transcriptcreator · web viewand i suggest to you that on many of those occasions it was for...

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-762176

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

ALICE SPRINGS

10.00 AM, TUESDAY, 14 MARCH 2017

Continued from 13.3.17

DAY 13

MR T. McAVOY SC appears with P.J. CALLAGHAN SC, MR B. DIGHTON, MS V. BOSNJAK, MR T. GOODWIN and MS S. MCGEE as Counsel AssistingMS S. BROWNHILL appears with MR C. JACOBI for the Northern Territory of AustraliaMR P. O’BRIEN appears with MR VOLLER for Dylan VollerMR D. WOODROFFE appears for North Australian Aboriginal Justice AgencyMS F. GRAHAM appears for the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid ServiceMR A. GEORGE appears for Harold MorganMR G. O’BRIEN-HARTCHER appears for witness BQMR P. TIERNEY appears for witness BYMR S. O’CONNELL appears for Jamal Turner and AN

.ROYAL COMMISSION 14.3.17 P-977©Commonwealth of Australia

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

<TREVOR HANSEN, ON FORMER OATH [10.00 am]

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Good morning, Mr Hansen.

THE WITNESS: Good morning.

MR CALLAGHAN: I think I had finished and Mr O’Connell was the next cab off the rank.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: No. I think Mr Woodroffe.

MR WOODROFFE: Yes, Commissioners. NAAJA does have an application today in respect of its intended - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I’m sorry, Mr Woodroffe. It’s just so hard to hear. I’m not sure if it’s the echo in the room or not. That’s better.

MR WOODROFFE: Commissioners, the – NAAJA has an application in respect of the intended cross-examination of Mr Hansen today. Your Honour, that is to join the time and place with Mr Voller. The situation for NAAJA with respect to four vulnerable witnesses that have been named in the statement, your Honour, is that we need to obtain instructions. Three of those persons are in custody and counsel are in various places around – in other jurisdictions, your Honour. It is anticipated it would take at least a week to obtain instructions and properly prepare the cross-examination. In light of that, Commissioner, we do seek that – to adjourn the cross-examination on behalf of our four clients to the subsequent date with Mr Voller. We do anticipate it – obviously we restrict it to the short time frame as previously suggested for today’s cross-examination.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you.

MR CALLAGHAN: Especially given the indication that Mr Woodroffe is respectful of the time frame, I have got no issue with that. Those statements were supplied yesterday afternoon.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Alright. Yes.

MS BROWNHILL: Commissioners - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. That application - - -

MS BROWNHILL: - - - can I just be heard in relation to that.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I’m sorry. Yes. Certainly, Ms Brownhill.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 14.3.17 P-978 T. HANSEN ©Commonwealth of Australia

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MS BROWNHILL: We don’t have a difficulty with that proposal but we would like it identified which four vulnerable witnesses Mr Hansen will be subsequently cross-examined about. So – which of them does the application relate to?

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes.

MR WOODROFFE: Yes, your Honour.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Are you in a position to indicate that now or would you like to do it subsequently?

MR WOODROFFE: I can indicate that now, Commissioner. Vulnerable witness BR, BE, AY and AU.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. Your application then on behalf of NAAJA to defer the cross-examination until Mr Hansen returns to give further evidence is granted.

MR G. O’BRIEN-HARTCHER: If it pleases the Commissioner, might I make an application also. My name is O’Brien-Hartcher and I represent a gentleman with the pseudonym BQ. He was a gentleman who was given a statement in response by Mr Hansen yesterday, which I received halfway through the afternoon. The issue which was responded to by Mr Hansen is a discrete issue, which will be similar to the issue that Mr O’Connell’s cross-examining on this morning and I would seek leave to ask a few questions of Mr Hansen after Mr O’Connell has finished, if it pleases the Commission.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Alright. Any problem with that Mr - - -

MR CALLAGHAN: I have no problem with that.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: No. Application granted. Thank you.

MR O’BRIEN-HARTCHER: Thank you, Commissioners.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: We’re done with applications, then? Thanks, Mr O’Connell.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR O’CONNELL

MR O’CONNELL: Thank you Commissioners.

Mr Hansen, your evidence, as I understand it, is that the escort technique involving holding detainees by the shorts was part of your official training?---That is correct.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 14.3.17 P-979 T. HANSEN XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MR O’CONNELL

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And can you recall who it was that taught you that technique?---The prison officers training.

But who in particular?---I am sorry; I cannot remember names.

And is it your evidence that that was a component of the PART training?---No. That was not part, that was pre-PART.

Was it continued on in the PART training?---Not that I’m aware of. No.

Did you – after you were originally taught that technique, did you attend retraining sessions?---No.

So you only went to the one training when you commenced in relation to how to escort detainees?---It was actually not escort, it was called cell insertions and extractions training.

And that was when you commenced?---No. That was after I commenced.

How long after you commenced?---I’m sorry; I can’t remember time frames.

Did you ever, after that initial session, attend any other sessions that covered the same issues?---Not that I recall.

And you would agree that you used this particular technique throughout your 20 years working in detention?---After I was trained, yes.

Are you aware as to whether that particular technique is to be found in any training manual or other written document?---I would assume it would have been in the prison officers training, because they trained us how to do it.

And were you aware of other youth justice officers using that particular technique?---No, because none of them were trained to do it. Not after the other ones that were originally trained had left.

Well, were you aware that that particular technique was no longer being taught?---No. I was not aware.

Did it strike you as unusual that you were the only one, on your evidence, to employ it?---No, because I was the only one left that had been trained.

Did you – given that you had received that training and that you believed that that was an appropriate method of escort, did you convey that to other youth justice officers that that was an appropriate procedure to use?---No. I did not. I was not a trainer so I could not train the staff on how to do it.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

I would like to refer you to your statement of 16 February, 2017, in particular paragraph 11. Do you have that in front of you?---In which statement?

The statement dated 16 February 2017. If there is more than one on that day, I only have the one.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: It is one with 25 paragraphs, Mr Hansen.

MR O’CONNELL: The one I have, Commissioner, is 30 paragraphs.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Sorry. I beg your pardon. I have turned over two at once, you’re right. Yes. I didn’t – yes. It has 30 paragraphs. Sorry.

MR O’CONNELL: Do you have that?---I have that in front of me. Yes.

I refer to paragraph 11. You agree that the method involved holding the back of the detainee’s shorts?---That is correct.

And can I assume that that is around the small of the back area, in the centre of the shorts?---That is correct.

And towards the top of the shorts?---That is correct.

And do you agree that it say the that you held it with slight upward control?

MS BROWNHILL: Commissioners, I’m sorry to interrupt. My learned friend is cross-examining Mr Hansen about a statement that’s responsive to Mr Voller’s allegations, which, as I understood, we weren’t going there until a subsequent period in time.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: There are some - - -

MS BROWNHILL: The statement hasn’t been put into evidence and I understand it wasn’t proposed to be put into evidence until the subsequent period in which we deal with Mr Voller’s materials.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: So far as it concerns Mr Voller. Mr O’Connell, perhaps you could respond to that?

MR O’CONNELL: Yes. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner, I wish to cross-examine this witness in relation to using this particular technique – well, we say beyond what the witness gives evidence as far as the technique goes, but this particular technique in relation to my client. So I’m not going to go into any areas that relate to Mr Voller; just in relation to the use of this technique.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. That’s what I thought he was doing.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MS BROWNHILL: Well, in that case, perhaps those parts of the statement that my learned friend wishes to cross-examine about should be received into evidence.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well, that can happen. It’s not difficult.

MS BROWNHILL: Now.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Right. Thank you. There is no problem with that, is there? I thought that this was just cross-examination about generic conduct which was undertaken against a number of detainees, including Mr O’Connell’s client.

MR CALLAGHAN: It is all a bit awkward because of the way that we have decided to do things, but this witness, as I recall it, does repeatedly invoke these parts of the statement that he made in respect of Mr Voller when dealing with his response to that of – that said by other witnesses. So subject to reviewing the responsive statement to Mr Voller to ensure that’s all it is, there will be no difficulty with tendering those parts of it. I don’t know that it formally has to happen now. Everyone here knows what is being cross-examined about.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I think so. I mean, we have had extensive evidence about this form of escort, both yesterday in-chief and then otherwise.

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: So it certainly can be tendered if that’s what you wish. It’s very clear what it says and we can do that at this point if that’s your insistence, Ms Brownhill.

MS BROWNHILL: We would at least ask that you have before you, Commissioners, the statement so that you can follow the evidence if it’s to be made by reference to Mr Hansen’s responsive statement to Mr Voller. If you have that before you then - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I do.

MS BROWNHILL: - - - and the witness has that before you ..... on that basis.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: We can manage, I think. Thank you. Thanks, Mr O’Connell.

MR O’CONNELL: Thank you, Commissioner.

So you agree that it says that you held the back of the shorts with a slight upward control?---That is correct.

And you noted that you used it on many detainees?---That is correct.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And that was throughout the 20 years that you were working?---Not the whole 20 years. Only after I was trained.

Okay. But you were trained at a fairly early time after you commenced?---I actually cannot remember the exact time. It wasn’t early, it was probably a – four or five years after I started. I can’t exactly remember the exact time frame.

Okay. So your evidence would be that for at least the last 15, 16 years that you worked you employed that technique?---As far as I’m aware, yes.

And it notes here that you used that technique to ensure maximum control?---Well, control, yes. Maximum control.

Well, I refer you to what you have written in your statement?---Yes. No. That is correct. Yes.

Maximum control?---For a one-man escort, yes.

And not only maximum control, but maximum control over a detainee’s movements when they are behaving in a non-compliant manner?---That is correct.

And by that I’m assuming you mean that the detainee is moving around, trying to break your grip?---No. I’m referring to them – their behaviour before you actually employ the technique.

Behaviour before, being perhaps agitated?---No. Threatening behaviours. You don’t touch a detainee if you can actually talk them down. You try every avenue first before you actually put hands on any detainee.

Alright. So you would only employ this particular technique when the detainee was not calming down?---Non-compliant, yes.

And this was your – you note in paragraph 13 this was your preferred method?---Over what we were taught from the original prison officer training, yes.

So it would be the method that you would employ first when there was a situation that you had to physically escort a detainee?---After the prison officer training, yes.

So given that you needed maximum – or that you did this to ensure maximum control over a non-compliant detainee, it would be true to say that you had the back of the shorts in a full grip with your – all fingers on your hand?---That’s correct. Yes.

And it is possible, isn’t it, that when you would do that you could also have grip on the underpants underneath the shorts?---No. Because your thumb goes in the top and you never grab the underpants. You grab the shorts.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And would it be the case that depending on the height of the detainee, but on occasion you would have to lean down to get this grip?---Not necessarily. Most detainees were tall enough that your hand was level with their back of their shorts.

Well detainees came in all different heights, didn’t they?---That is correct.

So they weren’t always at a particular height when you could grab them easily?---I can’t remember one that wasn’t. I’m sorry.

Well, I suggest to you that when my client – sorry – and I should have said this at the beginning: I act for the young person known as AN?---Yes. Thank you.

You’re aware who that person is?---I am. Yes.

I suggest to you that when that person came in detention and for a number of years they were quite short?---I can’t comment on that. Yes. I suppose. Yes.

And I suggest that to grab that person by the back of the shorts you would have had to have leaned down?---No. That is incorrect.

And I suggest that in order to maintain balance and control, maximum control, of a detainee, you would have to be using your other hand somewhere on that person?---Yes. As I have stated you grab there, or there, or there.

Okay. So your evidence is that you would grab them by the shoulder or the - - -?---Shirt. Shoulder. Wrist.

MS BROWNHILL: The witness is indicating that he grabbed the top part of the shirt around the shoulder, the upper arm and/or the wrist.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR O’CONNELL: I was about to say that, Commissioners.

THE WITNESS: Sorry.

MR O’CONNELL: I thank my learned friend for that.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: What height you are, Mr Hansen?---6 foot 1, or 185.

That’s in the old money; what about the new?---185, Commissioner.

MR O’CONNELL: Now, Mr Hansen, I want to clarify paragraph 34 of my client’s statement, which is repeated in your statement of 13 March 2017?---What paragraph were you referring to, sorry?


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Paragraph 6 in your statement of 13 March 2017. Do you have that in front of you?---I don’t have an answer for - - -

Can you see it on the screen?---The statement from the actual detainee?

Yes?---Yes. I have that. Yes.

Now, when you gave your evidence yesterday you said that you would never touch a detainee’s undergarments?---That is correct.

Now, I have been instructed by my client that what she meant to convey in that particular paragraph - - -

MS BROWNHILL: I object to that. The witness’s evidence is in the statement; we can’t have evidence been given by counsel.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: That’s true. You can probably ask it in another way. You can ask Mr Hansen to assume some facts.

MR O’CONNELL: Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: And proceed on that basis. That would be unobjectionable. But it would only be as good as the facts ultimately live up to it, of course.

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


MR O’CONNELL: Mr Hansen, can I suggest to you that on occasions when you had hold of the detainees by the back of the shorts you also, with your other hand, grabbed them by the shirt at the back?---No. At the – on the side, because you had to stand on the side to escort them. So you always had to grab the side. If you grabbed the back you would trip over and fall on top. That was never what you should do. You always had to come from the side.

Well, I suggest to you that on occasion you did grab the shirt by the middle of the back and that, on occasion, would include having hold of the detainee’s bra strap?---No. That is incorrect.

Now, Counsel Assisting cross-examined – sorry – examined you in yesterday in relation to evidence that has been given about a wedgie. Do you recall that?---Vaguely, yes. I’m sorry. There was so much coming through yesterday.

MS BROWNHILL: Can we be a bit more specific, please?

MR O’CONNELL: Well, are you aware that - - -


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I thought that’s what we were really talking about now, Mr O’Connell. I thought this was the grip that colloquially is known as the wedgie.

MR O’CONNELL: This is the grip. Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. So we haven’t departed from the topic.

MR O’CONNELL: No.

You’re aware that a number of detainees have mentioned being held by you by the back of the shorts and it being pulled up forcefully into what is colloquially known as a wedgie?---Yes. I’m aware of those complaints. Yes.

Given that this was a technique, your preferred technique, that you used to ensure maximum control on a non-compliant detainee, is it possible that in the heat of the moment with that detainee being non-compliant that you would lift them up to get better control?---No. Because the controlling arm is the left arm which is holding the shirt, which you are pushing forward. The back one is for stability.

And is it also the case that on occasion to gain control you would push the detainee to the ground and, again, use upward pressure to lift up their shorts?---Never push a detainee to the ground. You would lower them once you were in the area that you had to take them, but you would never push them to the ground.

