like that?---Some of the new seniors on the floor, and some of the staff walking around as well, who have been there for a little bit. And I say a little bit, maybe six months to eight months probably.

Was one of the people made comments like that Mr Sizeland?---No, Mr Sizeland never said anything like that to me.

Who were the seniors who made comments like that?---There was a few young seniors at the time making comments; or shift supervisor I should say, yeah, they were in that role as well.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: How you going?

MS DWYER: Yes. I’m moving on to another topic and I will be five minutes, your Honour.

So you mentioned earlier that the – that speaking to detainees in a – with foul language and racist comments is particularly problematic when they themselves come from traumatised backgrounds?---Absolutely.

During your training you received no particular training with respect to trauma informed approach?---Not initially, obviously in 2007 – I mean, the best I got was three days. Having said that, though, there was some push toward the latter part of my training where we were trying to get some stuff done for that as well.

Do you think, between 2012 and 2015, there was any proper understanding amongst the Youth Justice Officers of the trauma that the children had experienced?---I think the – say, after the mental health courses were delivered, there was information out there for them to understand.

When was the mental health training delivered?---That was from 2012 on, I think, for – the latter part, 2011.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Well, do you agree with me that the behaviour that you’ve mentioned, play fighting, cuddling detainees, name calling, swearing, racist, calling a child a black cunt, that shows a complete disregard for the traumatic backgrounds that those children come from?---I totally agree with you.

And a complete lack of understanding how that might re-traumatise those children?---Yes.

You mentioned that there was nothing in your training about cultural awareness?---Initially, and then there was later on. I introduced cultural awareness and ensured that the cultural awareness program came through.

In relation to deescalation techniques, was there ever – did you ever receive any input from indigenous elders or community leaders as to how you might deescalate situations?---I introduced the elders to come in initially when we had training, my three, four week program, and we introduced three elders ..... anyway, who come in and basically talk to the young people, talk to the staff, and just said a lot of things that culturally was appropriate to the person.

So that was useful?---Absolutely.

And when your three to four week training program was cut back?---No, we subsequently didn’t get the elders in, for whatever reason.

Do you agree with me that’s a completely missed opportunity to appropriately manage the behaviour of young people in a detention centre?---The elders program would have worked really well if they incorporated it more so in the youth detention. We did have some others come in and we did the – through the education unit, through arts and craft, and they did come in there and support the children, but formally for the Youth Justice Officers and – we didn’t subsequent see it.

And you think that that’s a great pity, don’t you, to miss out on that program?---Absolutely. And there’s a bit part in Northern Territory with young people and most of our population is indigenous and Aboriginal, and why wouldn’t you have the elders there?

Yes. And finally, you referred in response to her Honour asking you about interpreter service – about interpreters. You said that in order to explain to a young person for whom English was not their first language, you would sometimes rely on other detainees to talk?---Yes, we did.

And some of those children have English as a third or fourth language, don’t they?---Yes.

Did you ever use the interpreter service to assist with communication with young people?---I personally never did. I’m not saying it wasn’t available. It was –


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

depending on who we had at the time, if we needed to, yes we would get an interpreter to come and sit through.

Do you think it would be useful then to have an interpreter more frequently available to Youth Justice Officers?---Yeah, and a list of other things as well.

Which would include more appropriate culturally designed activities for kids?---Definitely.

Do you think that that would be beneficial both for their mental held and also the good management of the centre?---And one of the things, too, just to add to what you’re saying, is also a designated counsellor to be with the detention centre, not just have case management, because they are inundated with a lot of things, a lot of things are being – you know, thrown at them but to have a counsellor for the young people actually going to speak to when they have issues, someone who’s professionally trained, would work really well.

And by counsellor, would the best sort of counsellor be, if available, a culturally appropriate counsellor, an Indigenous person themselves?---Someone with the background and knowledge, not necessarily someone from an indigenous background. It would probably be great if we could have both, but really someone who’s trained well in the job and has a relevant amount of experience to do that.

Mr De Souza, a final topic if her Honour will permit me, you – at paragraph 104 you talk about the smell that would have been obvious from the back blocks?---Yes.

After they started – after BMU started to be used?---Yes. It really made me sad and upset to have a wall put up, not really thinking about the implications of what would happen in an area where it’s already confined enough. And then little or very little ventilation, because some of the air conditioners don’t work. We had a central air conditioner and I believe at the time, because of the damage to the building after the riots, they put some metal through the ceiling and then they put air-conditioners in, but you know, you can’t have recycled air and then have Perspex on that area and say it was ventilated. Because I talk about it in the document, the toilets in H block sometimes would be blocked. Now, for myself as a person working there, I can physically go in and out of that – in that area. How would be so bad for the young person being in that area where they have to, you know, smell the - - -

Faeces?---The faecal matter in the air.

Well, even for you as a staff member it was pretty disgusting, wasn’t it?---It was. I mean, having said that though, it wasn’t everyday event, but it would happen from – you know, from time to time.

So did it occur to you when you were working there that a combination of things like the smell and a lack of ventilation and a lack of activities for those young people would have impacted on their mental health?---Once again, I’m not a professional to


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

comment on mental health but yes, definitely, from the amount of experience I could say my professional opinion in regards to mental health would basically – you know, you basically have a situation where if someone’s already down mentally and you learn that through your youth mental health training, you basically compounded things for that particular young person, yeah.

Thank you. Nothing further.

HER HONOUR: Thank you, Ms Dwyer.

HIS HONOUR: Mr O’Brien, have you got the call.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR O’BRIEN [12.39 pm]

MR O’BRIEN: Yes. Thank you, Commissioner.

Mr De Souza, I represent the former detainee Dylan Voller?---Yeah.

I want to draw on your experience, if I can, as a PART technician, if you like, skilled operator in the PART techniques?---Yes.

And I want to show you, without any more ado, some footage. Can we play some footage from 20 October 2010.

Just before it starts – it’s about to start, have you seen this footage before? This is footage, which was shown I think on Four Corners. So you saw it on that program, I’m sure?---To be honest, I didn’t see the Four Corners program, I have a little thing in my house. I generally don’t watch much TV.

Okay?--- ..... my previous background in fixing TVs. So I just used to watch it eight hours a day and I don’t wish to watch it again.

Very well. Well, it might be the first time you’ve seen it?---I have seen it, though. My friends showed it to me, but I - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Can we move just move on. We don’t need a long explanation, Mr De Souza. Thank you.

MR O’BRIEN: This is from 20 October 2010, Don Dale Detention Centre.

VIDEO SHOWN

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.3.17 P-1662 L.J.M.D. SOUZA XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MR O’BRIEN

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR O’BRIEN: It can be stopped there. Now, could you say with your expertise, Mr De Souza, that that was consistent with any of the PART techniques that you’ve employed over the years or taught?---Definitely no. So if that particular person went to assault him, obviously for self-defence for the officer, he could restrain him that way, but definitely not throwing him to the ground or throwing him to the mattress. And - - -

It’s apparent – it’s apparent from the - - -?---Can I say something though. PART techniques always been trained to have two officers to restrain, yeah. So - - -

So there’s the first breach. Can I ask you about the picking up of Dylan Voller by the neck in the circumstances you saw in the corridor there. The picking up and lifting him, apparently by the neck, is that consistent with the PART technique, leaving aside there’s only one officer there which breaches it immediately?---Look, I haven’t seen – well, he does pick him up and throw him into the thing, but definitely we don’t teach people how to pick up someone by the neck.

It’s dangerous, isn’t it?---Obviously, yes. I mean, it is dangerous. It’s definitely not the techniques I teach, and it’s not, certainly, part of the manual as well.

And I want to show you footage now from 9 December 2010, please. That can be played from the prearranged spot. There we go.

VIDEO SHOWN

MR O’BRIEN: We can stop there, however the video does continue. It can be stopped there. Now, are you familiar with a person named Martin Unger, the director of MTU Training Concepts Proprietary Limited?---Yes.

Is he the trainer for you in your PART technique program?---Yes.

Right. Now, the Children’s Commissioner is going to provide an expert opinion in relation to the consistency or otherwise with this footage as played to him, and Mr Unger said, and I quote:

None of the techniques were consistent with any of the PART techniques or principles. The interventions were abhorrent.

Would you agree with that assessment by Mr Unger?---Yes.

Of course, that also breaches the fundamental rule that you mentioned before that two men should be involved in the restraint. In this instance one man grabbed the child, 12 years of age at this stage, by the throat, swung him round onto the mattress and restrained him, whilst others picked up apparently playing cards from the


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

ground?---Yes. So, obviously, the appropriate restraint ..... through training obviously weren’t conducted in this incident.

Abhorrent wasn’t it?---That’s what – yes.

Thank you. Commissioner, the next footage, please. This footage is from 4 October 2011. It’s being played from a prearranged spot.

VIDEO SHOWN

MR O’BRIEN: Okay. Stop there, please, Mr Unger was asked by the Children’s Commissioner to comment on this video sequence. Do you understand that?---Mmm.

Mr De Souza, he said – that is, Mr Unger said:

In relation to the restraint techniques observed, none of the techniques were consistent with any part of the PART technique.

Do you agree?---In regards to how the young person was restrained on the ground, particularly, having said that, though, Dylan Voller was a spitter and if I was doing the restraint I wouldn’t have also grabbed his neck, I would have grabbed his arms. And - - -

Well, if I can interrupt there, Mr Unger went on to say, “The touching or holding the neck - - -”

MR O’MAHONEY: The witness was midway through an answer and he’s giving his own views.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thanks, Mr O’Mahoney. Perhaps if you - - -

MR O’BRIEN: Well, that’s fair enough, but I think he’s got his own lawyer, Mr O’Mahoney.

MR O’MAHONEY: It is an objectionable – it is an objectionable intervention, in my submission, Commissioner ..... midway through an answer.

MR O’BRIEN: I apologise to you, Mr De Souza, and I’d like you to continue please---So, I mean, I can break down the footage and tell you what they exactly should and shouldn’t have done, and having restrained people as well, including Mr Voller. He’s a spitter, so it’s totally different in regards to the previous footage where you get someone straight onto the throat and then wrapping them on the ground. Where I have an issue with it is that his arm should have been placed simultaneously on the same axis of where his body was.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Yes?---And that would cause injury to the person if it’s not done properly, and that’s something that’s been reiterated through training, because joint movement and breaking of bones.

Mr Unger said he warned that – PART warned against the touching, making contact with or holding the neck area or head area. You agree with that?---Head control, but not neck area definitely.

Whereas here we see the grabbing by the neck and the holding down by the neck, don’t we?---Yes.

The putting pressure on the window of safety was something that was raised by him in concern?---Yes ..... I was going to raise that myself as well. It would cause asphyxiation as the person becomes tired.

He said that another PART directive against is the movement of limbs behind the back. Is that what you were talking about before about the positioning of the arms?---The positioning of the arms. I definitely see a problem with that one there.

He also said the placing of pressure on joints, for example a wrist lock which appears to have been employed in this instance?---There were no wrist locks performed in training and definitely there’s no wrist locks are required for – for restraint like that.

So to be clear, you never trained staff in wrist locks, it’s not part of the PART technique?---No, definitely not, and definitely not a PART technique. So just to go back to that footage though, in regards to a wrist lock, what might appear like a wrist lock is when someone’s being handcuffed and it is just to get movement into the cuffing area where the cuffs are actually put, and it might appear – the wrist is only bent this much. If it’s bent further than that you ..... consider it a lock where you put pressure on the hand and it produces pain. But, I mean, I can bend my hand at 09 degrees, you can see that the hand’s being back, there’s no actually no pressure or pain on it as yet. It’s only when it’s gone past this point.

A wrist lock, as you’ve described it, is a use of force to cause pain to promote compliance; am I right?---Absolutely, and in youth justice we do not use any sort of pain compliance.

Let me repeat, to get it right. “We do not use pain to enforce compliance”, is that the rule?---Absolutely.

Been breached in this instance, hasn’t it?---To an extent, obviously, the person having been in some pain and has complained and said yes, there is some pain and discomfort.

Thank you. One - - -


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR McAVOY: Excuse me, Commissioner, is it a convenient moment to interpose and deal with the matter of AS?

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I’ll just see how much longer Mr O’Brien is planning to be in his questioning.

MR O’BRIEN: I’ve got one more footage to show and I expect I will be as quick with that as with the others.

HER HONOUR: Can we – will five minutes see you out, Mr O’Brien?

MR O’BRIEN: I hope so.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Otherwise we might have to ask you to continue later, that’s all.

MR O’BRIEN: No. I think I can do it in five minutes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Okay. And you’re going to say if I stop talking you’ll be even faster.

MR O’BRIEN: I won’t say any more.

Okay. Can the last piece of footage please are shown, again footage from Don Dale, 16 March 2012.

VIDEO SHOWN

MR O’BRIEN: That footage is frozen, but it doesn’t really matter for the purposes of my question. The officer – the youth officer involved in this particular restraint has at that stage there where it’s frozen, first of all he’s the only officer involved in the form of restraint; correct?---Correct.

That’s a breach of the PART technique, isn’t it?---Yes.

Secondly, he appears to have his body fully onto the window of – the window of asphyxiation danger, doesn’t he?---Can I just say something, I don’t think that’s a youth officer. I think that’s a correctional officer.

That’s a prison officer, you think?---Yes, I believe so.

We happen to have some information as to who this youth officer is, but I’ve been asked not to name him and I’m going to observe that request. So - - -?---Okay, because it seems like he’s wearing a khaki shirt.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Well, for the purpose of my question it doesn’t matter, it happened to Dylan Voller, at the Don Dale Detention Centre. I just want to ask you about the technique used and its compliance with your training and your expertise?---Yes.

The officer involved said in an IOMS report – it’s not necessary to show you, but he said that he held Dylan Voller down for a period of four minutes. Four minutes?---Mmm.

And it appears that was the position that the youth officer was vis-à-vis Dylan Voller, you see?---Okay. Once again I have to say and refer to it, that particular restraint or technique is used by adult prison and definitely nothing to do with PART training. Secondly - - -

Should – sorry to interrupt?---The second officer with that particular person, if it was a youth officer, and obviously there’s a – there appears to be a youth officer hanging onto the door but not a corrections – not a youth officer on Dylan Voller.

Okay. So what you’re - - -?---So that ..... training – sorry, can I just say something, that particular method or training has been authorised by the prison through Ken Middlebrook, so he’s authorised to do that.

But that is not an authorised technique of restraining a child, is it?---No.

So if you had seen an officer doing that or heard about it that would be something you’d report to your seniors; correct?---Correct.

Mr De Souza, I thank you for your time---That’s okay.

Those are my questions for you.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Thank you, Mr O’Brien. Now, Mr Morrissey, we’ve still got – have we still got any counsel who - - -

MR MORRISSEY: Yes. We have two more, I believe, and I think that estimate is probably 15 minutes worth.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Alright. When can we resume then? Do you and Mr McAvoy have a time so I can ask Mr De Souza to come back?

MR McAVOY: I haven’t had a chance to discuss the matter with Mr Morrissey, Commissioner. I would expect that the present discussion is going to take some 10 or 15 minutes and then we’ll take some time to close the court and for me to attend at the remote location. So it would be maybe 1.30, 1 - - -

HIS HONOUR: Well, the staff have to take lunch.

MR McAVOY: Yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: So we can’t sit continuously through, Mr McAvoy.

MR McAVOY: I understand that, Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: We did start early, half past 9 this morning. So if you’re concerned about the vulnerable witness being kept waiting if we have an adjournment, even quite a short one for lunch, we can sit through, but we’ll have to allow a break to everybody who is here and working. So what do you propose?

MR McAVOY: Perhaps, Commissioner, if we have the – we have the preliminary discussion now, and then we break for a half hour, 45 minutes for lunch. And then we –

COMMISSIONER WHITE: That seems more sensible to me, so that the court can be cleared and we can set it up for the vulnerable witness. So then, Mr De Souza, at quarter to 3, do you think, half past 2?

MR McAVOY: I think if he’s ready at 2.30, Commissioner, that would be suitable.

MR MORRISSEY: We’ll be ready to proceed at 2.30.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Alright. Would you be kind enough to return around 2.30. I can’t guarantee that you’ll get back in the witness chair by then, but we hope not to cause you too much inconvenience today. Alright, thank you. Thanks, Mr De Souza. If you could step down now and if you could come back by then. Now, the court might be closed when you return so you might have to wait until someone speaks to you.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [12.56 pm]

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes, thanks Mr McAvoy.

MR McAVOY: Commissioners, the next witness proposed to be called is witness AS, a vulnerable witness. The issue that needs to be ventilated is the – how the Northern Territory Government responsive tender bundle and matters for cross-examination are to be dealt with respect to this witness. The documents from the Northern Territory Government were received at approximately 2 pm yesterday, Commissioner. My initial position is that I object to the tender of those documents on the basis that they have been received too late to be adequately dealt with, and I don’t propose to take the witness to the matters raised by the Solicitor for the Northern Territory in their document entitled Matters for Cross-examination.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes, thank you.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.3.17 P-1668 ©Commonwealth of Australia

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR McAVOY: There is a particular concern with respect to the documents in that the documents sought to be tendered are – include a number of documents, including incident reports which contain factual assertions and that none of those documents are supported by any statements which would allow me to confidently deal with the facts contained or purported to be contained therein. The other consequence of the lateness is that the capacity for me to deal with the witness and the witness’ legal representatives in any sensible manner is very much reduced. So with respect to this witness, he’s presently at the remote location, and I will be attending there on him shortly, but we will almost certainly, very shortly, be going into evidence, and the number and range of documents are not insubstantial. There are 23 documents.

As I have said about this issue previously, Commissioner, it’s understood that all parties are doing the best they can with the resources, but it’s my submission that, particularly for this witness and most probably in relation to other witnesses, the concerns about the manner in which matters are being brought to Counsel Assisting for – to deal with the witnesses is unsatisfactory. And there are some other matters which are peculiar to this witness which the witness’s legal representative, Ms Morreau, who hasn’t announced her appearance yet.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Ms Morreau, you’re here.

MS MORREAU: Yes, I appear for the witness AS.