I suggest to you that on at least three occasions you took hold of the back of the shorts of my client, AN, and the back of her shirt, including her bra strap, and lifted her so that her legs were off the ground?---No.

And I suggest to you that you did this to other detainees on a number of occasions?---No.

And you did it to effectively show them who was boss?---No. Any time I would ever move a detainee with a use of force was if they were non-compliant and it had to be done. I would always try to talk a detainee down first, which I had done numerous occasions; never lay a hand on them. It was only utilised as a last resort.

And when you utilised the technique that you talk about, it was considered a use of force and something you would have to fill out in the use of force register?---That is correct.

What would you write, from memory? If you employed this particular technique, how would you refer to it?---That I held the back of their shorts and their arm and escorted them to where I had to take them.

So you would specifically write, “I held them by the back of the shorts”?---That is correct.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And were there occasions when you employed this technique and you did not write it up in the use of force register?---I would always endeavour to write it. I’m sure there might have been mistakes made that I might not have done it, but I can’t answer that question in relation to that.

If I could refer you to annexure TH10, which is attached to the statement in response to the evidence of my client?---Yes.

If you can – roughly three lines from the bottom?---Yes.

You note:

The use of force register was not completed as the journal was unavailable.

?---That is correct.

Was that a common occurrence?---As I stated yesterday, there were times when the journal was unavailable because it was in the manager’s office, and I could not access the manager’s office.

Did you attempt to fill it out at a later time?---You would. Yes.

Did you on this particular occasion?---Honestly, I can’t remember.

And given you have described the escort technique as your preferred method, would you use an escort technique that would involve just grabbing a detainee by the hand?---That would depend on their level of noncompliance. This particular time I had her arm and escorted her up. She was compliant when we reached the area, she took her shoes off, she went in and I released her.

But you’re saying when you took hold of her she was non-compliant?---She was angry.

And you had been trained to use this particular technique to ensure maximum control of a non-compliant detainee?---Which one technique are you talking about?

The technique of grabbing by the shorts. That is your preferred method?---That is correct. Yes.

So I suggest to you that you did use that particular method on this occasion?---I would have written it in there if I did, because as I did not have the use of force register I would have written in exactly what I did, which is what I did. I held her by the arm. And escorted her to the cells.

And, again, I suggest to you that not only did you employ the back of the shorts technique, but you did it in such a manner as you had – that you lifted her off the ground?---No.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Is it the case that – it’s true, isn’t it, that you would often use room placement and isolation as a punishment?---No. Never as a punishment; as a consequence of the detainee’s actions.

And - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: What’s the difference?---You never punish a detainee.

Consequence of actions?---Depends on the level.

It might be a refinement that I’m missing here?---It depends on the level. If you have a detainee that is swearing at another detainee, maybe inciting a fight, is that a cell placement or a room placement or can you just calm them down. So you would talk to them, try to get them to calm down so you would put them on a – it might be a 15 minute, 20 minute, half hour room placement until they calm down. Before you let them out you have a talk with them to find out what the problem was: is it just that detainee, were they agitated, did they get a bad phone call? You would go through all the avenues to try to find out what was happening in that detainee, why they wanted to fight, why they were swearing at the other detainee. Once you had calmed them down and if there was a problem with the other detainee you may even go to the other detainee and get the two of them to talk to sort out their problems. Hopefully that would work, and then just carry on. If they take a swing at somebody you might put them in a room, you might have to take them to the BMU to calm down again. As I said, it depends on the level of response and then how much time they would spend in their room, in the BMU. Sometimes I have taken a detainee to a BMU just for 15 minutes to calm them down and release them straight away. As I said, it depends. You always try to talk them down first. I have walked into many situations where detainees have wanted to kill an officer, one particular – one had a glass window and wanted to hit officers over the head. I just walked in and sat down and talked with him to calm him down. So – putting a hand on a detainee is the last thing you want to do. Nobody goes in with that thought process. It’s all about trying to get them to comply verbally first, to get them to see, to try and find out. And then, obviously, try to find out what the problem. And if you do, as I always did when I put a detainee in the BMU, I would go and talk with them later to find out what the problem was. And they always – like, sometimes they wouldn’t talk to you, so you wouldn’t press the point, because if you press the point they just get angry at you again. So you would wait for them to approach you sometimes, it was all about trying to help them through their time. Never, ever lay a hand on them unless you had to. That was the last thing on your mind.

Thank you.

MR O’CONNELL: I suggest to you that you locked my client, AN, in her room on several occasions?---I probably did. Yes.

And I suggest to you that on many of those occasions it was for very minor reasons, such as her using a swear word?---It could have been.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And - - -?---It could have been a lot of things. I mean, it depends on who she was swearing at, if she was abusing officers which we tried to stop that from happening, and abusing another detainee inciting a fight. So it was better to place them on a room placement for 15 minutes rather than actually have people fighting and throwing punches at other each other.

I suggest to you also that the room placement for my particular client, AN, often went for a lot longer than 15 minutes?---It could have; it depends on the level.

There were also occasions where you cut clothing off my client, AN?---If she was at risk that would happen, yes.

Do you recall the particular incidents?---No. I don’t. I’m sorry.

Do you recall saying to her – saying the words to her, “Take your fucking clothes off or I’ll cut them off”?---No. I don’t remember saying that.

But it’s possible you could have said that?---It’s possible I could have. Yes.

It’s the case, isn’t it, that you often swore at the detainees?---There are times where I have sworn. Yes.

And it’s the case that you were, on many occasions, as described by your colleague and my client, a bully?---No. Not a bully.

Yes. Those are my questions, Commissioners.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Can I ask you this question, Mr Hansen: you say that you were the only youth justice officer remaining who was trained in this particular technique of single person escort?---That is correct.

And that this endured for some – in the vicinity, we will say, of 15 years from when you were first trained that no one else was trained in this method?---Not when PART came about. No. Most of the other officers had left.

Yes. Did it not occur to you that there might have been a reason why this method of single officer escort was discontinued as part of the training?---I was never advised not to use it. So – and I would always fill in the appropriate paperwork, and if I was ever advised not to use it I wouldn’t have used it. I was never advised not to use it.

Never had any discussion with management about whether you should continue to use it in light of the fact that no one else was being trained in it? Therefore, one would think on reflection that it must have been regarded as not a useful method to employ?---No. The only time I would use it would be a single person escort. If we had more than one officer then we would do PART. As I said, this was a single person escort and a lot of the times you wouldn’t have enough staff to be able to do that, and it would be a quick movement through.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Yes. I do understand that. And I understand that you and a number of officers have said that there was chronic shortage of staff in the detention facilities, and particularly in Alice Springs. So this must have been a method of moving detainees into their cells that needed to be utilised quite regularly for that reason. Was it never the subject of discussion at all?---No. Nobody ever bought it up with me that it had to be ceased.

And you didn’t bring it up?---No. As I said, every time I utilise it would be logged. I would put it on an incident report that I held their shorts and escorted them. It was always there that that’s what I used and nobody ever bought it up with me that I should cease using it.

Alright. Thank you?---And as I say to all the detainees, any time I put a detainee anywhere I would always say, “You have the right to make a complaint. And if you have a problem with it I will send an officer with you to you to help you write it. Or if you want me to I will write it for you.” So I never stop the detainees. It’s their right to complain and they have that opportunity. As I said, I always spoke with them afterwards. If they had a problem, they could have spoken – not one of them brought it up. Not one of them brought it up ever.

Thank you Mr Hansen?---So they had the opportunity. I was always available to be able to talk. So if somebody had said this had happened, then I would have spoken to them about it.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Mr Hansen, you talked before – and I think the last question from Mr O’Connell about swearing. So guards swore?---Unfortunately, yes. You - - -

So how would you make a distinction about treating a detainee – what would be the circumstance that would be different between a guard swearing and a detainee being put in isolation?---You would never use it in a threatening manner in that respect. Like it’s hard when you get thrown swear words at you day in day out, and I’m referring to the fact – like a lot of times the detainees would say, “I’m going to blah, blah your daughters”, and all this sort of stuff. And you had it thrown at you just about every day. It’s very hard in that circumstance not to talk to the detainees in a language that they talk to you in. It’s unfortunate that it happens, and I try not to but I’m only human. Sometimes that happens.

The difference was they were being put into isolation for swearing?---Beg your pardon?

The difference is the detainees were being put into isolation for swearing?---That would be not so much for the swearing as in the context like I’m going to effing punch you, or something like that to an officer. Many detainees swore, that you just say, “Okay. Yes.” You wouldn’t – you wouldn’t throw them in their rooms just for swearing, it would be the context of the swearing as in an assaultive manner or a threatening manner.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Thank you.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Wouldn’t part of your training have been that you were likely to be exposed to this unpleasantness so that you would not take it personally?---No.

You weren’t trained to manage insults?---I just never took it personally. The detainees were in there because most of them were troubled. You knew that they were going to have a go at you; they had to have a go at something and you were the closest person. Whether you were at fault, whether it was you that put them in there or whatever, if you were in front of their face they were going to abuse you. And a lot of the times we got spat at. We got things thrown at us. I mean, I – talking about the one person escort, I mean, you are always to the side, grabbing – holding their shirt to make sure they can’t swing at you, because a lot of the times they would want to punch you. That was basically daily life. I was very aware of the detainees needs and wants. I mean, I was actually there when we had our death in custody. That was a very traumatic event. I wasn’t actually on duty but I was in next day to actually run that shift and to see the detainees faces, to see the families, the officers, everything that happened after that – it was traumatic. And you wake up pretty quickly to realise what these kids are capable of. I was about five seconds away from losing a detainee in a cell. He was hanging himself with his underpants. That was close, and it does affect you. You are only a human being, no matter what. And to try and help these kids and not put hands on is the first thing you try to do, try to talk them to go through life. You know you’re going to have problems with them because they have got anger inside of them. And to try to help them and whatever, so hands on is the last thing you want to do. So - - -

Thank you, Mr Hansen?---It’s a very emotional job at times.

Alright. Yes, Mr Hartcher.

MR O’BRIEN-HARTCHER: O’Brien-Hartcher, it please the Commission. I appear for BQ, and if I might I will just ask a few questions of Mr Hansen.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Thank you.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR O’BRIEN-HARTCHER [10.43 am]

MR O’BRIEN-HARTCHER: Mr Hansen, I represent a young man whose pseudonym is BQ. Do you know who I’m talking about?---I have got it in front of me. Yes.

Okay. And you know who I’m referring to. Or you have a statement there that reminds you of the allegations in the statement that he has made; is that right?---Yes.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 14.3.17 P-991 T. HANSEN XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MR O’BRIEN-HARTCHER

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Okay. Thank you. Yesterday you provided statements in response to six witnesses; is that correct?---That is correct. Yes.

And one of those was BQ?---That is correct. Yes.

In BQ’s statement he alleges that you gave him a wedgie and you have that in front of you. Do you recall him alleging that?---I have got it in front of me. Yes. Yes.

Yes. How many of those statements yesterday to which you provided responses, or in which you provided responses, were in response to allegations of you performing the wedgie?

MS BROWNHILL: I object to that question. What’s the relevance of that? We can see the statements for ourselves.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I will allow the question. Thank you.

MR O’BRIEN-HARTCHER: May it please the Commission.

THE WITNESS: I actually don’t know. I didn’t read them. I answer each one individually, because they were all individual complaints; they were all individual detainees. I didn’t actually count them. I’m sorry. I have got them in front of me but - - -

You read those statement when is you signed them; that’s right, isn’t it?---That’s right. I can count. So - - -

So you knew the contents of them?---Yes.

Yes. And in each one of those statements that you provided yesterday, did somebody allege that you had performed a wedgie?---For the ones yesterday, I think so. Yes.

Okay. Thank you. You told Mr O’Connell that you were the only one left who had been trained to perform that manoeuvre?---That is correct. Yes.

Does that mean when you were in the detention centre and somebody needed a one-person escort you were asked to do that job?---No. That is not correct.

Okay. BQ says that you gave him a wedgie on two occasions and that’s found in his statement at paragraph 34. I’m sorry. I don’t have a reference number for that statement, Commissioners. I will just read it to you:

“Sometimes the guards would give us wedgies and punch us. It was a joke to them. They thought it was fun. The guard Yogi gave me a wedgie in the dining room two times.” (There is a description of you.) “Other guards would say to Yogi, “Do the wedgie,” and laugh.”


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

There is a little bit more and I will come back to that. I thank the technical people. Do you at any occasion that that manoeuvre was a matter for amusement?---No.

Okay. In these circumstances did you ever use the technique known as the wedgie when you weren’t escorting somebody?---No.

Yesterday you gave evidence in which your hands – the movement of your hands suggested that the first way you would grab someone around the shorts was with your fingers facing down and then turn it around?---That is correct.

Is that correct?---Yes.

So, in fact, it wouldn’t be possible to put your thumb in the top of the shorts band if you did that, would it?---Well, it depends if they were a big detainee. It depends on how you go into reach. But – yes.

Okay. And as part of that you would turn your hand and you would lift?---If you had it like that, yes. As I said, it depends. Sometimes if you have got – you could go like that; sometimes in like that. But always the back of the shorts. Always the back of the shorts.

Those shorts are elastic, is that right?---Had elastic bands around them, yes.

And if you were working quickly and grabbed in that manner, it might be possible to grab the undergarments, would that be right?---Very rarely. I mean, the shorts were up higher and you could actually grab the shorts. As I said, I would only grab the shorts.

And were there occasions where you lifted the shorts up towards a person’s neck?---No.

Okay. You don’t specifically remember giving BQ wedgies, but you don’t deny that it may have happened; is that right?---I might have had to escort him, yes.

Okay. I suggest to you that you didn’t just do these wedgies in circumstances where you had to escort somebody, but you also did them as a matter of exercising control over detainees?---No. That is incorrect.

Commissioner, I thank the opportunity for asking those questions.


MR CALLAGHAN: I don’t believe there are any more questions for Mr Hansen at the moment. But, of course, we will be seeing - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Ms Brownhill?


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MS BROWNHILL: No re-examination. Thank you.

MR CALLAGHAN: But, of course, we will be seeing Mr Hansen again.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Yes. Thank you. Mr Callaghan, is the Commission going to issue a fresh notice summons to Mr Hansen subsequently or will he be on his existing summons?

MR CALLAGHAN: We will issue a fresh one.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Alright then. So I can give him leave.

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Thank you. Thanks for your assistance Mr Hansen, you are free to go now. You are released from your summons and the Commission will issue you with a fresh summons to appear at a subsequent date?---Thank you very much.

So don’t forget to gather up all your material.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [10.49 am]

MR CALLAGHAN: I call John Fattore.

MS BROWNHILL: Mr Fattore is in the back of the courtroom. If he can come forward to the witness box please.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you, Mr Fattore. If you would remain standing. You are affirming?

THE WITNESS: Yes, please, Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Thank you. John Fattore, do you undertake to tell the truth to this Royal Commission and board of inquiry?

THE WITNESS: I do undertake so, Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. Please sit down. Thanks, Mr Callaghan.

<JOHN FATTORE, AFFIRMED [10.50 am]

<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR CALLAGHAN

.ROYAL COMMISSION 14.3.17 P-994 J. FATTORE XN©Commonwealth of Australia MR CALLAGHAN

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR CALLAGHAN: Could you tell the Commission your full name, please?---My full name is John Davon Fattore.

Mr Fattore, you have prepared, I think, three statements for the purposes of this Commission; is that correct?---That is correct. Yes.

I tender statements 11, 54, and 92.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. I think that - - -

MR CALLAGHAN: Dates, respectively, 30 January 2017 for 11, 23 February 2017 for 54, and 9 March 2017 for 92.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I’m right in thinking that should be exhibits 71, 72 and 73 for those statements respectively.

EXHIBIT #71 STATEMENT OF JOHN FATTORE DATED 30/01/2017



MR CALLAGHAN: Thank you.

Mr Fattore, you have filled many positions within Northern Territory Correctional Services over a long period, is that correct?---I have undertaken a number of roles. Yes.

Yes. The Commission is particularly interested in two of them. You were the audits and investigations officer within the professional standards unit; is that correct?---I was. Yes.

And was that between 2003 and 2009?---Yes. I believe that’s so.

And then later the acting general manager at Don Dale?---Yes.

Can we start with the work you did in the professional standards unit, or PSU. Can you first of all – because I think you are the first witness to address this topic – just tell us about the PSU within the Correctional Services organisations of the Northern Territory?---Okay. The Professional Standards Unit worked directly to the executive director or commissioner of correctional services. The Professional Standards Units worked to conduct internal investigations, inquiries and audits into the operations of Northern Territory correctional services.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And those sorts of investigations that we are talking about would be specifically things like staff misconduct?---Yes.

Draft – drug testing of staff?---The at the time I was with the Professional Standards Unit there was no drug testing regime for staff.

When did that – is there now?---I believe there is. Yes. I’m – I can’t recall the exact date of that coming in but it’s reasonably recent.

And complaints by detainees: was that something that the PSU would also be responsible for?---Yes.

Or for investigating. How, then, does the PSU come to be involved in a matter? Is it – is there a process by which matters are referred to it?---There are in fact a number of processes by which complaints are referred to the PSU or were at the time that I worked there. One methodology was through a complaint made through the office of the Ombudsman, by a detainee. Another methodology might be a complaint made directly to the Commissioner or a staff member of correctional services. Another methodology might be a complaint made by a staff member directly to either the Commissioner or another member of staff.

Does that follow – and correct me if it doesn’t – a complaint wouldn’t come to you directly from a detainee?---No.

No. Okay. Well, I want to examine a couple of matters that were handled by the Professional Standards Unit while you were in charge of it?---I’m sorry. Can I just correct that. I was never in charge of the Professional Standards Unit.

I’m sorry. Thank you?---Thank you.

Whilst your title was audits and investigations officer?---Thank you.

What I meant was, investigations of which you were apparently in charge, and we will come to them directly. Tell me if other people were involved?---Yes.

The first is documented in some papers that are at tender bundle tab 10. It’s a report that you prepared. You might be able to tell us: can we ascertain from this report the date upon which the report was prepared?---Possibly not.

In any event, it apparently relates to things that happened in April of 2009. Would you accept that?---I do.

And it’s a report about a certain staff member. We don’t need to name that person, and his name has been redacted. But I would suggest to you that this report, which you did prepare – this was your document?---Yes. I did prepare this report.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Yes. So you gathered information and ascertained that in October of 2007 there was a report of concern about this man because of his flirtatious behaviour with a detainee; is that correct?---Yes. That information did come to hand during my investigation of the matters reported to me on 28 April 2009.

And it was also reported to you as part of your investigations that in May of 2008 this person had made certain comments at the cells at the courthouse, the holding cells there, and that is in front of two detainees he had said that he would allow a male detainee to conduct a strip search of a female detainee when she came into the centre. That was information that was provided to you?---That was information that came to hand. Yes.

Right. In February 2009 this person had to be cautioned about going into female detainees’ rooms alone?---That information also came to hand. Yes.

And then it was recorded that there had been numerous incidents on occasions upon which he had made inappropriate remarks of a sexual nature, including remarks about the size of a male detainee’s genitals?---Yes. That investigation was also conveyed to me.

And that he made remarks about the physical attributes of current and previous female detainees?---I believe that’s the case. Yes.

Including the comment that they would be “legal”?---As I recall, yes, that’s true.

By which it was clearly meant to indicate that the detainee was at an age where she could consent to sexual intercourse, within the context of the investigation. That’s clearly what it meant?---Within the context of the investigation, I believe that to be the case. Yes.

And of one male detainee, he reportedly commented of a number of times about the fact that he was, “well hung”?---Yes. That’s correct.

So there was all of this information that was circulating, but the issue that actually sparked your investigation concerned the sexual harassment by this man of another staff member; is that correct?---That is correct. Yes. I believe that it was physical contact between him and the staff member.

Yes. And, again, we don’t need to name anyone, but to be clear the information about his remarks concerning detainees only came to your attention in the course of the investigation that followed that complaint?---That is correct. Yes.

But it was information that came to you – or I don’t know how readily, but it came to you in the course of your investigation easily enough I would suggest?---When I started investigating the matters and conducted interviews in relation to the complaint, those matters were raised with me.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

With you by other staff members?---Yes. Yes.

They freely told you about these things?---Yes. They most certainly did.

The point being, I suppose, that up until a member of staff had a problem that required an investigation, these other concerns weren’t something that came to the attention of the Professional Standards Unit. Or were they?---As I recall there may have been – and I would need to go through the documents a little more thoroughly – but there may have been a complaint dealt with in regard to harassment of the female staff member previously as well. So - - -

Quite?---But – yes. It was the fact that the female staff member was then actually harassed in a manner which involved contact which escalated the matter to the Professional Standards Unit.

Yes. But all the other – the point that – I think you’re agreeing with me – is that all of those other matters that I canvassed with you - - -?---Yes.

- - - were things that staff had known about?---Yes. That’s true.

Because they told you about them?---Yes. But they included matters, I think, involving staff being harassed, not just detainees.

I understand?---Okay.

But the matters involving the detainees had not been brought to your attention until there was a problem with the staff?---That’s correct. Until the staff member had complained of a physical contact from [REDACTED INFORMATION].

We don’t need to mention any names?---I’m sorry.

MS BROWNHILL: We ask that that name be struck from the transcript.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Can you undertake that. Thank you.

MR CALLAGHAN: Alright. Can I ask you to take a look at another - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Is that document - - -

MR CALLAGHAN: Thank you. Could I tender that.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: - - - going to have a home? How will that be described then, as exhibit 64.10.

EXHIBIT #64.10 REPORT PREPARED BY JOHN FATTORE


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR CALLAGHAN: That was tender bundle tab 10. Yes. Thank you.

I’m going to ask you now to look at another document. This is the one that is tender bundle tab 7. It’s a document that relates to another report prepared by you; is that correct?---Sorry. I’m just trying to find that document in my own bundle here. Yes. This is a document that was prepared by me.

Again, are you able to help us with a date on which the document was prepared?---This document is unsigned, the version that I have. I’m not sure the one on the screen.

Yes. Okay. In any event it concerns your investigation into another staff member – and, again, we don’t have to identify him but the investigation relates to things occurring in April 2009 - - -?---It does. Yes.

- - - specifically. But, again, as part of your investigation you go into the background of these staff members?---Yes. I do.

That’s what you did in this case?---Yes. I did.

And it was revealed in your investigation that the fellow in question had a significant history of complaints about his behaviour towards detainees between 2002 and 2006?---That’s true. Yes.

And as at 2006 there had, in fact, been some 18 complaints of alleged inappropriate behaviour?---That’s true. Yes.

And after that report this particular youth justice officer met with senior management and was actually transferred to other duties within the Northern Territory correctional services; is that correct?---It is correct. I believe he was transferred to the role of canteen officer.

It doesn’t really matter.

MS BROWNHILL: Well, can the witness be allowed to answer the question, please.

MR CALLAGHAN: I was just trying to avoid identification of the role to which he was transferred in case it identified him, that’s all. I’m happy to let the answer stay on the record if there is no objection.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I take it that the answer implies there was no then unlikely to be contact with detainees?---I believe that was the intention of the transfer. Yes.

That’s how I understood the answer, by identifying what the task was?---Yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR CALLAGHAN: I have no issue with it.


MR CALLAGHAN: Nonetheless, in 2008 he was further disciplined by management regarding inappropriate comments about former detainees on a publicly available internet blog site; is that correct?---This was prior to my investigation. Yes.

But – I understand, but it was part of what you discovered in your investigation?---Yes. It was part of what I discovered in my investigation. Yes.

This individual was a keen power-lifter and body builder; is that right?---That is true.

He was also known to be an associate of a former prisoner who had convictions for drug offences?---That’s true.

And those drug offences involved substances of the kind commonly associated with the body building lifestyle?---That is true.

The incident in question involved the concern that this man had thrown a chair across a yard and sworn at detainees, at the children, telling them to, “Fuck up you little dickheads”. Is that correct?---Sorry. I just need to double-check the language there. Is that – is that’s what is contained in my report?

Yes?---Then that would be correct. Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Do you have a copy of that report here?---I do. Yes.

Yes.

MR CALLAGHAN: And you conducted interviews with detainees about this incident, and learned there were concerns about this man?---Yes.

And there were several things reported, including the proposition that most of the kids were scared of him?---That was certainly conveyed to me. Yes.

Perhaps summed up by the comment of one detainee that he was a loose cannon?---That is a comment that was made by the detainee. Yes.

And this is because he was, after having been moved away from Don Dale, now back, in 2009, working with these children; is that correct?---I’m unsure of the circumstances of the previous move that you’re talking about.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Well, we know that he was there and we went through the history of complaints about his behaviour between 2002 and 2006. Do you recall I asked you about that a moment ago?---I do recall that. Yes.

And then we worked out he had been moved away to other duties?---When we worked out he had been moved to other duties I thought we were referring to the move which was as a result of my investigation in 2009.

No. It was 2006, I believe, that he was transferred. I will find the paragraph for you. Paragraph 2.3.1 on page 2 of your report. On page 3, I’m sorry?---Okay.

Suggests on one reading, at least - - -?---Look - - -

- - - some 18 complaints were lodged, tabled at the meeting in 2006, and transferred to duties in a temporary capacity?---In a temporary capacity, community corrections, yes. I’m sorry. I didn’t realise that was the transfer you were referring to.

Yes. That is what I’m saying. There were all these complaints leading up to 2006 and then, appropriately, it would seem, he was transferred away from the sorts of duties that he was – that he was – where he was involved with children. But then come 2009 he is back in the centre as a loose cannon?---It would appear that he did return to the centre and worked there. Yes.

How on earth could that have happened?---I’m sorry. It’s not something I was involved in.

I understand. Can you suggest to us who could answer the question how on earth that could have happened?---For him to have been transferred back, I believe a determination must have been made by management somewhere that that should occur.

I’m asking you because of your lengthy association and your knowledge of who was who and when they were there, and I understand - - -?---I would imagine that responsibility for this kind of a transfer would have sat at the executive director level.

And as at that point in time, 2009, who was that?---That would have been Mr Middlebrook.

Thank you. Your recommendation in this particular case of him throwing the chair and swearing at the children was for disciplinary action?---It was.

And you recommended an assessment of his ability to continue as his role as a youth worker?---I did.

Given your position and the role of the PSU, was that as much as you could do?---The role of the PSU was to conduct an investigation if there were an alleged breach of discipline. And if that discipline – and make findings, obviously, from that


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

investigation in regard to the specific breaches that had been put to the staff member. Those specific breaches were actually put by the executive director or the CEO at the time. An investigator was then allocated the role of investigating the matters. The person being investigated was also, through natural justice processes, advised of that process. The investigator conducted the investigation and made findings on the balance of probabilities as to whether or not the alleged breaches of discipline were in fact supported by the evidence. That – a report outlining those, as I did here, was then progressed to the relevant person or delegate – in some cases it would be the CEO, in some cases it would be the executive director – and they would then determine – have a final say in determining whether they accepted the report and the findings. And then they would move to determine possibly an associated penalty.

That was helpful, and thank you. But the short answer to my question, I’m inferring, was: yes, you had done all you could do?---Yes.

Okay. Do you know in this particular case to whom your recommendation went?---I believe the recommendation went to the executive director at the time.

And do you know what happened?---I believe the outcome in this case was a transfer to the role of canteen officer.

As had happened before?---Yes.

Not long after this investigation, Mr Fattore, you became acting general manager of youth detention at Don Dale; is that correct?---I did. Yes.

Why did you change roles?---There was a vacancy in the role out at the Don Dale Centre, and I was asked if I was interested in going out there and becoming the general manager on a temporary basis until it was advertised.

Okay. Thank you. Before I go on, can I tender the document that was at tender bundle tab 7.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Exhibit 64.7.

EXHIBIT #64.7 REPORT PREPARED BY JOHN FATTORE

MR CALLAGHAN: I have asked you about two particular reports that you prepared?---Yes.

And you told me that you thought in respect of the second one that there had been a transfer?---Yes.

Does it follow – well, perhaps I can ask you this way: as at the time you took over the role of acting general manager of youth detention at Don Dale, were either of the


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

individuals that I have asked you about already this morning still working at the centre?---No.

Okay?---As far as I recall.

Did you make any changes to policy or procedure yourself that would guard against the repetition of the sort of behaviour that you had been made aware of by those investigations?---Not that I recall.

Well, looking back, can you say anything about the – or what do you have to say about the culture of a place that allowed that sort of thing to happen, over seemingly quite a period of time, without the Professional Standards Unit being engaged until something pretty critical occurred?---I think there was a – there was a decision-making point for management in regard to these matters, as to whether or not they escalated the matters for review at a higher level, or they determined to manage the matters in-house and by way of some outcome that they determined. In some cases, as was the case in one of these reports, of the harassment claims, those matters were determined in-house and that determination was made by the manager at the time. And the – and I guess – and without being in their shoes at the time and having the evidence that – before me that they made that decision on, I can’t really judge that.