MR McAVOY: We will need to - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: You can sit at the bar table there, if you - - -

MR McAVOY: Will need to raise in closed court, but I can indicate that it’s not an isolated issue that I expect Ms Morreau to raise and indeed, unfortunately, it seems to be one that’s likely to be quite prevalent. There are also issues that Ms Morreau has raised with me in relation to the potential effect upon her client in relation to certain matters that are raised on the documents which – of which he had, before 2 pm yesterday, not had notice and which may affect his interests directly, and my understanding is that Ms Morreau would also like to raise that in closed session.

HER HONOUR: Yes, it might fall more conveniently from Ms Morreau to make that submission, Mr McAvoy.

MR McAVOY: Yes. The difficulty is that, with respect to the first issue I raised about this witness it’s not something that, in my submission, is appropriate to be discussed in front of the witness himself. It’s something that can be done by the legal representatives in closed session, and so it may be that in order to deal with that now, we close the court at some point before rising, just to have that – those issues heard.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Right. We can do that.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR McAVOY: Thank you, Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thanks, Mr McAvoy. Ms Morreau, let me hear from you, to the extent that you can, before we close the court.

MS MORREAU: Certainly. As I have, in fact, already communicated to the parties, my client is very keen to have – to give oral evidence on one occasion only, and today if possible. At this point, I have not taken full instructions on the materials. I have taken, I suppose, broad instructions on some of them because I didn’t wish to put everything to my client if it was, in fact, not going to be raised with him, and there are some objections that I would have about some of the questions to be asked if they were to be based upon what we’ve been notified of in terms of these issues. As to, I suppose, substantiating my client’s position on the manner in which he gives his evidence, and, indeed, some of the nature of the particular matters that have been raised, I would seek to make those submissions in closed court because they deal with matters personal to my client, some of which for additional reasons are being discussed in his absence as well.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Right. Thank you.

MS DWYER: Before you hear from the Northern Territory Solicitor-General, might I be heard briefly in relation to NAAJA’s position on this because it concerns all the witnesses that will subsequently come, and I have two of those witnesses, in particular, myself to look after.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: You can make that submission then. Yes. Thank you.

MS DWYER: Commissioners, as you know NAAJA took very seriously the Practice Guideline 2 that was issued and in particular points 10 and 11 that relate to cross-examination of vulnerable witnesses, that is, that cross-examination would always be conducted with leave and through Counsel Assisting. And we also took seriously, as I know the Commissioners do, the principle to do no harm. We’ve given assurances to the child witnesses that we’ve assisted to come before the Commission that they are very unlikely to be cross-examined in great detail particular events, that that’s not what’s important, that it’s important that they tell their story before the Commission and that the Commission wants to hear from them, and that we anticipate it will be an exercise that might well be healing for them and an opportunity for them to just tell the Commissioners in their own words what happens. And, in my respectful submission, there’s precedent for this in the Royal Commission that we’re still having in relation to the institutional response to sex abuse; that is, it has been a very healing and supportive process for the survivors of sexual abuse to tell their stories and to be cross-examined only in very limited circumstances and even more so with vulnerable children before it.

As my learned friend, the Solicitor-General, well knows, procedural fairness doesn’t require the cross-examination of these vulnerable children with respect to individual


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

allegations. It’s not inter partes litigation. It’s a Royal Commission, and it’s a Commission of Inquiry, and any issues of procedural fairness can be dealt with by statements being produced, if necessary, from individuals who are concerned, and then it’s a matter of weight, and no doubt the Commissioners would take into account that the children haven’t been cross-examined in relation to individual incidents, but it has to be of primary concern to the Commission, as I’m confident that it will be, the mental health of those children. And we’ve just heard through the last witness the incredible vulnerability of those children, which I know the Commissioners knows very well, and the vulnerability that was compounded by the way that those children were treated in Don Dale at particular times. It’s of great concern to NAAJA that this process might be one where the children are told one thing, including by NAAJA representatives in terms of they will only give evidence once, they won’t have to come back, and their voices will be heard, their vulnerability will be protected and respected if they’re then going to have to come back another time. NAAJA has to have an ongoing relationship with those children long after the Royal Commission packs up and goes home, and we want to make sure that the promises that we’ve given to children about their vulnerability being respected are maintained.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thanks, Ms Dwyer.

MR O’CONNELL: Commissioners, I will be very brief. I couldn’t possibly put it as eloquently and powerfully as Dr Dwyer, but I do adopt her submissions and join the application in relation to my client AN who will be giving evidence this Friday.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Ms Graham.

MS GRAHAM: Commissioners, on behalf of CAALAS and any anticipated future vulnerable witnesses we might act for I also adopt the submissions of Dr Dwyer. Whilst we don’t presently have any witnesses due to give evidence in these sittings, Commissioners, you would appreciate the importance of CAALAS and its lawyers being able to give certainty to their vulnerable clients on an ongoing basis in anticipation of, for example, the care and protection hearings that are still yet to come. So it’s certainly CAALAS’ position there needs to be certainty that the assurances we can give vulnerable witnesses in relation to the protections that ought to exist will, in fact, exist.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thanks, Ms Graham. Are you going to respond, Ms Brownhill?

MS BROWNHILL: May I?

COMMISSIONER WHITE: You certainly may. That’s on the basis that there will be some further submissions that will be made in closed court. But if you wish to respond to the general principle rather than the particular at this moment.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MS BROWNHILL: Yes, I understand. Commissioners, this issue and the approach to be taken in relation to evidence given by vulnerable witnesses and the means by which that evidence might be tested and so on all comes back to what it is the Commission may, ultimately, do with the evidence given by the vulnerable witnesses. Now, we certainly do not oppose in any way people coming before the Commission to tell their story and experience the catharsis and the appropriate – the level of engagement that that kind of process can deliver. We don’t take any issue with that at all. We understand that to be the process intended. The difficulty we have is that we do not presently know – although we have asked, we do not presently know what it is intended to ask the Commission to make findings about. For example, if a vulnerable witness gives evidence about a certain event or incident, is the Commission going to be invited to make findings of fact that that incident or event happened in the specific way that the witness described? Is the Commission going to be invited to reach conclusions about the lawfulness or otherwise of uses of restraint and so on?

Or is the Commission going to make, you know, more generalised observations at a systemic level about things like what we’ve heard this morning, the culture or the issues that were faced by the systems at any particular point in time? If it is proposed that the Commission will make factual findings about particular instances and events, then, as appears to be intended, as far as we understand it, given that we’ve – people that we represent have been served with adverse notices, then the question becomes how can all of the persons who have interests and who appear before the Commission be properly accommodated. The Commission has identified the process by which the evidence will be heard, including from vulnerable witnesses. That process includes the provision that for vulnerable witnesses the base proposition is that they will be taken through their evidence by Counsel Assisting, and where vulnerable witnesses are under 18, only Counsel Assisting will give that – will undertake that process. That, of course, means that there is no scope for the Northern Territory or the other people that we represent to in any way test the veracity of the evidence given by those vulnerable witnesses in relation to the matters that they identify in their statements and their oral evidence.

As a consequence, we have sought to engage in the process contemplated by the Practice Guidelines. Those Practice Guidelines identify, as I’ve said, that it would be Counsel Assisting who cross-examines, subject to an application if the vulnerable witness is over the age of 18. Secondly, that notice is to be given to Counsel Assisting of the questions to be asked. And, thirdly, that if there is a document to be put to a witness in cross-examination it be provided to Counsel Assisting. That is what we’re seeking to do with our various tender bundles and with our notices of matters to be raised. Now, ultimately, all we can do is ask that those matters be raised. It’s a matter for Counsel Assisting as to whether they are and how they are. But to the extent that the evidence given by a particular witness is not tested by that process, we would be entitled to make a submission about what the Commission should do in relation to that evidence, what findings can be made, both factual and legal.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

My learned friend, Mr McAvoy, has indicated the position that he takes is in relation to this particular witness, AS. I’m only speaking generally because we haven’t yet heard the specifics about AS. But there appear to be two matters. The first is as to whether the documents that we have identified and provided should be tendered. Now, as I understand my learned friend, he seems to be saying he’s refusing to tender those documents. Now, at the very least we say that it is incumbent on the Commission to receive relevant probative and contemporaneous, generally speaking, material that addresses the particular matters identified or raised as things that may be the subject of findings.

On that basis, we have put together various documents, and we would seek for them to be tendered and considered by the Commission when ultimately coming to do what it does in relation to all of the evidence. The second issue is whether or not the matters that we have identified should be put to the witness in the manner in which the Practice Guidelines contemplate that they be – that that be done. As I’ve said, all we can do is ask that those matters be addressed. We’ve done that, and if Counsel Assisting decides not to undertake cross-examination or any questioning in relation to a version of events that appears on documents, then that is Counsel Assisting’s decision, and we may be heard about that subsequently.

In relation to the idea that it matters for that purpose whether the contrary version of events comes in the form of a statement or in the form of a document, we say it doesn’t matter one bit for two reasons: firstly, for the purpose of asking the vulnerable witness about that version of events, it doesn’t matter to the vulnerable witness what the source of the information is, whether it’s a document or whether it’s a statement. There may be a different issue which is whether there are – is other evidence from a particular officer or something that addresses it, but that’s a different point. The concern that putting a different version of events to a witness is difficult because of problems like gratuitous concurrence, where the witness simply agrees with whatever is put to them, that is a matter that has to be grappled with by Counsel Assisting in following the process, which is identified by the Practice Guidelines. The other point about statements versus documentary evidence is that the distinct likelihood, if we were to go to the trouble of taking a statement from each officer involved in – pick one of hundreds of incidents that are the subject of the evidence of vulnerable witnesses, the likelihood is that those officers dealing with incidents on a daily basis may not have any specific recollection about the particular event, and would go immediately to the incident report that they produced contemporaneously with the event, and say, “As far as I can recall the event happened the way that I recorded it at the time.”