Well, what about when you took over then, and let’s take that case of that fellow who was apparently working there for a while, behaving in concerning ways, went away but came back. Was there anything about the employment practices that you were overseeing, presumably, as acting general manager, that would have prevented that sort of thing happening, or did you introduce any such practice?---No. I don’t believe that I introduced any such practice.

Alright.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Would the management in the individual detention centres be alert to the principles of – that you would apply in your Professional Standards Unit –well, they’re set out in your report, of course. Presumably they would be and they would understand the conduct which was expected of all employees who worked in this field?---I believe that they did. Yes.

Would they have some training in it to move to the role of management of a system like – of a facility like that?---I’m not necessarily sure about that. No. I don’t know whether they would have received training or not.

How would they know what the professional standards were then?---Professional standards did give briefings to all staff who commenced in Correctional Services, I know that much. I don’t know specifically at a management level, but all staff who commenced were given a training session in the role of the Professional Standards Unit. That was incorporated in a – in the induction package for all staff commencing.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Alright. Thank you?---So I presented those sessions myself. They were probably one hour sessions, and they briefed on the role of the Professional Standards Unit and how the system worked.

So that would be one-on-one if the new employees came in individually, if they came in a bunch, if you had four or five of them?---Generally it was done in a bunch.

A group I should say, not a bunch?---As a group. Yes.

I see. Alright. So it wasn’t then the task of the Professional Standards Unit to give refresher courses, if you like, to management, so to assist them in enforcing or underscoring the things that you told the inductees?---No. I don’t think that was the case.

Alright. Thank you.

MR CALLAGHAN: I want to focus some more on the role of the PSU but from your perspective as acting general manager. And to do that I want to take you to one of the incidents involving Dylan Voller, but it’s not one in which you were involved and I’m not going to be asking you about the incident itself. But it does involve an incident that occurred in October 2010, and Dylan Voller was 12 years old. I think just to make it clear we have the footage of that that we can play. I ask for that to happen so that we know which one we are talking about.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I take it that you have briefed the technicians with the document that you – the footage you want shown?

MR CALLAGHAN: I have briefed people to brief them.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Have your people done their job?

MR CALLAGHAN: I don’t doubt it for a second.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Do you want to show it now?

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Thank you. Thanks.

VIDEO SHOWN

MR CALLAGHAN: All right. Okay. We can leave that there. Mr Fattore, you had seen that before?---I believe that I may have, yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Can I suggest to you that even if you haven’t seen it recently that you viewed that footage shortly after the incident?---I can’t recall exactly, but that is possible.

Alright. And I should probably make clear, I mean, there was pixillation in what we saw, but – no. It doesn’t matter. In fact, is it not the case that you were concerned enough about what you saw to take some action in relation to that incident?---I believe so. Yes.

And that included the suspension of the – a youth justice officer pending further investigation?---I’m not sure if that’s the action I took. No.

Well, can I suggest to you that you did refer the incident to the PSU for investigation?---I – that would seem to have been an appropriate action in the circumstances. Yes.

Well, I’m suggesting to you it was, and that you - - -?---That I did?

And you did?---Okay.

And - - -?---Can I just point out I have no authority to suspend any staff member.

I see. So if that happened it was on someone else’s authority, but presumably you were involved in - - -?---Yes. Presumably.

And, again, we don’t have to dwell on that. What I’m getting at is that the matter was referred to the police; do you recall that?---The I think it was referred to the police. Yes.

And the concern is that the PSU did not pick it up again after the criminal matter had been finalised?---That is possible.

And there’s the rub. How is that possible? Accepting that – and we should make it clear in this case the youth justice officer in question was charged and acquitted, so there was no criminal liability, but that can’t be an answer, can it, to the question of whether the PSU should in any case examine the event?---I think it’s fair to say that the PSU should have examined the event. Yes.

Alright. Can you explain why that wouldn’t have happened?---No. I’m sorry. I cannot. I wasn’t in PSU at the time.

No. I understand. Alright. We saw – and we have all seen that incident which involves the picking up of a child by the neck. It’s no part of the PART training – -

MS BROWNHILL: I object to that characterisation. That’s not what the court found about what occurred.

MR CALLAGHAN: Alright.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Well, you saw what we can all see and we can all describe it in whichever way we like. It is no part of the PART training, what you saw in that video, is it?---No. That is not part of the PART training.

And so there was a failure to comply with the procedures for working with children in that case?---There was a failure to follow the PART training in that instance. Yes.

Alright. Was any further training or system or over sight or any other improvement introduced or developed as a result of that incident?---Not that I’m aware of. No.

We have heard yesterday and today evidence from Mr Trevor Hansen; in particular he was questioned about an incident in April 2009. This is an incident where a 15-year-old girl was taken into a security cell, I think, and her outer clothing was removed. You, in fact, prepared a report into that incident, didn’t you?---I do recall that. Yes.

We can go to tender bundle tab 5, which is already exhibit 64.5. You have made your own record of a description of the incident as detailed in paragraphs 1.1.2, 3.1.1. We can read it. You describe the incident?---Yes.

The phrase “leg lock” does not appear in your report. Is there any reason for that?---It might not have been of note to me.

Was it a phrase with which you were familiar? Was the - - -?---Yes.

That you understood the manoeuvre that Mr Hansen was performing to restrain this girl was the manoeuvre described as the leg lock?---Yes. Indeed.

Was it a manoeuvre, to your knowledge, that was commonly used for restraining difficult detainees?---It was a manoeuvre that was used when it was considered the safest manoeuvre to use in given circumstances. It was a manoeuvre that was trained.

Alright. As part of your report you noted that, I think, a lawyer acting for this young person had complained that the Youth Justice Act actually prohibited Mr Hansen from participating in the stripping of a female detainee for the purpose of a search; is that right?---That is correct, for the purpose of a search, yes.

2.1.0 you recorded that concern?---I recorded the concern of the person’s legal representative, yes.

Yes. But part of the rationale for deciding that no action needed to be taken against Mr Hansen was that this wasn’t actually a search, it was just a strip, I guess, or a partial strip. It wasn’t for the purposes of a search, it was for at-risk reasons. That was the rationale why the - - -?---The rationale was there were marked differences between a strip search and the removal of clothing for a cell placement.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Right. But - - -?---Only outer garments are only ever removed in a cell placement in accordance with the procedure time. A strip search, as suggested or referred to in the Youth Justice Act, requires the removal of all clothing.

Well, the procedures as applicable at the time were the ones that were relevant for detainees who were at risk; is that right?---No. That’s not correct.

Well, what procedures – against what procedures were you judging Mr Hansen’s behaviour?---3.5.5, as I put in my report, the security cells are also designated at-risk area within the detention centre. Given the emotional turmoil often associated with a cell placement – not necessarily a risk placement – all items that may be used to self-harm are to be removed during initial placement.

Yes. Okay. So is that the standard that was applicable to Mr Hansen for the purposes of this incident?---I believe so at the time. Yes.

But all items that may have been used for self-harm were not removed, were they?---It was the practice, I believe, to leave the undergarments on, if possible.

Well, I understand you might want to make that point, but you might just answer my question. All items that might have been used for self-harm were not removed, were they?---No.

So there was a breach of that procedure, wasn’t there?---Possibly.

Well, clearly. Clearly there was a breach?---Yes.

But Mr Hansen was not held accountable for that breach, was he?---It appears not.

The point being that, what I would suggest was a distinction that any lawyer would be proud of was made, when it was said, well, the rules about strip searching don’t apply for a particular reason, because these procedures did apply. But when a breach of those procedures was exposed, nothing happened?---I didn’t judge it to be the case at the time. That’s all I can say.

Alright. It was recorded that immediately after she had been thrown to the ground and stripped, this already agitated young girl became very agitated?---Sorry. Can you point out to me where it says she was thrown to the ground, please?

Not to the ground, I’m sorry. I made that mistake yesterday as well. It happened on a bed?---Thank you.

I was asking you about the emotional state of this girl and the procedure to which you have just referred me acknowledges that there is emotional turmoil often associated with a cell placement?---Yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

When Mr Hansen was asked whether anything else was done to alleviate the distress for this girl, we were told that, well, she was given at at-risk gown or a garment. Your investigation revealed nothing more than that?---No. It did not reveal any more than that.

Do you have anything to say about the sufficiency of that response to the observation that the young lady became very agitated?---I am not aware of what other actions might have been taken by staff at the time.

Were you not interested to find out?---That’s not something I canvassed at the time. No.

Was it something that you simply did not think you had to canvass?---Possibly.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I note the time, Mr Callaghan. I imagine you are going to be some little time with Mr Fattore.

MR CALLAGHAN: I will be some more ..... time.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: We might take the morning tea break.

MR CALLAGHAN: Thank you. Can I tender the – even though the CCTV footage is, I think, something that we might have seen a copy of before, for the purposes of the record I should tender the copy that was actually screened to this witness.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. Exhibit 74.

EXHIBIT #74 CCTV FOOTAGE

MR CALLAGHAN: Thank you. If that’s a convenient time.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Thank you. We will adjourn for 20 minutes then. Thank you.

MR CALLAGHAN: Thank you, Commissioners.

ADJOURNED [11.33 am]

RESUMED [12.07 pm]

MR CALLAGHAN: Mr Fattore, at the outset can I offer you an apology. I asked you a series of questions about some footage that was screened to you. It is now


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

clear to me that in fact the footage that was screened to you was not the footage that should have grounded the series of questions that followed. And that was not anything to do with you. But the questions that I was asking you did relate to some other footage which hasn’t been screened to you, but in respect of which you did take some action, as I understand it. We can clarify - - -?---Okay. Which explains my difficulty recollecting that footage at the time.

Indeed. And I apologise for that. But to cut through all of that, and I should make clear even though my observation about the fact that the youth justice officer in – depicted in the footage we saw was charged and acquitted, that was true, he wasn’t the one that was suspended; there was another incident altogether?---Hence my confusion in relation to the suspension.

Hence your confusion, to which I can only keep apologising.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: And what do we do about that part of the transcript, Mr Callaghan?

MR CALLAGHAN: Well, we – my mistake should be a matter of public record for all time.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Sack, cloth, and ashes. I understand all of that.

MR CALLAGHAN: But I was going to cut through all of it and just ask Mr Fattore about the general principle to which the questions were directed rather than bogging down on that particular example. And I was going to do that now.

MS BROWNHILL: Can I just ask then whether the tender of that footage be withdrawn or something, since it doesn’t relate to the evidence that this witness gives about.

MR CALLAGHAN: I am happy to do that. I withdraw the tender of exhibit 74.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. That will be struck from the record.

MR CALLAGHAN: The questions related to this concept of an allegation of an assault by a staff member?---Mmm.

That was a particular example, but let’s just talk about it as a general concept. And the involvement of the police and criminal charges being laid. And the relevance of an acquittal on those charges to whether the PSU continued to investigate or did anything more. And the concern that I have by reference to some examination of some documents that we have done, is that the policy of the PSU was, well, if there is a criminal charge and acquittal, there is nothing more to see here, we don’t have to do anything more. Was that the way that things worked?---I don’t necessarily recall that being the way things worked in all cases. I believe sometimes the seriousness of the matter was taken into account. I believe that in some cases they would pursue. I


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

know there was a view within the PSU that they couldn’t commence an internal investigation until the police investigation and the court outcome were finalised, because otherwise they could be seen to be interviewing witnesses and potentially interfering with those witnesses that were before the court or police. So often I think what happened was it got so far down the track, and it was – it just didn’t proceed.

Because the criminal process, as we know, can take a long time?---Indeed.

And the trail can go cold?---To some extent, I think so, yes.

Yes. Is that still the view: that the PSU or internal investigations should not occur concurrently with the pursuit of criminal prosecutions?---I can’t say for sure. It’s some seven or eight years since I have worked with PSU and I haven’t been involved in a criminal matter recently where they were involved. So I can’t say. It’s really a question for PSU.

Did that remain the view whilst you were in that position?---It did, yes.

Okay. Thank you. I just also want to tidy up or conclude the examination on document 64.5, which is the strip search. I’m sorry, the case of the girl who was restrained by Mr Hansen and stripped of her outer garments?---Yes.

Can I take you to 3.3.2 of that document. Perhaps you can just have a quick look at that for yourself. And – just get you to clarify this: did you specifically ask Mr Hansen whether he offered to remove himself from the situation in order to allow this girl to take off her clothes?---From reading this I can only assume that I’m – I would have, yes. Because obviously this investigation is some eight years old.

I understand?---Recollecting your exact conversation during that interview is not easy.

Can I just – I’ll just briefly put to you the way in this document or your record might be constructed. If you go back to 3.1.1, it’s recorded that Mr Hansen displayed his fingers three times, counting one, two, three. Twice he counted one, two, three – or three times, I’m sorry?---Yes.

And the girl just remained there?---Mmm.

I would suggest to you that that’s indicating that something was expected of her and gives no indication that Mr Hansen was willing to remove himself?---Yes.

And that there’s nothing in your record that indicates that he did make that offer to leave, rather it was said that given her earlier noncompliance they didn’t think it would be an option – meaning Mr Hansen and the other staff member – but they agreed it would have been preferred if it had been presented to them. Meaning that the onus was on the girl to suggest it. That’s one construction that I would suggest to


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

you is placed upon your record of this investigation?---Yes. I can’t recall whether I discussed the issue - - -

Alright - - -?--- - - - with them or not directly.

We will move on?---Am I to take it that we are finished with this one; that you’re not coming back to it?

Almost?---Okay.

Because I was just going to follow on by saying that you, in fact, circulated a memorandum to staff following this incident. It’s tender bundle tab 41. Or you may not have - - -?---No. That’s not me. I wasn’t the general manager at that time.

Alright. Did you cause that – does this – did this memorandum get circulated following your investigation or on your recommendation?---I believe that was the initial outcome of my recommendations. Yes.

Alright. And I just wanted to – so we are finished with that now. I just wanted to put that document in. I will tender that document?---That’s not in fact the end of the process, though.

Please. Please take the opportunity to say anything you would like to about this particular incident?---I was concerned about the removal of the clothing in this situation. I had further discussions with Mr Middlebrook about the removal of the clothing in this situation, and some time shortly thereafter Mr Middlebrook determined that clothes would no longer be removed from detainees who were placed in the cells.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Was that only the practice for at-risk, whatever that might mean, and I’m hoping we will explore that a little further. Were - - -?---No.

- - - clothing sometimes taken from detainees who were just put in their cells for time-out reasons, if I use that bland expression?---I think we need to make a differentiation between their cells. When detainees were placed in their room their clothing was never removed. And generally rooms were referred to as rooms, not cells. When they were placed in a cell, that was a cell placement - - -

Yes. I understand that?--- - - - and the instructions said that all items of self-harm were to be removed. And that’s why partial removal of the clothing was affected by the staff on this occasion. I was concerned about this. Further discussions were had post this report, and Mr Middlebrook made a further determination that when detainees were placed in the cells on a cell placement no clothing would be removed.