So the distinction between statements and documents is a distinction without a difference, in my submission. I won’t say anything more about the specifics. There may be different issues to do with the timing of the availability of the documents and the provision of the material to Counsel Assisting. We – there are various reasons why the bundles and the matters for cross-examination haven’t been able to be provided as swiftly as we would like. They include the variations to the timetable


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

which are ongoing. I understand that they happen, but that is part of the difficulty: the timetable at a particular point in time identifies a particular order of witnesses.

We prioritise our efforts based on that timetabling and, if that changes, then our priorities all have to shift and that has generated difficulties in terms of being able to respond. That’s all I want to say, subject to hearing further about the specific issues.

HER HONOUR: Yes. Thanks, Ms Brownhill.

MR McAVOY: Commissioner - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Mr McAvoy, there seem to be two issues here, one that was most latterly addressed by the Solicitor-General, that is the question of timing in any given case. And the other, of course, is a general matter of principle: cross-examining on a number of documents rather than by reference to statement, so that in each particular case the former, the issue of timing will be to be discussed about the disadvantages that arise from it, the general principle of cross-examination and then perhaps there is a third issue: what are the purposes of the Commission with respect to this kind of body of evidence? I might observe, if I might, Ms Brownhill, that it does seem a little surprising that there was no application, for example, by the Northern Territory Government to challenge any of Mr De Souza’s evidence. I take it we can accept it?

MS BROWNHILL: Not necessarily at all, Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I use that as an illustration that these things - - -

MS BROWNHILL: I understand.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: - - - are just occurring with respect to the vulnerable witnesses who represent a particular challenge for the Commission, but not with respect to witnesses like Mr De Souza?

MS BROWNHILL: Well, in relation to witnesses like Mr De Souza, and I did touch on this when I made a similar submission in more general terms last week, but in relation to witnesses like Mr De Souza, he has expressed certain views and opinions and observations about things. There are other witnesses who will come, and who are on the timetable to come, who will express different views and observations and their perceptions of systemic and other issues. We do not see there to be great utility in tackling Mr De Souza about his perceptions when there are others who express some different, some similar perceptions. The resolution of the various perceptions will be a matter for the Commission, ultimately.

We don’t – it doesn’t necessarily follow that, because we don’t take a particular witness on in relation to, for example, the underlying bases for their generalised observations, that we accept that they are factually accurate. They are certainly the


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

perceptions of the witness. We don’t see anything to be gained by taking issue with that, so don’t read anything into that, as I submitted last week.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. Thanks, Mr McAvoy.

MR McAVOY: The observation that can be made from that response is fairly clear, Commissioner: that it seems very difficult to make a distinction between the approach taken with respect to Mr De Souza as opposed to the approach that should be taken with the vulnerable witnesses if that’s how the Solicitor for the Northern Territory intends to proceed. If I just might answer this suggestion that the documents are able to speak for themselves, Commissioner. The – there are incident reports that have been tendered in this proceedings already that have been completed days, sometimes a week, after the event. There are incident reports that have been changed after the event. There are documents which are internally inconsistent within the Northern Territory’s own documents. And there is an assumption in the Solicitor’s earlier submission that the documents should be taken at face value.

Yesterday Mr Crowley, on behalf of witness BH, made some submissions as to the problems for him and his client in being able to deal with those assertions, and the question as to any weight that should be given to those documents. I understand, from Mr Crowley’s submission, that he’s prepared to deal with that on the basis of submissions as to weight at a later juncture. But there are a whole variety of problems with just simply relying upon the document and where the Solicitor for the Northern Territory is seemingly content to put on statements in response to people like Mr De Souza, and is seemingly not prepared to put on statements with respect to the vulnerable witnesses - - -

HIS HONOUR: Well, there are statements from people like, for example, Mr Hansen and Mr Tasker, which do just that.

MR McAVOY: From some, and they have been responded to, Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes, I understand that. I’m just saying it’s not uniform.

MR McAVOY: I accept that. The objection to the tender of the tender bundle in this case is that – is on the basis that it’s late. If the tender bundle in relation to other witnesses is tendered in a reasonable time and I and counsel for witnesses is able to deal with it in a suitable manner, well, we can do that. It may be the case that the Solicitor for the Northern Territory seeks to tender it at a later stage, after we’ve had some time to consider it, but the time frame in which we’ve got to deal with it now, it’s my submission that it can’t be tendered at this point for AS.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. Perhaps – there’s nothing more, is there, about these exhibits? Really, we’re focussed on entirely on AS, but we are dealing with an issue of principle as well.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR McAVOY: That’s correct.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: So we need to close the court now to deal with the further AS matter, I think.

MR McAVOY: Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: While that’s happening Commissioner Gooda and I will confer about the principle. We won’t make any decision until we hear the whole of the argument.

MR McAVOY: Thank you, Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Could we just adjourn for 10 minutes, thank you. However long it takes to close the court.

ADJOURNED [1.28 pm]

CLOSED SESSION ENSUED

[REDACTED INFORMATION]

PUBLIC SESSION RESUMED

RESUMED [3.32 pm]

MR MORRISSEY: Commissioners, could I just withdraw something I said before the break. I said there were only two people remaining who had questions. In fact, there are five relatively short sets of questioning for Mr De Souza. I’ll stop talking, but I’m afraid I did mislead you there. What it means is it’s a bit unlikely we would reach Mr Ferguson today.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes, I can see that.

MR MORRISSEY: We can review the situation, but efforts have already commenced to make sure that tomorrow runs smoothly. May I just foreshadow that we’re likely to ask, respectfully if we can, for a 9.30 start. I know that becomes oppressive.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: It has now become the way of life. So yes, certainly, Mr Morrissey.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR MORRISSEY: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: And I did – I have the list of people who wanted to cross-examine but I thought you might have had later information than I had, so we didn’t join issue. It doesn’t matter anyway.

MR MORRISSEY: I think the ordering has meant that there will be some time saved, but it will be lost if I keep talking. Mr Lawrence is next.

HER HONOUR: Alright. And, again, sorry to not keep our timetable with you, Mr De Souza. Thank you. Mr Lawrence.

<LEONARD JOSEPH MURRAY DE SOUZA, ON FORMER OATH [3.33 pm]

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAWRENCE

MR LAWRENCE: Thank you, Madam Commissioner.

Mr De Souza, my name’s Lawrence, L-a-w-r-e-n-c-e, I’m counsel for the juvenile detainee known as AD. There’s a piece of paper in front of you if you just open it up please?---Yes .....

That will reveal his identity?---Yes.

Have you read that?---Yes, I have. Thank you.

Do you recognise it?---Yes.

Do you remember that detainee?---Yes, clearly.

Did you ever have any issue was him?---None that I can recall.

He was in the BMU in 2014. You were working in 2014 at Don Dale?---In the early parts, I do recall being – working alongside ......

Okay. The BMU, of course, used to be called the back cells?---Yes.

And in the old days, when it was the back cells, it was strictly used for detainees that had got out of control and were behaving particularly violent; that’s correct, isn’t it?---Correct.

And when they were put in those cells there were strict recording mechanisms in place to be fulfilled?---Yeah. Obviously, yes, in – obviously to reflect what the Youth Justice Act said, yeah.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.3.17 P-1677 L.J.M.D. SOUZA XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MR LAWRENCE

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

There was a register?---A register, yes.

Recording the name and the amount of time that the kid was kept in that - - -?---Absolutely, and for the reasons – if there was any force being used, then obviously restraint device was being used as well.

And back then those cells were not used for managing behaviour?---No.

Now, in August 2014, you were aware that there was six children kept in the BMU?---I couldn’t tell and recall that it was actually six. I mean - - -

Alright. Well AD was kept in the BMU. Are you - - -?--- .....

Can you remember that?---Possibly.

Alright. And Dylan Voller was kept in the BMU?---Yes.

And you can take it from me that there was four others that were kept in the BMU?---Okay.

Over a period of days?---Yes.

Alright. Now, AD was kept initially in cell 1 for about five days and then he was moved into cell 3. Are you familiar with both those cells?---Yes, I’m familiar with those cells, yes.

And the first, in cell 1 he was on his own and when he was in cell 3, he was also on his own; okay?---Mmm.

And he was kept in that cell, which had the – all it had was a toilet bowl?---Mmm.

And a concrete area for a mattress to lie on?---That’s – that would be correct.

There was no facility for him, he instructs me, to wash his hands in that cell?---Yes, from memory I think so. That would be correct.

And he’s instructed me that when he went to the toilet, whether it be to urinate or to defecate, after that he was unable to wash his hands. You’d accept that would be the conditions that he would be in?---Yes.

Because he was kept in there for 23 out of 24 hours each day?---Yes.

And when he was in there, unable to wash his hands, he was fed food, three meals a day. That was the conditions then, wasn’t it?---Yes.

And the meals were put in through the Judas hatch?---Yes. That would be the case, yes, we had Judas hatches at the time, so he’d possibly be managed through like that.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

They weren’t allowed out to eat their meals, they weren’t taken to a dining area or even to the courtyard that was adjacent. He ate his meals, every one of them, in that cell?---Yes.

That was the conditions he was under?---Alright.

And before he ate the sandwiches he had for lunch he was unable to wash his hands because there was no facility in that cell. You’d agree with that?---Yes, there was definitely no facilities in some of those – or most of those cell areas anyway, because they’d either been damaged or there just weren’t one.

And there’s no air conditioning in that cell?---Definitely not.

There’s no air conditioning in that unit?---No, definitely not.

And there’s no fan in that cell?---Not in the cell itself but just a fan, I believe, in that external area which they used to bring a table fan just to get the air circulating.

Alright. Now, AD instructs me that every day he was in there, he asked of every guard he had the chance, “When am I getting out?” Can you remember him asking you that?---To be honest I don’t recall him asking me anything like that, no.

He also instructs me that he asked for his management plan. Can you remember him asking you that?---No.

Because there should have been a management plan for him, shouldn’t there?---Absolutely. Every detainee put in a cell placement, as I would coin it, because that’s what it was, even though they said it was a Behavioural Management Unit, should have been given a management plan.

And have you seen a management plan for AD during that period of August when he was kept in the BMU?---I don’t believe I did.

And Mr De Souza, he was kept under those conditions for 17 days on a trot. Are you aware of that?---No. I’m not aware of that, no.

Now, that kind of incarceration back in 2007 and ‘8 that you’ve described when they were called the back cells would have been literally impossible, wouldn’t it?---Absolutely. I mean, I’ve previously mentioned earlier on today that those back cells are for, in terms of the Act, how it should be used and that’s for strict violence and – and as soon as that is finished, no more than a 72 hour placement – even to get to a 72 hour placement you’d have to have the executive director or the Commissioner to sign off on it.

And that kind of thing never happened back then?---Absolutely never.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And this is a symptom of the deterioration to which your evidence this morning has been going to really, isn’t it?---Yep.

And AD instructs me that not only did he ask for his management plan from Youth Justice Officers and not only did he ask when he was getting out, but he also told them that they were treating him like a dog. Did he tell you that?---Quite a few detainees would say, “You’re treating me like a dog,” but it’s been a long time to recall that he actually did say that to me particularly. He may have said it to others officers as well.

Knowing the conditions that AD was suffering under during that period, when he said “You’re treating me like a dog,” Mr De Souza, do you think he was overstating the case?---Absolutely not. And in the case that he’s been past a 72 hour placement, there must be good reason and – if any, because the Act wouldn’t allow it anyway, so why should he be kept in a – according to what you just said, for more than 17 days in confinement.

I want to ask you now about – a question – I’ve spoken to my learned friend about this, Commissioners, as to what I’m going to ask now, and he’s content with it. It shouldn’t take long. I want to ask you now, Mr De Souza, about the section or a couple of sections. There’s a minimum security section at Don Dale. This is back in 2014?---Mmm.

There’s a minimum section – minimum security section; correct?---Correct.

And there’s a maximum security section; correct?---Correct.

And they’re different?---Yes.

Are they different buildings?---Yes, they are.

Right. And they’re different buildings to what we’re talking about here in the BMU, which is H block?---Yes. H block.

Right?---H block is part of the maximum security area.

Is it?---Yeah.

Right. Well, I want to talk to you about the maximum security area which is not part of either the courtyard or the five cells which are in the BMU; that’s correct, isn’t it?---True.

There are a number of cells which are called maximum security cells?---Yes. We don’t call them cells, but we call them rooms, yeah, in H block .....

Rooms, sorry?---Yeah.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Right. A number of rooms called maximum security and the label maximum security is really more related to the privileges or otherwise that the detainees there enjoy or don’t?---Yes. Their classification would reflect that, why they are there in the maximum security area.

Right. Now, I want to ask you about the security of those rooms. Okay?---Yes.

They are – the detainees that stay in those rooms, they are locked in every night by Youth Justice Officers?---Yes. Once they have finished their chores, they finish their routine for the night, whatever time they’ve had out, they’ll be locked in their rooms.

Right. And can we just talk about the doors and the locks. It’s a lock obviously with a key that the youth officer works?---That’s right. So the key that the youth officer is carrying would lock those doors.

Right. And those doors are solid?---To my knowledge, yes, they are, solid, similar to a cyclone door, yes.

Well, we in Darwin are all familiar with that?---Yeah.

But that’s particularly strong - - -?---Absolutely.

- - - wooden doors?---You should take a category 3 cyclone to break that.

Right. A door that a child would be incapable of kicking in, in your opinion?---I don’t believe to my knowledge – and being there, a lot of detainees have made attempts to kick a door down, and all through my time being there, no one has actually physically broken a door. They’ve come close, in the sense they’ve damaged the locks, but it actually hasn’t been kicked ......

Right. And would you agree with this: that if that door is locked by a youth officer with the key - - -?---Yes.

- - - the kid inside can’t unlock it?---No. Unless there’s some damage to the lock, or there’s something being put in between the tongue that’s going into its recess, otherwise if it’s locked properly it can’t be opened.

Right. Now, there’s windows in those rooms?---The windows in 2014 were a Perspex with bars on the other side.

So Perspex and bars?---Bars, yes, fully sealed.

That’s all I have to ask. Thanks very much.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thanks, Mr Lawrence. Ms Graham.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS GRAHAM [3.45 pm]

MS GRAHAM: Mr De Souza, I appear for the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service. You’ve given a lot of evidence about there not being enough staff to run the facilities, not being enough staff for staff to work on single shifts, not being enough staff for staff to be able to take appropriate breaks when they’re on shift, and one of the consequences of that being increased use of lockdowns of a facility?---Yes.

And the increase in the lockdowns of the facilities is not only in the frequency of the use of lockdowns, but also in their duration?---Correct.

Do you agree with that?---Yes.

And so some of the young former detainees that the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service acts for indicate that lockdowns occurred for many hours during the day and were more frequent and longer when the facility was short on staff. That accords with your experience?---Yes, correct.

And does it also accord with your experience that staff might lock down the facility so that they could have a break and go for a smoke, something like that?---Look, most of the staff there and as well-meaning as they were, needed also a break and there was times when, yes, we did lock – for a small period, the staff would also have a break as well. And when it was possible, the staff would – no more than a 30 minute break, and that was just a normal lunchbreak or an evening meal break that they would take.

An important part of being a - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Can I just ask a question to follow on from that.

MS GRAHAM: Of course, Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I take it, however Mr De Souza, that if there were adequate staffing levels it would not be necessary to do this?---Definite - - -

They could take their midmorning break and another officer could hold the fort, as it were?---Definitely so, and it did change to a degree when that practice didn’t occur, and they started to manage it a little bit better, but the question posed to me is correct.

Yes?---So there was a point where we were locking detainees down and taking breaks.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Thank you. Thanks, Ms Graham.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.3.17 P-1682 L.J.M.D. SOUZA XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MS GRAHAM

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MS GRAHAM: An important aspect of being an effective Youth Justice Officer is being able to understand a child’s experiences and put yourself in their shoes, so to speak?---Correct.

In terms of these lockdowns, would you agree that from the children’s perspective there was no routine to the lockdowns?---Correct. Because the – the operational requirements, depending on how many we had in court dictated how many officers were going out. Consequently, even in my statement I’ve said this – and the management of females and male detainees in the maximum security area compounded things, and so it was very, very hard to manage these detainees. No fault of their own, but it’s just an operational issue which, you know, subsequently caused those issues with us, given that there was no time for those detainees to go and have some rec time out and actually, just enjoy being young people going to have a play and kick around a football and stuff like that.

And so, from the children’s perspective, these lockdowns were happening in an unpredictable way; is that fair to say?---Correct, yeah, because they wouldn’t be able to predict what was going to happen operationally.

And that’s very confusing for a child, isn’t it?---Yes, because there’s no routine and structure, so - - -

And routine, and structure, and consistency, they’re all important when dealing with children; is that fair to say?---Absolutely. I mean, everyone knows in regards to training –and my part in training is to ensure there’s routine and structure in what you say and do in carrying those things out. So if you say you’re going to open up the door and give them a 20 minute break or an hour break and for whatever reason you can’t deliver then you break the confidence of the child and subsequently they won’t trust you and things get out of hand after that.

Now, just focusing again on a child’s perspective, whether they are on a cell placement or whether they are put in isolation in their own personal cell, or whether they’re on a lockdown where they’re locked into their own personal cell or some other cell, it’s the same effect for the child, isn’t it: that they’re locked in a small space, concrete walls, with a secure door for some extended period of time. Do you agree with that?---I agree with that. Having said that though – but the cell placement, you know, was more – harder for a young child and so yeah, so I mean a child being locked in a room and locked in a cell, they’re all locked in, in confined spaces, I agree with that. But the cell placement is definitely more – harder on a child, because there’s no fans, certainly no TV being delivered to them, most of them have a concrete bed. They don’t really have the facilities that they probably have in their room, access to some paper, some drawing material or reading material, so yeah.