Thank you.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR CALLAGHAN: Was there anything else you wished to clarify - - -?---No. That’s all.

- - - or put in context with that particular incident?---That’s all.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Can you assist us a bit more with the date Mr Middlebrook made that determination, Mr Fattore?---I can’t. I received these documents very late in the piece, and I haven’t had a chance to really look into it. I’m sorry.

Not – you can’t give us a ballpark year?---It was very shortly after this. I’m sure.

Well, that’s fine?---Within a matter of weeks or maybe a month, I believe.

Thank you.

MR CALLAGHAN: Okay. We will move on.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Was there a tender there, Mr Callaghan?

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes. The document that’s on the screen at the moment

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. So - - -

MR CALLAGHAN: That’s the tab, tab 41.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. So exhibit 64.41?

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes, please.

EXHIBIT #64.41 DOCUMENT

MR CALLAGHAN: And I’m going to take you to the document which is in tender bundle tab 22. Just give you a chance to have a look at that one; it’s quite brief?---Okay. Yes.

This document relates to the complaint of a detainee that he had been assaulted by one of the youth workers; is that correct?---Yes.

Can I suggest that you were involved in the initial processing, if you like, of that complaint?---As I recall I insured that the complaint was reported to police.

Indeed?---And to the Professional Standards Unit.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And is it also the case that you, I would suggest to you, were extremely co-operative with the police and informed them about the presence of witnesses to this incident?---I would imagine so.

Yes. And I would even go further and suggest that there was a potential discrepancy in the evidence relating to this matter that you drew to the attention of police. When I say discrepancy in the evidence - - -?---I don’t recall that. No.

You don’t recall that. Alright?---No. Is there - - -

It doesn’t matter?---Is there evidence somewhere to the effect that I said that?

We don’t – the point is I’m suggesting to you that you were perhaps extremely co-operative with police and were keen in this case to see that the right thing was done?---Yes.

Or so it seems. And what happened, though, was that, as recorded in this document, Mr Yaxley spoke to the boy in question, who told him that he did not wish to continue to press the charges of assault?---That’s correct. Yes.

And was it you, then, who told the police not to worry about it?---No. I don’t believe it was me. I believe Mr Yaxley handled the matter.

He did the matter himself. Yes. Okay. But it’s noted there that the child was willing to forget about it but he did want an apology from the worker in question?---Yes.

And it’s perhaps self-evident, but an apology is usually only sought if someone believes someone else has done something wrong?---Mmm.

The end result was that the police never actually spoke to the boy in question. That’s right, isn’t it?---As I say, I’m not sure. Mr Yaxley handled it. It appears to me from what’s written here:

Police were contacted and advised not to return to the Don Dale Centre –

so from what’s written here I would assume they did have contact with him.

Yes. Alright. But I would suggest they may have had contact with you but not with the boy. But you don’t recall this?---No. I don’t recall that.

No. Alright. Well, we will leave that aspect of it, but this was a case where there was a PSU investigation and – sorry. I will tender that one, which was - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Exhibit 64.22?



5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45


MR CALLAGHAN: Could we get tab 28 up? I suggest this relates to the same incident and it reflects the fact that there was a PSU investigation but that the worker in question did not attend for an interview on three separate occasions. Correct?---It seems to suggest that too. I’m not sure that this is a document I have seen before.

Alright. Well, it’s also recorded there that the deputy manager advised that this person will not be offered any more casual employment from now. Would that have been you?---No. That wouldn’t have been me. That was the general manager at the time. That would have been Mr Yaxley.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I notice there is still a period of months between the expiration of the six month contract and the date of this memorandum. It suggests that he will be continuing in casual employment for that time, the two months that are outstanding?---That would appear to be the case. Yes.

Right. Thank you. Although I see that you – you haven’t signed off on the investigation of course; it’s one of your colleagues?---I’m not sure that I saw the investigation report. At the bottom of this it says that I was – sorry – that I was advised that PSU is not conducting further inquiries.

I was looking at Mr Grenfell’s name.

MR CALLAGHAN: I will tender that one.


MR CALLAGHAN: It’s tab 28.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Exhibit 64.28.


MR CALLAGHAN: It goes a bit further, though, than the contract having a period to run, though. If we could see tab 29. It would appear that the Department of Justice was pleased to offer this individual further employment from July to October; would you agree with that?---Sorry. That does appear to be the case. Yes.

As general manager you would have been advised about this complaint, advised about the fact that this individual would seem to have not cooperated with the PSU, but was nonetheless kept on and indeed offered further employment at the centre; is that correct?---I’m sorry. I’m not sure where I was advised that he was uncooperative.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Alright. Well, you were advised that the PSU was not going to conduct further inquiries?---Yes. I think that’s different to - - -

Yes?--- - - - being advised that he was uncooperative.

Alright. In any case, someone must have known that he was uncooperative and - - -?---I imagine that was the PSU.

But, surely, they would have informed someone who was responsible for the offering of employment. There would have been some sort of cross-referencing?---Can we possibly go back to the previous document? It might be relevant.

Yes?---It says here the deputy manager has advised that he will not be offered any more casual employment. So perhaps he was aware.

Mr Yaxley?---Yes.

And as a matter of what would have been self-evident, Mr Yaxley would have known that this person was offered continued employment.

MS BROWNHILL: Perhaps rather than speculate about what Mr Yaxley would have known, we can hear evidence from Mr Yaxley in due course.

MR CALLAGHAN: Is there any reason you can think of why Mr Yaxley would not have known about it?---Mr Yaxley was certainly the manager of the rosters at the time, so if – yes.

Alright. Thank you. Excuse me one moment. No. Okay. Mr Fattore, can I ask you to look at another document; that’s tender bundle tab 6. Sorry. I tender tab 29.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Was that - - -

THE WITNESS: I think this one was – this one was sent to me, was it?

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Sorry, Mr Callaghan. Was 29 the letter of offer?

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. Exhibit 64.29.

EXHIBIT #64.29 LETTER OF OFFER

THE WITNESS: Okay.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR CALLAGHAN: Mr Fattore, you can see now the document on the screen, which is tender bundle tab 6?---I can. I believe I have a copy of it here somewhere. I will just try and locate it. Yes.

Yes. In May 2009, this is a memorandum that you wrote to Mr Middlebrook concerning the implementation of recommendations resulting from a review into staffing and training. And this is a review that was conducted back in 2004?---Indeed.

And why was your review done; do you recall? Did Mr Middlebrook ask you to, or was it something that you did of your own initiative?---I’m unsure if Mr Middlebrook was even with us in 2004.

I understand. No. But why was your review done?---This review at this point in time?

Yes?---No. I don’t recall what initiated - - -

That’s okay. The essence of what you had to say, I would suggest to you, might be found on page 5 in the findings; page 5 of that document. And it was that the translation of all the key recommendations into business planning did not occur, and even those that were included were not followed through to full implementation?---That appears to be the case, yes.

Yes. That was your - - -?---Yes.

- - - conclusion after your review. And it was shortly after this memorandum, was it, that you became acting general manager?---Some eight months later, yes.

Alright. Well, you were aware, therefore, when you became acting general manager of the deficiencies which you discovered in the course of doing this review?---The human resource deficiencies, yes.

Yes. For example, one of the recommendations that had not been implemented since 2004 was that the induction program had not been reviewed so as to create a training package which met national standards and guidelines. Do you agree with that?---I do.

And it was at around this time that Lenny DeSouza expressed his concerns to you that the training for youth justice officers was deficient and didn’t address the bare minimum. This has been a subject of - - -?---Mr DeSouza had his views on the training package, yes. He was a youth worker at the centre.

Right. And you have seen his statement?---I have. Yes.

And deed indeed in statement 92 you have made the point that he was concerned only about PART training and not training more generally?---Yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

But your review did demonstrate that training was inadequate, didn’t it?---Needed to be addressed, yes.

Yes?---And, indeed, in conjunction with Mr DeSouza we went on to do so.

Alright. Do you want to tell us about that?---Mr DeSouza became the training officer of youth detention somewhere between my appointment in early 2010 and it might have been about concurrent. We had a number of discussions about the training and it resulted in Mr DeSouza, when he was the training officer actually – sorry. He became the training officer I believe in January 2011, and he went about immediately designing a new induction package.

Alright. And when was that actually implemented?---I believe that was implemented about March 2011.

Okay?---Or thereabouts. I think Mr DeSouza makes reference to it in his statement.

Alright. Can I move on to – or can I ask you to look at an annexure to your own statement, your statement of 23 February 2017, which is statement number 54. And can I take you to annexure JF4 of that statement, which is - - -?---I’m sorry. What is in statement in relation to?

It’s the annexure I want to ask you about. So it’s annexure JF4 to that statement. It’s an email you sent to Mr Kevin Rabie, I think, attaching a draft ministerial brief. By all means take your time to familiarise yourself with it.

MS BROWNHILL: We’re happy to offer assistance to locate the page if Mr Fattore needs it.

MR CALLAGHAN: Do you have the document now?---I have the document. Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I think he is just looking through it as a prudent person. Thank you.

MR CALLAGHAN: I’m going to take you – I mean, are you right for me now to take you to specific parts of it?---Certainly.

The email is dated 31 January 2011?---Yes.

And attached to it is a document – do we take it that this is one that you have drafted?---Given that it’s a ministerial, I would have had significant input.

Input? Alright?---To certain parts. Yes.

If I take you to page 2 and three paragraphs from the top of the page you recorded then that due to the rapid increase in juvenile detention numbers it was reasonable to say that juvenile detention in the Northern Territory is at crisis point and alternative


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

options needed to be explored as a matter of urgency. Was that your view at the time?---I’m just checking the date.

Sure?---Yes. I think that it was my view at the time; that we weren’t in crisis, but if serious actions weren’t taken the potential was there.

Alright. Were there more youth detainees than the centres could hold?---At that point I’m not aware, but we would have been very close to capacity. Yes.

It was pointed out, and if you go to the bottom of page 3, it was pointed out back then that the issue of female juvenile detainees had to be addressed as a matter of some urgency?---That’s correct.

And a proposal – it’s pointed out that a proposal had been submitted to cabinet to construct a 10-bed female facility within the Don Dale grounds. Is that right?---Yes. I believe that’s true.

That proposal was rejected?---It appears to be the case. Yes. That’s what it says here.

And was it the case that there was a recommendation that the proposal be resubmitted?---A little bit after this date, yes.

Yes?---Or that actually another proposal be drafted.

Mr Fattore, did you continue to have concerns of the kind that you have expressed?---I did. I did. Yes.

Did you continue to raise them with - - -?---I did. Yes.

- - - Mr Middlebrook?---There were monthly executive management group meetings and each one of those reports that I tendered for those meetings raised my concerns in these area.

Concerns along the lines of the concerns expressed in this ministerial?---Perhaps not to the same degree, but – yes.

Okay?---Similar earn concerns about the number of detainees that were actually in detention, the infrastructure being stretched and the females in the mix being a very difficult management proposition.

Would it be fair to say that you did everything you could in your position to draw attention to these issues?---I would like to think that I did. Yes.

Yes. And by draw attention, I mean the attention of those who sat above you in the hierarchy?---I would like to think that that’s the case. Yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Okay. They are all the questions I have. Thank you.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thanks, Mr Callaghan.

MR CALLAGHAN: I need to tender the document that Mr Fattore was just looking at.

MS BROWNHILL: That’s exhibit 72; his statement.

MR CALLAGHAN: It’s already in his statement. Excuse me, Commissioners. That’s all I have. Thank you.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: That document, JF4, is attached. There is no need for a separate tender, is there?

MR CALLAGHAN: It’s attached. Yes. No. It doesn’t need to be. I’m sorry.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. Has anyone else indicated they wish to ask any questions of Mr Fattore?

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes. I think there are a few. I don’t know that any order has been discussed. But CAALAS is on the top of the list I have been handed. So if we can start with them.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Alright. Thanks, Ms Graham.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS GRAHAM [12.40 pm]

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Mr Fattore, Ms Graham appears for the Central Aboriginal Legal Service. So she is going to ask you some questions. Thank you.

MS GRAHAM: Thank you, Commissioner. If we could have that document that was just being referred to back up on the screen, please.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: That’s JF4?

MS GRAHAM: JF4. Thank you, Commissioner. And on page 1 of the ministerial document, please, Mr Fattore. In the second last paragraph of that page it’s recorded there ASYJDC is funded to operate at 60 per cent of the month, however it has not been closed since 1 October 2010. This document, I think you said, was prepared around 31 January 2011; is that right?---That’s correct.

And so for a period of about four months the Alice Springs YJDC at that time, Aranda House?---Known as Aranda House.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 14.3.17 P-1019 J. FATTORE XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MS GRAHAM

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MS BROWNHILL: Can I just – I’m sorry to interrupt. The acronym is ASJDC. Not Y anywhere. It’s a reference – not to the – anyway, Mr Fattore has given the evidence about that.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I’m sorry, Ms Brownhill. I’m not quite sure that I understand your objection.

MS BROWNHILL: My learned friend is referring to what appears in the text as ASYJDC. Now, there is no Y in there.

MS GRAHAM: I apologise; that is my misspeak.

MS BROWNHILL: And the JDC, as Mr Fattore has just said, is a reference to Aranda House.


THE WITNESS: Yes. This was certainly a reference to Aranda House.

MS GRAHAM: And so at that time at the end of October 2010 to early 2011, Aranda House was being used essentially as a permanent facility to detain children?---I’m not necessarily sure that’s the case. Aranda House was used as a temporary holding centre and it just got to the stage where there were that many youth coming through the courts, and who needed to be held on remand for court cases, that it was continually open. But that’s not to say that there weren’t some detainees there for longer periods. I can’t recall exactly.

And during that period of October 2010 to January 2011, Aranda House was open continuously with a changing group of about 10 young children?---Up to 10, it was probably a few less than that the majority of the time.

And that was a facility that was only ever intended to be for short periods of detention of days and at the most up to one week?---It was, yes.

And that was a facility that in your view was only appropriately used for up to five children at any one time?---I think five was a comfortable number to manage there. It could effectively manage more, but five was comfortable.

That facility had only five small cells; is that right, isn’t it?---It is. Yes.

And that facility had a small recreation room with a couch in it?---Yes. Yes.

A kitchen?---Yes.

A small courtyard in the centre of the facility?---Yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And would you agree that the whole area in which the children were kept, being the cells and where they might go to the recreation room or the kitchen or the courtyard, was about the size of a tennis court?---Possibly, yes.