So the effect of what you’re saying is that the cell placement without all of those things is a more punitive - - -?---Absolutely.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

- - - experience for a child?---Absolutely.

Can you see how a lockdown is also a punitive experience for a child?---Yes. The lockdown wasn’t something that was at the time deemed to be punitive or wasn’t – we weren’t doing it at the time – I know the shift supervisor and the seniors in their defence, it wasn’t their fault in any way that they locked the kids down to do any sort of punitive action. It was subsequently of poor management and the issues that we had with operations at the time. You know, it was just consequences of not having staff and for security reasons we had to lock them down.

Do you agree that from the child’s perspective it’s confusing that they might endure similar conditions - - -?---Absolutely, I agree – I do - - -

- - - of being locked down on a cell placement?---I agree with you with that, but from a child’s perspective, of course, being locked and confined to a room for any length of time is – is hard.

And it’s the kind of thing that can compound the trauma and mental health problems that you’ve talked about earlier in your evidence?---Yeah, look, once again I’m not a mental health expert in that field, you need a psychiatrist to diagnose. But, having said that, my experience is that a child’s condition and how they would behave and how they would react to someone being locked in and then given some freedom would be obviously, you know, two different things on a coin.

You talked in your evidence about not only there being a lack of staff, but also a change in priorities from management in terms of programs not being offered to children after a certain point in time. Is it your – does it accord with your evidence that a child might perceive that the Youth Justice Officers were just really playing a security role and they’re standing and watching them rather than talking with them or engaging with them in any active way?---Well, I believe so. I mean, as much as we’re told – and as much as I’ve told to – the officers I train is to engage appropriately, positively, and be a good role model. If there was nothing there for them to do apart from kick the footy, then there was – yeah, from a child’s perspective it was very much a security role.

You answered some questions when Dr Dwyer was asking you about an email that you sent listing a number of aspects of misconduct by staff that you’d observed and that you raised with management?---Yes.

Those concerns that you had applied not only to Darwin but also to the facilities in Alice Springs?---Yes – yes, definitely.

And your concerns were ones that you held over many years; that’s right, isn’t it?---Yes. After 2012 it was more apparent anyway from my perspective as a trainer and working in that role since 2007, you know, what we had then and what we have now, I mean, staff’s integrity was waning so, you know, just the behaviour of staff and I made that – made it very clear to management that had come through that


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

centre a number of times in person and then through my management in training and also, I mean, I’ve had plenty of discussions with my own colleagues in training as well, the things that were happening in youth detention. And then also, subsequently, you’d see that email being put through to the director.

One of the reasons why these problems were ongoing for many years was because, in your words, some of the biggest offenders were, and continue to be, seniors and shift supervisors who should be setting better example for junior staff?---I agree.

And so a culture of disrespect to children, a punitive culture, a culture of misconduct by staff, was perpetuated and promoted by the senior staff and management in the centres?---Look, in all fairness to – it wasn’t a whole lot of seniors. It was probably one or two who acted in the position that abused their – their position. And there’s also a small group of staff that also, you know, that carried out their – themselves in a manner that wasn’t in accordance with the – with the code of conduct, working in a correctional environment and certainly was really a poor example, a bad example to junior staff, other staff coming on shift as well, especially new staff that were being trained by myself.

And to the extent that senior staff and management were engaging in this kind of misconduct themselves, that perpetuated a culture - - -?—Correct.

- - - within the centres?---Yeah. If you’re requiring someone to change, I mean, you have to start with your senior management.

I just have a couple of other questions on two discrete topics. You talked a little bit about the admissions process?---Yes.

And you’ve talked a little bit about language issues, speaking with children who might have English as their third or fourth language?---Correct.

Do you see some benefit in other visual aids being used in that admissions process for children in that category where they have English as a third or fourth language?---Absolutely, and I can say this because I was in an acting role where community corrections also, a sort of training officer’s role in 2016, and – and I know the Community Corrections Model that they’ve had some visual aids for people who have issues with language, and so there was a number of – it’s a small board and there’s also a large board that they can press and they’ll go through a number of languages which actually tells the person that’s being – come through in ..... admission process who we are, what are the roles and the responsibilities they are requiring to do and also what are the expectation of the young person. So I think yes. In a short answer, yes.

And given that the rules and rights and responsibilities are a routine - - -?---Yes.

- - - thing that’s gone through in admissions, you could create a video in various different languages - - -?---Correct.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

- - - for example, to play to children at admission so that they can hear it in their own language?---I agree. Yes.

Final topic. You’ve mentioned engaging in electronics programs, carpentry programs, gardening programs, metalwork programs with the children?---Yeah.

All of those programs, did you find that the children engaged well with the programs?---I – look, I’m not saying you know, pat on my back, but honestly the kids really absorbed those programs really well. They were – especially the electronics programs, where we made little kits like radios, little toys and stuff, they – they were really absorbed into it.

Now, with these programs there must have been tools that you needed to use, including potentially quite dangerous tools from time to time?---When you say a dangerous tool, I mean a soldering iron could be dangerous, I mean, for tattooing or self-harm but it was managed well with my myself, I had a second officer also for – to observe and ensure but I think a child that has engaged properly doesn’t want to disrupt the program.

And so did you find that by treating the children with respect and engaging with them in positive programs - - -?---Yes.

- - - that they could be trusted, even around dangerous tools?---I took a number of detainees ..... sex offenders and also extremely violent people into the tool shed where we used saws, hammers. I mean, I could have been assaulted a number of times, but I’m here.

You never had any problems?---Never had any problems.

Thank you, Commissioners.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you, Ms Graham.

MR MORRISSEY: There are two to go. I realise it’s nearly 4 o’clock, Commissioners ..... I know it’s a habit, but - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: It’s become habitual, Mr Morrissey. We will hear this out.

MR MORRISSEY: Perhaps Mr Ferguson could be released for today and we’ll advise.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Certainly. Will we do him at – start him at 9.30 tomorrow? MR MORRISSEY: That’s the hope. Those who others arrange – others are doing that, and the expectation and hope is that we would so.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: 9.30 tomorrow. Thanks, Mr Morrissey. Mr O’Connell.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR O’CONNELL [3.59 pm]

MR O’CONNELL: Thank you, Commissioners.

My name is O’Connell, I sent a former detainee by the pseudonym of AN. I understand you have a piece of paper?---Yes, I have. Thank you.

And you know who that person is?---Yes, I do.

If we could please get, technical people, document 32 in the supplementary tender bundle on the screen. Mr De Souza, you had an opportunity to read this document outside the court?---Yes, I have.

Did you want an opportunity to quickly read it again?---No. It’s okay. You can ask me relevant questions.

The document is an incident report in relation to an incident involving my client AN on [REDACTED INFORMATION]?---Yes.

And during the course of that incident, my client was marked at-risk?---Yes.

Do you have a view as to whether, in the circumstances outlined in that incident report, she should have been marked at risk?---Initially the – the reasons for placing AN at-risk was – there was actually no reason, because her behaviour was just non-compliance and the issue – I think that the officers knew that she wanted to speak to Mr Voller at the time, she had some sort of relationship with that young person, and putting the person at-risk because of previous episodes wasn’t, in my professional opinion – and if I was running the shift and we’ve done it a number of times, that placing someone at-risk was for strict reasons to warrant why a person would be placed at-risk, you know. So, for example, if you see someone self-harm or – or actually attempt to suicide.

So the short answer, Mr De Souza, is that in this particular incident there was no reason at all to place her on risk?---No.

At-risk. And you also mentioned there were previous episodes. If a young person is, or has previous episodes of being marked at-risk, should that affect the decision to place a person at risk?---No. We would have to be a bit more vigilant and responsible in regards to observation practices whether – either through video footage or CCTV footage or actually having a person in the presence of a young person, but not to actually warrant to put a child at-risk. Because every risk episode is quite traumatic

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.3.17 P-1687 L.J.M.D. SOUZA XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MR O’CONNELL

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

for the person being at-risk through their – their change of their gowns and going from what is normal for them.

So it was to be avoided if at all possible?---Absolutely, yes.

And what training was there in relation to Youth Justice Officers making the decision to place someone at-risk?---The only training that I believe I delivered at the time for putting a person at-risk was the – the things I’ve just mentioned previously: if you see a person at risk, if they say they’re going to self-harm or an actual suicide, you know – where they’re attempting, sorry, to commit.

And that was the extent of the training?---The extent of the training, yes.

Was there ever any input into that area of the training from mental health services, did they ever attend and off any training?---Later on we did with – we organised to have forensic mental health to come and do some training but I was – through that interim period of – from two thousand – early 2015 where I actually left, and so I’m not sure whether these officers actually got any training, but I know I had made a number of phone calls to the forensic mental health nurse that we have in the prison for them to come from and talk to the staff about it.

But do you know if they did?---I’m not sure if they did or not.

And my particular client, AN, you knew her, you had dealings with her?---I had plenty of dealings with her, yes.

Was being marked at-risk a potential trigger for her to then act out?---Yes, definitely. I mean, for her to go at-risk there obviously has to be something that she said or did and being in the cell, not going to a room is no reason or warrant to put someone at risk, and actually subsequently from the statement given by the officer, she became an at-risk person because she started to bang her head onto the – on the cell doors, or cell windows.