There was no classroom on site; is that right, isn’t it?---That is right.

And there was no on-site case managements or other services provided. That’s right, isn’t it?---Case management services were by visitation only, yes.

The small courtyard area didn’t have any grass in it; is that right, isn’t it?---A small courtyard area I believe, was actually Astroturf or outdoor carpet. That sort of thing.

In each of the five cells the windows facing outward of the facility were painted in a dark paint, so that there was no sunlight that could come through?---That was certainly the case for the ones on one side of the centre that I recall.

And other than those windows, the cell door had a very small window which faced to the internal part of the facility; is that right?---I think that’s right. Yes.

In your view that facility was never appropriate to detain children for weeks or months at a time?---No. I don’t believe that it was.

And given the inability to access any natural light in each of the cells, in your view those cells should never have been used to detain children for extended periods such as 23 and a half hours for a day, or in a day?---No. I believe that for cell placements or at-risk placements there was a specific room set aside.

And did that cell placement room have a window that allowed natural light to come into it?---Yes. It did.

And when you walk into the centre when you are first admitted, you come down a small corridor and you’re in the courtyard and there are a number of cells down to your left-hand side past the basketball crate hoop?---Yes.

Where is this cell that you are talking about?---It was to the left, just past the officer’s station, the office.

Is it down a caged corridor beside the courtyard?---You are stretching my memory now. I haven’t visited the centre for a long, long time.

With the conditions that existed at Aranda House, I suggest that you wouldn’t be surprised that a child in that facility wondered why they were being treated like an animal?---I’m sorry, I don’t think I can answer what somebody might think in a given circumstance. That’s a fairly individual thing. I do remember that the Alice Springs Aranda House was very – the courtyard area was very open and well-lit and the windows facing into the courtyard allowed light from that area to get in. I don’t – no. I don’t believe that’s the case.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

The courtyard area had a shade cloth which covered the ceiling area; that’s right, isn’t it?---It did, yes.

And that blocked the natural light from coming in?---It provided shade. It didn’t stop the natural light from coming in. I mean, there’s shade structures over basketball courts everywhere and, you know - - -

I will show you a document. It’s not on the online - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Madam Associate, would you be kind enough to take that to the witness, please.

MS GRAHAM: Mr Fattore, do you recognise that document as being a photograph of one of the cells at Aranda House?---Not a lot to see in the document, but I guess it may be.

Do the windows – I withdraw that. Is the window in that photograph painted in the same way that the windows in the cells at Aranda House were painted?---I honestly can’t recall. They may have been painted. I understand there was an issue with Aranda House being next door to one of the town camps, and there was some banter going on between detainees. So I understand that’s why they were painted. So, yes.

Perhaps if that document can just be marked for identification at this stage, Commissioners.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Thank you. I think it might be the first one for identification. We will see anyway. So it can be exhibit A for identification.

MFI #A PHOTOGRAPH OF CELL AT ARANDA HOUSE

MS GRAHAM: Mr Fattore, you mentioned that the window on the cell doors that were facing the internal part of the facility could receive natural light through them?---I believe so, yes.

That, of course, wouldn’t be the case if the windows were covered up; that is, the windows on the doors of the cells?---Well obviously that wouldn’t be the case, no, if windows were covered.

Could I take you to paragraph 46 of your statement, please. That is the statement which is called Number 54?---Yes.

And there you indicated that you were aware that during your time as general manager Aranda House was used after the time at which Alice Springs Youth Detention Centre was opened next to the adult prison?---That’s correct, yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Can you explain how you do not know the circumstances relating to children being moved from the Alice Springs Youth Detention Centre to Aranda House after the youth detention centre opened in March 2011, during your time as general manager?---I say in my statement that I believe that they were due to security issues at the new detention centre, and that’s what I believe they were.

So is it your evidence that you weren’t aware of Aranda House being used because of capacity issues. That is, overflow at the Alice Springs Youth Detention Centre?---Given that this relates to every day issues in youth detention that happened some seven or eight years ago, I have had to rely on the evidence provided to me that’s recorded on system, and these were the only instances that were actually recorded and that I could have recollection of. So I can’t – I can’t say 100 per cent, I’m sorry.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. I think that’s a fair enough observation, Ms Graham.

MS GRAHAM: Yes. Is it your evidence then that – you may not be able to remember now, but at the time do you say you would have been aware of the use of Aranda House during your time as general manager?---I believe I should have been. Yes.

At the time that the Alice Springs Youth Detention Centre was commissioned, it was your view that that was a necessary step because Aranda House was not a facility that was fit for use for lengthy periods of detention beyond a week?---That’s true. Yes.

When Aranda House was again used after the opening of the Alice Springs Youth Detention Centre, were there any rectifications to the facility made for its further use?---No. As I recall it was mothballed as it was.

And so the reasons that led you to conclude that Aranda House was not a suitable place to detain children on an ongoing basis, those reasons still existed at the time when it was reused; is that right?---Yes.

I just want to cover off a couple of other issues, and I appreciate the difficulties with memory. So just say if there is a difficulty there. But, Mr Fattore, do you have no recollection or no awareness of Aranda House being used to detain children because of poor behaviour such as kicking a door during your time as general manager?---No. I have no recollection of that.

And do you have any recollection or awareness of Aranda House being used to keep children in isolation cells for up to 23 or 23 and a half hours a day?---No. I have not recollection of that.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

What about Aranda House being used effectively as a form of punishment, even when there aren’t any capacity issues or security issues at the Alice Springs Youth Detention Centre?---No. I have no recollection of that.

When both centres were operational, that is the Alice Springs Youth Detention Centre and Aranda House, that put an additional strain on staffing, would you agree with that?---It did, yes.

And so that meant that it was more likely for either one or both of the facilities to have to be locked down because of low staffing levels?---I know that we always attempted to keep enough staff in both centres. In all centres that were my responsibility it was my primary focus was to keep enough staff to match the detainee ratio to staff ratio that was required, and I don’t believe that it was ever the practice to lock down because of staff deficiencies.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Would that be recorded, Mr Fattore, in the daily operational sheets?---I would imagine so, yes, that staff coming and going from the centre would be recorded in the day journals.

And also whether, in fact, lockdown for that reason was required from any particular time, from an hour or two, perhaps at shift changes or something like that. Would that also be recorded?---Yes. It should be.

Thank you?---Yes. And an hour or two might be one thing that might occur, but 23 hours – no.

Are all lockdowns recorded somewhere in each centre?---I don’t believe we were in the practice of having lockdowns as is the case with prisons in youth detention. There was a daily lock down at the Don Dale Centre, at shift change, where detainees came from the school, and they went to their bedrooms for some quiet time after school while the shift change occurred and information exchanged between the two shifts. Then the detainees were brought out for recreation activities for the rest of the day. But I do not recall us having to implement lockdowns because of staffing issues.

Thank you.

MS GRAHAM: Could I take you, then, to your annexure JF10. And particularly to page 4, but you may wish to familiarise yourself with that document for a moment, Mr Fattore?---Yes.

Once you have had a chance to read particularly the section on page 4 under the heading Benefits, I’m just going to ask you a question about that?---Yes.

And to put it in a time frame, this was a document that was prepared some time around 10 October 2011?---Mmm.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And you’re the author of this document; is that correct?---I am. Yes.

So as at October 2011, is it fair to say that you were of the view that the staffing levels at the Alice Springs Youth Detention Centre were at a level below what was required to meet the bear minimum standards of the duty of care to the children that you had in detention there?---As compared to the staffing model at the Don Dale Centre, yes.

And so the yardstick here is not some optimum scenario; the yardstick here is what was happening at the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre. Is that right?---Yes.

And your view was that the Alice Springs Youth Detention Centre staffing levels didn’t even meet the level that was the case at Don Dale?---For a portion of the day, no. That being the afternoon shift. And to meet those standards, the OIC was required to actually stay back and work overtime, and to cover as an extra staff member on shift, which was not the ideal situation.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: What about the length of shifts? Were they – as far as you can recall, were the youth justice officers working eight hour shifts or 12 hour shifts then?---They were working eight hour shifts.

Okay?---Can I point out that this business case wasn’t the first attempt that I made to have that staffing model adjusted. I submitted a previous document which was a cabinet submission.

MS GRAHAM: Yes. And then you left your position as general manager shortly after this document was prepared, and so you are unable to speak to what happened as a consequence?---That’s correct.

Could I just take you then to the following page, with the heading Risks. And if you have a chance to familiarise yourself with that portion of the document?---Yes.

Mr Fattore, isn’t the biggest risk here the various consequences of a continued failure to meet the bare minimum standard of duty of care to the children that were in detention?---I believe that it is a risk, yes.

It’s not mentioned in your analysis of the risks; is that right?---It would appear to be an oversight on my behalf.

There are no further questions from me. Thank you, Commissioners.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thanks, Ms Graham. I note the time, ladies and gentlemen; it’s 1 o’clock.

MR CALLAGHAN: It would be convenient.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. I think before embarking on any more questions that’s probably what we should do. Thank you. Adjourn, thank you.

ADJOURNED [1.03 pm]

RESUMED [2.08 pm]

MR McAVOY: Thank you, Commissioners. I ask whether I might be able to interject with a short comment for the record before this witness resumes. It’s in relation to the evidence to be given by the honourable Gerald McCarthy MLA this Friday.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Certainly, Mr McAvoy. Yes. Yes. You may.

MR McAVOY: Thank you, Commissioner. The Commission made the first official inquiry or request of the honourable Gerald McCarthy MLA to provide a statement on 9 February, Commissioners – almost five weeks ago. The Minister was the Minister for Correctional Services between 2009 and 2012; coincidentally, the period about what we are hearing much of the evidence today.

The Commission requested a response by no later than 23 January. We accepted a request by SFNT to extend that initial deadline to 3 March 2017. We have since been told four times that the statement would be available. On 10 March 2017, on 13 March 2017, which was last Friday, then again this morning, and then again by lunchtime today. And as of a few minutes ago it still hasn’t been received.

The Minister was asked to provide as part of his statement information as to who reported directly to him as minister in relation to the operation and management youth detention facilities, if he had any concerns as minister in relation to the mistreatment of detainees, if he had any view as minister if the facilities were suitable for young people to be detained, to outline his involvement in the Northern Territory Prison Project Review, budget allocations in relation to the Darwin correctional centre, his response to Jodine Kearney’s report into the youth justice system, his involvement and response to identified incidents, and what recommendations he has for this Commission.

The Minister is due to give evidence on Friday this week and I stand up before the Commission now to ensure that the state of preparation and readiness for that evidence has been placed on the record. Thank you, Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Thank you, Mr McAvoy.

MS BROWNHILL: I seek to respond to that, if I may, Commissioners. The first point we make is that while Commission has requested Minister McCarthy provide a


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

statement, there is of course no compulsion on him to do so, so he is seeking to respond to that request as best he can so that awareness is present before the Commission before he is called to give his evidence.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well, if the point that you’re making is that he hasn’t been compelled, that, of course, is true. I think Mr McAvoy is making the point that extensions have being sought and the statement has been promised many times and it hasn’t happened. So obviously it’s the intention to provide a statement.

MS BROWNHILL: It certainly is, and promises that are made and then not able to be fulfilled is, in my submission, neither here nor there. At the end of the day the submission is – the statement is being worked on, the minister is a sitting member of the Legislative Assembly, sittings are happening this week. He is working on the statement and he is doing the best that he can and it will be provided as soon as it possibly can.

The other thing I would say is that the business of this Commission will not grind to a halt if Minister McCarthy can’t give his evidence on Friday, but gives it at some other time. Now I’m not suggesting that that is going to happen. We have – current expectations are that the statement will be provided and that he will give his evidence on Friday. But it’s – I won’t say anything more than that.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Well, thanks Ms Brownhill. But can the Northern Territory give any indication so that those who are preparing to examine Mr McCarthy will have some time in which to do it, to read his statement?

MS BROWNHILL: Current expectations are, or my instructions are, that the statement is being finalised as we speak.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: End of the day today might be a real possibility; is that what you’re suggesting?

MS BROWNHILL: That sounds like a real possibility to me. Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Alright. Thank you.

MR McAVOY: Thank you, Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thanks, Mr McAvoy. Thank you, Mr Woodroffe.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WOODROFFE [2.13 pm]

MR WOODROFFE: Mr Fattore, I appear for the NAAJA, North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency, and I have just a few questions for you today. If I could just take you, firstly, to your statement of – the first in time of 23 February 2017, and

.ROYAL COMMISSION 14.3.17 P-1027 J. FATTORE XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MR WOODROFFE

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

particularly paragraph 26. I believe that has an index of WIT.0050.0002.004. Okay. Thank you. In relation to paragraph 26, I just wanted to talk about firstly that concerned the opening of the Alice Springs Youth Detention Centre on 27 March 2011. And you raised there an important issue of benefit of the revocation from Aranda House to that facility, basically of managing capacity, increased capacity to be managed closer to family and country. Do you see that?---I do. Yes.

Yes. Do you consider the maintenance of connection to family as part of the rehabilitative process for detainees in the Northern Territory?---I think it’s incredibly significant, particularly in the case of indigenous young men and women. I have spent probably 10 years of my early career working in remote indigenous community; I have an adopted family. So for ..... I have a reasonable understanding of the importance of that connection, yes.

And also, that – through your understanding, is that the connection is important because it’s also – it connects the youth to their language and their culture?---It does.

And the youth detention system in the Northern Territory tries to achieve that through visitations of family to the various facilities?---Yes.

And you would agree, as you have indicated in Central Australia here, with the Alice Springs Youth Detention Centre, a lot of kids in this region come from communities with culture, law, and family and kinship is very strong?---Yes.

And your observations as a general manager of Don Dale Detention Centre in the top end, equally, kids who come and detainees who come from Wadeye, Tiwi Islands ..... places of that like have strong connections to culture, language and family?---Yes.

Now, I would like to talk about the – some of the – your ideas perhaps in this space today, about what would be best practice models of detention for that family visitations and support. Would you consider best practice opportunities for families could stay at facilities for extended periods of weekends or days or the like?---If we are talking about a Utopian model, I think that would be appropriate, yes.

And would you see it as something that could actually work as part of the rehabilitative process of councillors and therapists who work not only with the detainee but also with a the guardians and their family unit, working on the family unit as a whole?---I believe that a multi-disciplinary approach to addressing the needs of young people in detention that includes their family would be an appropriate methodology. Yes.

And also would you – could it be considered to be part of a re-release of a detainee, for a through-care type of work, of working with the child and the family?---I believe that is probably a key component of any good justice system.