She became at-risk after she’d been marked at-risk?---At-risk, yes and that’s - - -

Because she didn’t like being placed on risk?---No. She’s been through a lot, this particular person – this is AN, and my experience she’s had a lot of mental health issues. Forensic mental health has come and seen her a number of times where she’s attempted to suicide.

Now, your knowledge that being placed at-risk was a trigger for her?---Yes ......

Was that something – if I can just ask you this in general terms, if you had particular knowledge about a youth detainee like that, as a guard, is that something you would then discuss with other Youth Justice Officers?---Of course. I mean, the most experienced person would give the relevant information and the senior at the time should have known what to do. I’m not sure – but having said that, I believe from


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

reading her – the transcript of this incident, that the SS that was acting in this role once again, like I said before in my statement earlier on today, was just new, had very little experience in the job. Has just come out of training himself, and so – but I believe the call was also from the AGM to put that person at-risk, but shouldn’t have been.

And the at-risk procedure manual is what governs the at-risk procedure?---Correct.

And this manual was adapted from a manual that was developed in relation to adults?---I believe so, yes. I don’t think it was really adapted itself. There was not many changes to the actual procedures because that at-risk manual was from adult custodial.

Well, that was my next question. So there was never – you took the at-risk procedure manual relating to adults and used it?---And used it across the board for youth as well.

So there was never any attempt to modify it for youth?---Not to my knowledge. Possibly later on they may have been some changes but, through my working time, working at Don Dale, there was no real changes in it.

And that manual says that all clothing is to be removed and the detainee placed in at risk clothing?---Correct. Obviously, common sense must prevail when clothing needs to be removed which is absolutely necessary, otherwise it doesn’t need to be.

So would you, even though it said that in the manual, it says clothing is to be removed, you would still treat it on a case-by-case basis?---Yes. I can give you an example. I’ve been through many at-risk, as working as a Youth Justice Officer, and I was in the situation where a young female person, detainee, was placing herself at-risk and I was doing an inspection that evening with a shift supervisor. She was junior to me, but obviously she had the role or was acting in that role, and I did a routine check and this particular person had tied the bed sheet onto the door and put it through the – the frame of a – of a bed, and stood in the corner. So actually, because the doors had to be opened out like that, then we’d actually be causing her, you know, to choke really, and it was a very traumatic effect anyway. So what I’m trying to say to you, I went in there with the officer after I managed to get the hand through and pull away that sheet and use a Hoffman tool to cut away the bed sheets. But we allowed that detainee at the time to be put in the HD unit with her clothes on and then, having said that, she then made a second attempt to commit suicide and then female staff went in there to – to remove her clothing, but there was a chance given for the child to have some dignity and not remove clothing straight off.

And was all her clothing removed?---No.

So she was left in her undergarments?---Yes. She was given the opportunity and she did comply.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

So there’s still that, as far as actual operation in matters that you were involved in, there was flexibility?---Yeah. And common sense, because the shift supervisor at the time used a bit of common sense and we afforded this person also the opportunity to comply with instructions, and consequently she did.

Now, can I please get exhibit number 064.041 on the screen.

MR MORRISSEY: While that’s being done, could I tender supplementary tender bundle exhibit 32.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes, certainly, Mr Morrissey. 120 – no, it’s 122. Alright. Thank you.

EXHIBIT #122 SUPPLEMENTARY TENDER BUNDLE

MR O’CONNELL: Thank you, Commissioner.

Mr De Souza, the document on screen is a memorandum from 23 April 2009?---Mmm.

From the general manager at the time?---Yep.

And it notes in the second to last paragraph that:

A new section, subsection (5), is to be inserted in the policy and procedures manual.

?---Mmm.

And I’ll just read the last part of that. It says:

Only where a detainee fails to comply with this instruction, having been given an appropriate opportunity to do so, should use of force be utilised to remove the outer clothing, leaving the detainee in the security cell in their undergarments only.

?---Mmm.

Now, you would agree that that’s contradictory to what was in the at-risk procedure manual?---Yes.

But it would seem that as at 2009 someone, at least, had some concerns about the appropriateness of removing clothing from children?---Look, from my memory and from what happened, how this document came about was that there was an issue and investigation from another female detainee who made a – a complaint to Northern


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Territory Police, and there was an investigation conducted, and that particular officer – who actually did, according to the manual, remove clothing, followed procedures. But – and this document then came about, but it was never reflected in the – in the at-risk manual.

And in as late as 2015, in the Alice Springs – it’s the ASJHC policy and procedure manual?---Yes.

It states that:

All clothing apart from underwear will be removed. However, if a female is placed in the at risk observation room minimum clothes are permitted to be worn.

Again, it would seem – well, in Alice Springs that someone had some concerns about the appropriateness of removing clothing from children?---Correct, but I’m not sure why that – that policy or the procedures wasn’t reflected in the entirety of youth detention and ..... be amended appropriately.

Are you – as far as you’re aware, were any efforts made to amend the at-risk manual in relation to the forced removal of clothing of children?---No, there was – in training, there was some conversations going in regards to updating the at-risk manual for adults and consequently from there they would also update the – or make a second manual for youth justice as well, but I don’t believe that was done.

Now, you would agree that the at-risk manual is silent as to what procedure is to be followed if a youth is noncompliant in relation to changing clothes?---Yes.

And would you agree that it’s silent in relation to whether a forced removal of clothing should be undertaken?---Yes. According to the at risk manual all clothing should be removed.

Yes. But it’s silent as to whether that should be done forcibly?---It doesn’t – it doesn’t actually use the word “force” but ..... someone actually resisting, their clothing would be removed and force would be applied.

Okay. And it’s silent in relation to the use of the Hoffman knife in order to achieve the removing of the clothing?---I believe so, from memory.

As far as you were aware, has there ever been any training delivered as to what Youth Justice Officers should do when faced with a situation where the person has been asked to remove their clothing and they’re noncompliant?---So my training in regards to at risk procedures for a code blue, it was an actual suicide where someone was actually found ..... like I just mentioned in my example, someone who’s suiciding using a bed sheet or whatever apparel that they had with them, using their own clothes or whatever, and then that Hoffman knife would be used to actually stop them from asphyxiating.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Yes, but was there any training?---No.

In relation to the removal of clothing with the Hoffman knife?---No.

And was there any training at all in relation to what to do if a young person was noncompliant with changing of their clothes?---Not to my knowledge, no.

And you would agree that the forced removal of clothing from a child would be a – would likely be a highly traumatic event for that child?---I agree.

And that there are a number of less traumatic options that could be explored before that?---Correct. And from the example I just gave you, I mean, if I was running an operation or a shift and the real life situation that I’ve put through, that we were giving the correct option, I believe anyway, to a child to – before that child be – the time and ..... to do the – the change of clothes by themselves without forced removal.

In the Children’s Commissioner’s report in detention in 2016 they note that:

The practice of forced removal of clothing with the Hoffman knife was prevalent.

And they state, or the Commissioner states:

One concerning aspect of this practice is the failure to consider other options available. There appears to be little by way of deescalation and negotiation, and an almost frantic approach is taken to the need for the removal of the clothes.

?---I mean - - -

Would you agree that that assessment of what was going on could readily apply to the particular incident that I showed you in relation to AN?---I agree. I mean, my – my actual training role ceased in 2014, so 2015 and whole of 2016 there was subsequently someone acting in my role, because in 2015 I went into another role in adult custodial as a trainer for prisoners as well.

And do you think, having read that incident report, that that decision to remove her clothing should not have been made?---Just – it was a bad start to put someone at-risk for no reason like that.

Yes?---Just because on previous occasions this particular person - - -

But once she was in the room, would you agree with the decision to then remove her clothing, all of her clothing?---No. I would have afforded her the opportunity to do it herself. I mean, I gave you an example again and I would still use that same, and particularly there were so many instances ..... which was – I don’t think there was any reasons for that to happen.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

There was six officers, and four of them were men. Do you have any comment about - - -?---So, yes, look, reflecting just our practices, doing searches on a female would be a female officer. I’m not talking about physical searches, just some searches that we did. And definitely there will be no male officers present in that area.

Now, just two brief topics to finish off. The – you never trained anyone in a one person escort; is that correct?---No. We had shown them what a one person escort hold is, but the – the delivery from – from myself in regards to training, an escort was always with two people.

And the one person escort that you say you showed them, did that involve grabbing by the – the back and middle of the shorts?---That’s technically a restrain. It’s not actually an escort hold, and I’ve talked about this earlier on as well. So it’s actually a restraint using the arms and walking someone through. The reason that they – they grabbed the shorts was to get a better grasp of the person, because you can’t physically grab onto their flesh, the actual skin.

Have you personally seen Youth Justice Officers misuse that particular technique?---In a heated moment, yes, they have.

And misuse it to the point where they have pulled the shorts sharply up – for want of a better term, Commissioners – the bum crack of the youth, to the point that it would obviously cause significant discomfort?---I’m not really defending these people if I say this, but I think it’s - - -

Well, just if you could answer the question first - - -

MR MORRISSEY: Well, hang on a moment, that’s not appropriate to interrupt like that. He is answering the question. I submit he should be allowed to finish it.

THE WITNESS: So - - -

HER HONOUR: I suspect Mr De Souza will come to answer your question if you allow him to do it in his own way.