Yes. Now, in maintaining connection to family and community, talking about best practice models, would you also consider the possibility of low-risk detainees or


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

detainees serving short terms of detention to actually reside in a facility in a community, or something built of that like?---I think that is a very viable suggestion. And if may, not with regard to detainees currently because it’s no longer the mandate of the department that I work with, but in regard to adults that are currently being explored in Central Australia with Yuendumu, in conjunction with Yuendumu community to have potentially prisoners of a low-risk level or offenders stay on community in a partnership with the community to manage them. That is something that is being scoped currently.

All right. That’s fantastic. Now, if I could just – you have raised in your evidence earlier today about your concerns which you have raised through the management group executive about the detention numbers, and would you also have advocated for the increasing detention numbers that were occurring with female detainees?---Would I advocate – I’m sorry, could you just - - -

Would you have advocated in those management groups for increased services and facilities for female detainees as well?---So during my tenure as general manager?

Yes?---Yes. Quite specifically, actually. It’s not mentioned in my statement because it wasn’t raised, but concurrent with the cabinet submission to support the revised staffing model in Alice Springs for the Alice Springs Youth Detention Centre, I also formulated a cabinet submission with specific reference to a 10-bed facility outside of the Don Dale Centre to be staffed independently for females.

And you see that what flows from that is that there needs to be increased services and therapeutic supports of female detainees which are of a different type to general male population?---Yes.

Yes?---That’s true.

Alright. I do have one particular question in relation to the cabinet submission that you did – had great input into. I believe that’s connected to annexure JF8. And index number WIT - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I think it has beaten you, Mr Woodroffe. It’s already on the screen.

MR WOODROFFE: Thank you, Commissioner. If we can go to page 9 from paragraph 29, yes. You see the heading there Closing the Gap. Now, obviously there is many and varied reasons in relation to the increased numbers of detainees occurring in Central Australia, but I understand in that paragraph you proffered one other explanation as to why we saw the increase in numbers through that relevant period. And from that I understand is that basically in Central Australia and around the Northern Territory there are increased police personnel in communities, and new commissionings and police stations and police posts.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And I understand there that this seemed to be one unintended consequence of keeping communities safe – was increased numbers, increased charging, increased court appearance, increased detention. But I note that there you have also recommended it would be your strong view today – that there should also be equal commitment from the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory for evidence-based program and design delivery, education, training, to help reduce community – or improve communicate safety and reduce re-offending. And that was something you have advocated in that cabinet submission and you would still advocate today?---That appears to be the case. Yes.

Thank you. No further questions, your Honour.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thanks, Mr Woodroffe.

MR CALLAGHAN: I don’t believe anyone else wants to ask Mr Fattore any further question, but I would like to - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I think it may be that Ms Brownhill wants to - - -

MS BROWNHILL: I don’t have any other questions at the moment - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: No. Nothing?

MS BROWNHILL: - - - unless something arises out of what Mr Callaghan proposes now.

MR CALLAGHAN: Well, that’s what I was going to say. I would like to both correct an earlier mistake and address an oversight, and Ms Brownhill may want the opportunity after that.


<FURTHER EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR CALLAGHAN [2.20 pm]

MR CALLAGHAN: So if I may, Mr Fattore, you were good enough over the lunch break to view some footage to confirm the contents - - -?---Mmm.

- - - of the film. And I might ask that particular piece of footage to be played now.

VIDEO SHOWN

MR CALLAGHAN: Alright. We can leave it there I think. Thank you. Mr Fattore, that’s footage of an incident involving Dylan Voller, I think, 20 October

.ROYAL COMMISSION 14.3.17 P-1030 J. FATTORE FXN©Commonwealth of Australia MR CALLAGHAN

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

2010?---Sorry. I didn’t see the footage; it didn’t come up on my screen at all. I was waiting for it.

I’m sorry. I’m sorry.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Could you kindly check the screen. It came up on my monitor.

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes. It was up on the bar table too. I’m sorry. We had no idea. Is it on the screen in front of you now?---No.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Could – is it showing generally for everybody else? Perhaps then, Mr Fattore could just come and – come down to the bar table and look at it there. Mr Callaghan? He could just come down.

MR CALLAGHAN: Having said that, there is agreement at the bar table that this is the footage that Mr Fattore was shown at lunchtime.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: All right. If he wants to have a look at it – do you need to - - -

THE WITNESS: I’m happy to accept that was the footage I was shown.

MR CALLAGHAN: Do you accept that those who are acting for you have seen it just played?---Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Are you comfortable you can remember from seeing it at lunchtime, Mr Fattore?---Yes. If it is the footage I saw at lunchtime.

Thanks, Ms Brownhill, for that concession.

MS BROWNHILL: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: That means that we can get on with the questions.

MR CALLAGHAN: And I will tender it before I forget to.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Exhibit 74, I think.

MR CALLAGHAN: The last one was. The last time I tried to tender the video it was.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Well, that’s been withdrawn. So 74 is still on offer, Mr Callaghan.

MR CALLAGHAN: Alright. I will take it. Thank you.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: You can have it.

EXHIBIT #74 CCTV FOOTAGE


Mr Fattore, at the time or at around the time you made the comment to police that you thought the footage showed the use of excessive force by the youth justice officer; is that correct?---That’s correct.

And you clearly had the view that at the very least what had occurred had to be investigated?---I believe that it did. Yes.

Yes. And, in fact, that youth justice officer was suspended pending further investigation, and I understand that wasn’t your power, but do you understand that that was in fact the case?---Yes. Yes. I do. I think that was the case. Yes.

Yes.. You referred the incident to the PSU for investigation?---I did. Yes.

And I don’t know whether you have had the chance to review the records over the luncheon break as well, but I would suggest to you that there wasn’t ever a PSU investigation because the matter had been referred to police?---I don’t think in this case that was what occurred. I believe the person involved’s – the staff member involved – contract with the department actually ceased a very short time after the incident, which effectively meant they were no longer an employee and couldn’t be pursued as such.

Alright. Well, for whatever reason there was never a PSU investigation?---No. There wasn’t. Yes.

Thank you. That matter hopefully now clarified, can I ask you about another topic. And I asked you earlier about the situation – about a particular situation at which a girl had her clothing removed. I’m not going to rehearse all the circumstances, but there was reference during the exchange to the concept of being at risk?---Yes.

Can I ask you, from your understanding of your time working within the system, what – well, can I ask you about the term “at-risk”. Was there a definition anywhere?---I believe at risk was defined in – a definition – I know that it was mentioned in a section of the youth justice regulations; that there was a specific reference to it.

What about within the administration of the detention centres generally though?---There was also - - -


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MS BROWNHILL: Sorry to interrupt. Can my learned friend just be clear about which period he is asking in relation to?

MR CALLAGHAN: Well, let’s stick with the period when you were acting general manager or general manager; at your understanding of the situation as it was meant to be understood by you and your staff during that period?---There was specific at-risk procedures policy in place at the time, which was to be followed by staff.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: But what would trigger – what would trigger it is what’s being asked?---Any – any reasonable belief, I guess, that a detainee was going to self-harm themselves, whether that was developed through them stating an intention or undertaking an action that suggested they might be thinking about self-harming.

MR CALLAGHAN: And – but was that the test, was that written down somewhere, a reasonable belief?---I can’t say – I can’t recall. I’m sorry.

No. Alright. Was it therefore – well, I withdraw that. Was a separate record kept of at-risk behaviour as we have heard, for example, about a use of force register. Was there an at risk register?---There was for every at risk episode an independent file created, which went on the detainee’s record.

On the detainee’s record?---Yes.

But was there any free-standing record of at-risk behaviour?---I can’t recall, I’m sorry. We are talking about six or seven years ago.

We have an understanding of some of the things that might happen when a detainee was deemed to be at risk, that is to say they would be placed in isolation and have clothing removed and so on, beyond that was there any other conventional sort of treatment applied to those who were deemed at-risk?---There was a requirement for a medical practitioner to attend as soon as possible, I think; within two hours.

I see. And in your experience was there any difficulty in compliance with that requirement, any difficulty in getting access to medical practitioners?---Generally not, no. And there was also, of course, if these things occurred during work hours, there was also case worker staff at hand who could spend time and talk with them and so they were generally professionally trained social workers and the like.

And if it wasn’t when those people were at work?---Then the reliance until they came to work the next time was on those medical professionals who visited.

We would be talking about the overnight period presumably?---Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: And the medical practitioner, would that be someone who was associated with the adult prison permanently? Was it nearby or you would have to take something out of the hospital?---There was an arrangement under a


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

contract, I believe, while I was there, with a company to provide those services, and so there was an on-call person who would attend.

I see. So - - -?---There was also - - -

That might be, then, any – I can use this expression – random medical practitioner who may or may not be trained in these sorts of issues and particularly with conditions and life inside a detention centre?---Generally the contractor provided services to the correctional system as a whole at the time. So they were familiar at least with the systems that were in place. So they weren’t – they were actually the medical service during the day as well that responded. So - - -

I understand. Thank you?---And provided – they did the admissions checks when people came into detention; those sorts of things.

MR CALLAGHAN: And so there was the, perhaps, isolation, the removal of items that might allow for self-harm, and a medical check. Would anything else follow from a detainee - - -?---I seem to recall on advice from the case management staff in the centre that Territory Mental Health Services were engaged as on well on occasion. To be quite honest I probably can’t recall. It was not my day-to-day business to manage those things. It was managed by the case management unit, and they can probably provide more information than me. But I know they would engage Top End mental health services and a psychiatrist to come in and work with the youth.

Alright. There was some additional material in that; I don’t know whether Ms Brownhill wishes - - -

MS BROWNHILL: I do have a question for Mr Fattore about that.

MR CALLAGHAN: I have no more.

MS BROWNHILL: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Would you like to come to the lectern, just so that your questions can be more readily heard, Ms Brownhill. Thank you.

<FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS BROWNHILL [2.34 pm]

MS BROWNHILL: Mr Fattore, you made reference in the evidence you were just giving about at-risk records. You made a reference to records being put on the detainee’s record. Is that a computerised system or a hard copy system or was it at the time that you were the general manager?---At the time it was a hard copy system.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 14.3.17 P-1034 J. FATTORE FXXN©Commonwealth of Australia MS BROWNHILL

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Yes?---It was a bright red file so that stood out in the file to anyone that reviewed it that there had been an at-risk episode. That record was maintained in the youth workers’ office at the time while the person was at risk and then it was placed on their file and a new file started each time.

Thank you. That’s all.


MR GEORGE: Might I raise one administrative type of matter.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Could – would you – yes.

MR GEORGE: Yes. I have it now. Thank you, your Honour. Your Honours – your Honour and the Commissioner have granted leave for us to cross-examine this witness. We are not proposing to take that up today. Those instructing have advised me they are happy for that to be held over for other hearings which may be soon and I just want to put that matter on record. Thank you.

MS BROWNHILL: I’m sorry. I didn’t understand that Mr Fattore was being called back. His evidence, as I understand it, was to be completed today.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well, I thought so too, but perhaps Mr Callaghan can confirm what it is the reference is to. I don’t know that - - -

MS BROWNHILL: Well, I don’t – I’m sorry to admit this, but I don’t know who that – who my learned friend who just stood up and addressed the Commission acts for. So we are not even aware about that.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Could you kindly put that into the record, please.

MR GEORGE: Thank you, your Honour. My name is Andrew George; I act for Mr Morgan.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. Did I – yesterday, when you made your application, Mr George, it was with respect to Mr Fattore, is that correct?

MR GEORGE: That’s correct, your Honour.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. And there was no suggestion then that it would be held over, as I understand it?

MR GEORGE: No. And your Honour, as I’m sorry to bend down like this.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: You can lift it up if you like.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR GEORGE: Thank you. I don’t want to upset the technical people, handling their equipment. Your Honour, at this point I have no questions and no desire to examine the witness, but I just received that advice at lunchtime. Perhaps I misunderstood it, and if I did I apologise to everyone. But that is what I thought was indicated to me.

MR CALLAGHAN: I think the issue arises because Mr Fattore is in that category of witness who has put on what I will call a Voller-responsive statement, or at least part of his statement is Voller-responsive. And so when the Dylan Voller situation was being canvassed earlier, his evidence might have been thought of as being under that umbrella, and that he might have fallen into that category of witness who may be recalled. I don’t, myself, apprehend the need for further examination of Mr Fattore, but Mr O’Brien and others may be in a different position. All I can suggest is if that was to happen there would have to be a special need identified and I don’t see how there could be any difficulty with requiring parties to do that. Can I just say, Mr Fattore has been very co-operative with us today, through our difficulties; I don’t know whether he will have a difficulty in returning if it’s for a specific purpose.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Alright. Thank you. That better explains it. Mr O’Brien, since your client’s name has been taken here, what’s your approach?

MR O’BRIEN: We have an interest in cross-examining this witness and I anticipate it will be short. I came prepared to do it today but because of the material that has been served and discussed without raising that matter again, we have told Counsel Assisting and request of them the opportunity of cross-examining this witness at a later hearing and we were led to believe that that was what was going to occur.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well, I think probably it’s better if I let Mr Fattore be released from his summons now. What I would suggest is that if you actually have questions that – specifically for Mr Fattore, as opposed to systemic type questions, which I think you should be able to ask him now, if you have any particular factual matters you want to take up with him you might think about reducing those to writing and perhaps you would be content with a written response to the questions. There has been no sense of controversy to my ear about any of his answers. If it doesn’t – if that’s not a comfortable way of doing things we can revisit it. But I think for the present purposes consider doing it that way, Mr O’Brien. I’m not ruling on it; I’m just asking you to consider doing it that way. And, if necessary, and the Commission is persuaded that it’s necessary to ask him to return, we will issue a fresh summons for a limited purpose.

MR O’BRIEN: Well, I would prefer to do it personally. I would like to take my cross-examination as far as I can. If it turns out that the material reveals documents that might further cause me concern as to the need to recall this witness, I can then make the application through those assisting.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: You can.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR O’BRIEN: I will need 10 minutes, and I don’t want to hold things up now, but I’m prepared to do it straight away.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Alright. Well, I understand that the technicians would actually like to be able to fix the screen in front of Mr Fattore anyway, so they might use this break to do that. So we will adjourn for that to happen. Thank you.

ADJOURNED [2.40 pm]

RESUMED [2.52 pm]

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR O’BRIEN [2.52 pm]

MR O’BRIEN: Thank you, Commissioners.

Mr Fattore, my name is O’Brien, and I represent Mr Voller. You were shown exhibit 74, which was the video footage of the youth officer carrying Mr Voller into his room and throwing him on to the mattress; do you recall that?---I do. Yes.