MR O’CONNELL: Yes. Thank you, Commissioner.

THE WITNESS: So the particular youth would be escorted by two people, not one and it’s just to get control and it’s on the hands weaved in between the elbow and holding the shorts and escorted through or restrained.

Okay, but the question was: you said that you’d seen some people misuse that, Youth Justice Officers misuse it?---In the heat of the moment they’ve obviously exaggerated the escort holds, as you like to put it.

In the manner that I’ve described?---Yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

To cause – what would obviously cause - - -?---Some discomfort to the person.

And was that commonly known in the centre as a wedgie?---Yes. And not in training, but obviously staff have obviously coined it themselves and called it whatever they want.

And did you see more than one Youth Justice Officer misuse that technique, such that it was a wedgie?---Yes, I have. And earlier on ..... before I became training officer it was used.

And one final question, Mr De Souza, is – and this relates to one of my other clients, AD, who Mr Lawrence asked you questions about - - -?---Yes.

Just one question in relation to that, were you there on the night that AD got out of the BMU?---No.

Thank you for your time, Mr De Souza. Those are my questions.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Ms Lee.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LEE [4.22 pm]

MS LEE: Sir, I represent three young people who are former detainees at the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre, AA, AB, and AC. You gave evidence that in 2012 there was a change in name and the use of the back cells?---Yes.

Was there any change in the Standard Operating Procedures for the new BMU?---Well, there was a lack of – of procedures for the BMU, because the – the current procedures that we had at the time all reflected what was the back cells. So they rephrased it and recoined it as the Behavioural Management Unit and subsequently, as I said earlier, they – you know, used it as they saw fit, because it was outside what they thought was the Youth Justice Act for a cell placement.

But no changes to any Standard Operating Procedures or manuals?---No.

Now, you also gave evidence about the emergency procedure manual that you put together?---Correct.

And that you made it in line with the one used at the adult detention facility?---It was only the codes that was very strictly in line with them for operational reasons and for emergency.

I’d like to ask you about the code amber?---Yes. Staff need assistance.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.3.17 P-1694 L.J.M.D. SOUZA XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MS LEE

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

The first step with respect to when a code amber is called is for another Youth Justice Officer to come in and deescalate?---Well, yeah. So we wouldn’t engage, if there was a serious incident, unless there was a detainee that was assaulting. Where we could possibly wait and ask for assistance, we wouldn’t engage unless the second officer was there, and 99 per cent of the time there will be a second officer within less than 30 seconds, anyway.

But the first point was to try and talk to the detainee?---Yes. Obviously, yes.

To settle them?---Yes, and engage them in a way that – so we can deescalate, find out if there was a trigger, what was the trigger that got them to the stage where they were becoming in a position where they, you know – you know, things could get out of hand and there’s an escalation in their behaviour.

And to have those kind of discussions with a young person requires a particular skill or training?---Yes.

And you would have serious doubts about somebody who had not even completed the PART training to be able to engage in that type of discussion?---Yes, minimum it would be PART training and quite a bit of time also within the youth justice space, within detention to get some relevant experience in how to apply those training methodology – how to deliver it.

So in paragraph 56 of your statement you talk about the prone position. You describe what that is in paragraph 53?---Yes.

But in paragraph 56 you say that, “This should not be used on someone who has suffered trauma.” Can you briefly tell us why?---Well, as much as we could, we would avoid traumatising or any young person who has been through a traumatic experience, possibly through, you know – I mean, we don’t have case files and history of a person when we go to restrain them and say, “This is what we’re going to do.” But in my training what I delivered was to make sure that it is short, very concise and then – and not obviously keep them in any length of time in the prone position, which is the tummy down into – into the ground that they were in, whether it’s carpet or concrete or ground or whatever.

So short. 15 minutes in your opinion would be - - -?---Way too long.

Thank you?--- ..... to me it’s less than – possibly a minute or two, if that.

Now, sir, you said that Youth Justice Officers don’t have access to case files and that type of thing to inform themselves about the background of a particular detainee. How - - -?---Yes, sorry, they actually do, but what I’m saying in regards to restraining someone, they don’t have it in front of them to say, “This is the options we have.” This is an emergency situation and accordingly the reaction, according to the emergency, is how the officers are going to react. I mean, coupled with their


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

training they should all know that after they’re put in a prone position they come up onto their knees and then move them into, if they require, a cell placement.

Sir, you also spoke about poor performance of senior staff?---Yes.

And in particular you were asked, and this appears at transcript page 1653, you said:

I pulled Mr Walton up about play fighting and other things as well.

What other things?---Just – just a verbal ..... derogatory remarks towards youth.

You also spoke about seeing Mr Sizeland conduct a – you described it in your statement as a “takedown”. That’s at paragraph 95. You then described it in your evidence as a cell extraction. Can you explain to us what that is?---Okay. I was very brief ..... in that corridor when they were doing the restraints or practicing their cell extractions. It definitely wasn’t from my training or my – what I’ve – even the manual that I put together later on for youth justice and ..... services, or we couldn’t say a DTs manual, or ..... manual. He was doing his own thing from his knowledge from the prison environment.

And you were concerned because it wasn’t in - - -?---It wasn’t in line with any training. It wasn’t signed off or authorised by myself or – or definitely he had no reason or business for training anyway.

And so those concerns you had in 2014 – but they were also concerned you had in 2011, if I could just bring paragraph 78 of your statement up. Now, you indicated in your evidence today that you had some serious concerns about the lack of training in Don Dale in 2014?---Yes.

But you’d accept that those were issues that you raised in 2011?---Yes.

Where you indicated in paragraph 78:

If staff are not trained properly they’re going to have an increased amount of incidents and possibly a riot.

?---Correct.

Thank you, nothing further.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thanks, Ms Lee.

MR MORRISSEY: Commissioners, there was one other application, but we’re not aware that counsel is present. In respect of that one we’ll make – we don’t feel it’s necessary to delay things now. We’ll make inquiries and if natural justice requires any steps to be taken we’ll see about taking those. But otherwise I have no follow-up


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

questions and unless the Commission does, we would ask that Mr De Souza be excused.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes, thank you. Thank you, Mr De Souza for your assistance to the Commission. It’s been most useful evidence. We thank you for the care in preparing your statement as well, and thanks for coming back this afternoon?---Thank you very much.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Thank you.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [4.29 pm]

COMMISSIONER WHITE: We’ll adjourn until 9.30.

MR MORRISSEY: I’ve been asked, I’m sorry Madam Commissioner, I’ve been asked to raise a matter that Mr McAvoy asks, as communicated to me, that he believes by oversight that the statement of AS in fact was not tendered. Now, I’m not competent to say anything on behalf of Mr AS or to engage in anything concerning him, but if it’s not controversial that that matter be tendered. If it is controversial in some way then we could wait until Mr McAvoy comes back. But - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: No, it wasn’t. I think it probably – there was a bit of distraction while we were doing the other tenders. So I think that then – it will be the next exhibit, exhibit 123 for AS’s statement.

EXHIBIT #123 STATEMENT OF AS

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. Ms Brownhill.

MS BROWNHILL: Commissioners, I seek to have the Northern Territory’s matters for cross-examination for BN and AS marked for identification.

MR MORRISSEY: I oppose that. I’m not briefed to do that and I’m not able to put arguments about that. Could that matter please be deferred until Mr McAvoy is here to put submissions about it.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: There can be no problem about that, can there? There isn’t – equally there is no problem about marking it for identification.

MS BROWNHILL: ..... understand.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: It means it doesn’t do anything. It just sits here.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR MORRISSEY: It could be so. It may be contentious to do that. And - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Right. Well, look, Ms Brownhill, it’s not going to – it’s not going to cause any grief, so we’ll leave it until Mr McAvoy is here tomorrow morning, if you don’t mind.

MS BROWNHILL: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. So can we now adjourn?

MR MORRISSEY: Yes. Thank you.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Good. Thank you ..... we will adjourn until 9.30 tomorrow.

MATTER ADJOURNED at 4.32 pm UNTIL THURSDAY, 23 MARCH 2017


5

10

15

Index of Witness Events

LEONARD JOSEPH MURRAY DE SOUZA, SWORN P-1614CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR O’BRIEN P-1662

THE WITNESS WITHDREW P-1668

LEONARD JOSEPH MURRAY DE SOUZA, ON FORMER OATH P-1677CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAWRENCE P-1677CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS GRAHAM P-1682CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR O’CONNELL P-1687CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LEE P-1694

THE WITNESS WITHDREW P-1697

Index of Exhibits and MFIs

EXHIBIT #116 STATEMENT OF MR DE SOUZA DATED 21/2/2017

P-1615

EXHIBIT #64.80 TRAINING PACKAGE P-1642

EXHIBIT #117 SUPPLEMENTARY TENDER BUNDLE 220 DOCUMENT HEADED AGENDA

P-1647

EXHIBIT #64.154 EMAIL P-1658

EXHIBIT #122 SUPPLEMENTARY TENDER BUNDLE P-1690

EXHIBIT #123 STATEMENT OF AS P-1697

.ROYAL COMMISSION 22.3.17 P-1699©Commonwealth of Australia

5

transcriptcreator web viewaccording to your recollection, ... so that’s just a module, say, or...

Documents