When you saw that you obviously noticed something in that vision that troubled you?---Yes.

It obviously disturbed you to the point that you thought it was a reportable incident?---I did. Yes.

And that’s how you have described it in your statement to the Royal Commission, correct?---Yes. Once I had seen the video I did make that determination.

Thanks. According to your statement you saw that video footage on 29 October 2010?---I believe that is correct. Yes.

And the incident had occurred some nine days earlier, on 20 October 2010; correct?---Yes.

Would you agree with the proposition that you should have seen that video footage as the acting general manager of youth detention at Don Dale earlier than nine days later?---I think it would have been better if I had. Yes.

Well, after all, that video footage was available from the moment that incident took place; correct?---My understanding is that Mr Yaxley was tasked to look into the matter; that’s what I recall. He engaged the services of the security systems manager from the Darwin Correctional Centre, because at the time there were – the requirement for someone from a technical back ground to actually retrieve the

.ROYAL COMMISSION 14.3.17 P-1037 J. FATTORE XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MR O’BRIEN

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

footage, unfortunately, so Mr Yaxley, I believe, didn’t retrieve that footage immediately.

The fact that - - -?---That wasn’t possible.

The fact of the matter is, Mr Fattore, that Dylan Voller, according to your own records, made a complaint almost immediately, within hours; is that right?---That is correct.

So are you saying that the video footage wasn’t immediately available; is that the response to my question earlier?---Yes. I am.

Alright. So although the footage depicted something that troubled you, some nine days later, the result was that the youth worker continued to work in that nine-day period, didn’t he?---I can’t recall for sure.

Well, according to your statement he worked until at least the 28th before being suspended?---That’s possibly correct.

So do you agree with the proposition that that put youths in that centre at risk for a further eight days from the moment that incident occurred?---I think there was a due process to be followed in internally investigating the complaint by the detainee, and I tasked that to Mr Yaxley and Mr Yaxley undertook that and brought the video footage to me at a future date.

And when you saw it you realised that it had had to be something that had to be referred to the police; correct?---I did. Yes. And in the meantime attempts were made to put Mr Voller in contact with police.

Well, you were criticised by the Children’s Commissioner, you and others, criticised by the Children’s Commissioner for the fact that you relied on Mr Voller going to the police rather than taking the police – the complaint to the police directly. Do you agree with that criticism?---Mr Voller was in Alice Springs at the time. I can’t speak directly to what steps were taken by Alice Springs staff, but I can say that when I became – believed on reasonable grounds, developed belief on reasonable grounds that it was a reportable incident, I reported the matter.

You were the acting manager of juvenile detention at Don Dale at the time, you agree with me earlier you would have liked to have seen that footage earlier than nine days later; is that right?---Yes.

You accepted that. So do you think, then, it wasn’t an error in relation to supervision of your staff and an error in relation to the care and wellbeing of the children, that that process took nine days?---I tasked Mr Yaxley to undertake an internal investigation. He brought me the evidence when he had the evidence and that’s when I viewed it. That’s really all I can say.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

You blame Mr Yaxley for that, do you?

MS BROWNHILL: I object.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Let the - - -

MS BROWNHILL: Let the witness answer the question.

THE WITNESS: That’s really all I can say.

MR O’BRIEN: You don’t take the responsibility. You say the responsibility lay with Mr Yaxley; is that right?---Mr Yaxley was the operational centre manager. I tasked him to look into the complaint and explore the evidence of the complaint. When he brought me that evidence I made a determination.

Now, I want to suggest to you that to the extent that the officer wasn’t – that the video footage wasn’t shown to you directly, to the extent that the police were not immediately notified, and to the extent that the youth worker was not immediately suspended, that represented a fundamental failure by you as a superior officer at the Don Dale Detention Centre?---All I can say is that I had a responsibility to investigate the matter, and I tasked Mr Yaxley to investigate the matter.

I want you to be shown exhibit 64.22, please. It will come up on the screen, I hope. You were shown this document by Counsel Assisting during the course of the inquiries he made of you?---Yes.

It shows that there had been a complaint by a youth worker called Harold Morgan. Do you see that?---Yes.

That complaint was made in – on 29 April 2010; correct?---Yes.

Mr Morgan was department with by PSU, correct, in relation to this complaint?---I know the matter was referred to PSU. Yes.

And if we can have a look at tab 64.28, just to remind us of that. No. That’s not it. 64.28 is the exhibit number, I think. He failed to turn up to the PSU appointments; correct?---That appears to be the case. Yes.

And he didn’t, it appears, couldn’t with the PSU investigation; is that the case?---Yes.

Right. And - - -?---And then it appears PSU discontinued the investigation.

And after that, Counsel Assisting showed you a document that demonstrated that this particular youth worker, Harold Morgan, was nonetheless given an opportunity to be re-employed with the Don Dale Detention Centre; correct?---That’s correct.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And it was Harold Morgan, who on 20 October 2010 assaulted Dylan Voller, pursuant to that section opportunity to be employed with Don Dale; correct?---I believe that’s true.

How on earth did that happen?

MS BROWNHILL: I object to this lining questioning. It’s precisely the questions put by Counsel Assisting. Why are we doing this again?

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Thanks, Ms Brownhill. The thought occurred to me that it was exactly - - -

MR O’BRIEN: It wasn’t put because this document and this man’s name was not linked to the second assault on Dylan Voller.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well, that’s the only difference. That’s true.

MR O’BRIEN: Well, that’s a significant difference, because we are dealing with the same employee, Commissioners.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: All right. Yes. I will allow the question.

MR O’BRIEN: How on earth was a man who was allegedly assaulted a child in April, referred to the PSU, didn’t participate in the investigation, then get another contract to be allowed again to assault a child?---There is no reason the PSU couldn’t have conducted an investigation of Mr Morgan anyway. Okay? There is no reason they couldn’t have determined that the CEO or whomever should in some way penalise Mr Morgan for those actions. I don’t recall ever seeing anything coming from anyone with authority to say that Mr Morgan’s employment was affected by this incident. It had been settled by way of mediation, police hadn’t pursued it, the PSU hadn’t pursued it - - -

So he got another contract and he resumed work; correct?---That’s the case. Yes.

Only to allegedly assault another child some six months later; correct?---It appears to be the case. Yes.

Mr Fattore, who is responsible for that in your mind?---I believe there should have been a determination made in regard to Mr Morgan by someone with the authority to make that determination about the effect of this incident on his ongoing employment. PSU should have conducted that investigation and advised the CEO or the – or the executive director at the time and - - -

Who was?---Mr Middlebrook.

Right. Who was head of PSU?---I believe Mr Ferguson.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

David Ferguson?---That’s correct.

Thank you.---And once that determination was made a penalty should have applied to Mr Morgan and that penalty should have been taken into account in his future employment. That penalty could have been anything from counselling, retraining, do nothing, to termination.

And if he was terminated he wouldn’t have been there on 20 October for us to see this video that obviously – of things that obviously did take place on that day; correct?---Potentially not. Yes.

Okay. I want you to have a look at this other document that I showed you whilst the Commissioners had a break. It’s a document that I have put you on notice about and also the video operators, so hopefully it can come up swiftly. There it is. This document, you have had a chance to have a brief look at; correct?---Yes.

It relates to a complaint by Mr Voller in – to the Ombudsman’s office in relation to lockdowns at the Alice Springs Juvenile Holding Centre?---Yes.

Do you see that?---Yes.

It appears that at some time in December of 2010 he made a complaint that he was only being let out twice – this is on the second page, please, operator – he was only being let out twice a meal for day – sorry – twice a day for meals. They were locked down 11.30 every day and then let out for an hour and then returned to their cells at 12.30 pm. Do you see that?---Mmm.

Now, that was a complaint made by Mr Voller to the Ombudsman’s office?---Yes.

And it was referred to you for your comments and for you to respond; correct?---Yes.

I want to have a look at your response, please. It’s in the front, on the first page, on the top section of the document. That’s – so this is getting this in sort of a time frame. This is some two months after the incident where Mr Voller has been picked up and thrown into the mattress. You accept that. 15 December 2010?---Sorry can you repeat the question.

The incident which you saw on the video footage over lunch - - -?---Yes.

- - - was 20 October 2010, when Mr Voller was picked up and thrown?---Yes.

That concerned you so much as to report it to the police; correct?---Yes.

And this incident – this complaint has come about some two months later, is that correct?---Yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

This time at the Alice Springs Detention Centre; right?---Yes.

And you were asked to deal with the complaint; right?---I was asked to seek information regarding the complaint, yes.

Did you ever speak to Mr Voller about this particular complaint?---No. The information would have been sought from the OIC of the centre at the time.

Who was Mr Clee, Barrie Clee?---That’s correct.

Right. And Mr Clee said that he gave you some information that you – led you to say that claims are a complete exaggeration of the facts and point Mr Voller refused to – and in point Mr Voller refused to talk to a professional visitor at 9.30 when woken this morning because he was too tired; is that right?---That’s correct.

That’s what Mr Clee told you?---That’s what they said to me.

Right. Okay. So you didn’t take the complaint seriously enough to speak to the complainant about it?---I –

Mr Voller?---I got Mr Clee to talk to – it was the responsibility of the OIC to respond to complaints of that nature.

But you decided that you would say to the Ombudsman that Mr Voller was completely exaggerating the facts?---That is what was put to me by Mr Clee.

And you believed him, did you?---When you are running a detention centre that’s 1500 kilometres from where you are based, you need to put some trust and faith in the OIC of that detention centre, yes.

Knowing what you know now, in relation to the times in which children were locked down in facilities such as the Alice Springs Youth Detention Centre, would you reflect on that as being a complete exaggeration or do you think it might have needed some further investigation?---Sorry. What is it that I know now?

Well, what you know about the way children were treated in these detention centres over these periods of time, particularly in the last 10 years?---I’m sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about. I thought the purpose of this Commission was to determine what those things were.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: You will have to put something a bit more precise. The topic of that complaint was an inordinate amount of lockdown time. So I think you will just have to focus your questions relating to that if you’re going to refer to this.

MR O’BRIEN: I withdraw the question. Certainly, Commissioner.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

MR O’BRIEN: There have been numerous Children’s Commissioners complaints and reports, correct, in relation to juvenile detention in the Northern Territory; correct?---I’m aware of one only.

Have you read one?---Sorry.

Have you read one?---Yes.

Okay. Was that the 2012 one, 2015 one – do you know?---I think it was – I’m not sure because it started in 2011 and I don’t think finished until 2014 or ’15.

There have been reported by learned authors from other states – Mr Vita – correct?---Yes, that’s correct.

Did you read that report?---The Vita report? Yes. I did read it.

Okay. There have been reports commissioned by the Territory Government themselves; correct?---That’s correct.

And have you been – come to be aware of some of the contents of those complaints – those reports?---Yes. I have.

Okay. And would you agree that within those reports at least one of the topics of concern has been the large periods of lockdown in juvenile justice facilities?---I don’t believe that was the case while I was the acting general manager. There was never anything put to me to suggest that it was.

No. I’m suggesting about your state of knowledge now, having read those complaints, being aware of these issues?---I believe there may have been some of those issues in there. But you need to keep in mind that my reference to those reports was largely in my current role as the general manager of community corrections, not juvenile detention or youth detention. So - - -

Let me come at this a different way. You must – I understand that you have accepted Mr Clee’s advice as to what was happening in the centre. You understand that?---Yes. Yes.

Now knowing what you do, having read what you have read and seen what you have seen, and being in the position you are today, do you think you might have wanted to conduct a further investigation in relation to Mr Voller’s complaints as opposed to the one that you did then?---I am not aware of any new evidence that relates to that complaint by Mr Voller, which would want – require me to do so. No. To make that decision.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Do you think that it’s appropriate that - - -?---I think we are talking in generalities here.

Well, thank you for that observation. Mr Fattore, I suggest to you that any person who is responding to a complaint such as that from a 12-year-old boy had the – had and should have taken the opportunity to speak to the 12-year-old himself. You didn’t, and that was a failure on your part?---That is your opinion. My opinion is that I tasked somebody who was in control of the centre to respond to that complaint and I trusted their assessment.

And you were aware that complaints being made about that person who you then entrusted subsequently?

MS BROWNHILL: I object to that. What complaints?

COMMISSIONER WHITE: We have to be a bit - - -

MR O’BRIEN: I withdraw the question.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. You just can’t be too general.

MR O’BRIEN: Certainly. Withdrawn.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Have you finished, then, Mr O’Brien?

MR O’BRIEN: Thank you, Commissioners.


THE WITNESS: Thank you, Mr O’Brien.

MR O’BRIEN: Thank you, sir.

MS BROWNHILL: No re-examination from me. Thank you.

MR CALLAGHAN: I think we are done. May Mr Fattore be excused? If he is required again - - -


MR CALLAGHAN: If he was required against we would – resummons.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Thank you. Mr Fattore, you are excused. Thank you for your assistance to the Commission. If for some reason that is not really anticipated, we need to ask you to come back, then a fresh summons will issue. But you should regard yourself as released from your present summons---Thank you very much, Commissioners.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Thank you.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [3.10 pm]

MS BROWNHILL: Before we move on to the next matter, can I just indicate for the bent benefit – can I indicate that a statement by Minister McCarthy has now been signed and has or will momentarily be forwarded to the solicitors assisting the Royal Commission.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thanks, Ms Brownhill. I’m sure that will relieve counsel.

MS BROWNHILL: I’m sure.

MR CALLAGHAN: I call Derek Tasker.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. Do we know if he wishes to take an oath? Thanks, Mr Tasker. Could you take the Bible in your right hand, please. Do you, Derek Tasker, swear by almighty God to tell the truth, to this Royal Commission and board of inquiry.

THE WITNESS: Yes. I do.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: So help me God.

THE WITNESS: So help me God.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. Be seated now.

<DEREK JAMES TASKER, SWORN [3.13 pm]

<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR CALLAGHAN

MR CALLAGHAN: Could you tell the Commission your full name, please. Derek James Tasker.

Mr Tasker, you have prepared at least two statements that I’m going to tender. That is the statement of 16 February 2017, which is statement number 26, and a statement of 12 March 2017. There are a few of those. To be clear the statement addresses the evidence of one “AV”, that’s Alpha Victor, and is identifiable in that way. So I tender those two statements.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 14.3.17 P-1045 D.J. TASKER XN©Commonwealth of Australia MR CALLAGHAN

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes, thank you. As separate exhibits or - - -

MR CALLAGHAN: As separate exhibits, if it pleases the Commission.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. Exhibit 75 for the first.

EXHIBIT #75 STATEMENT OF DAVID JAMES TASKER DATED 16/02/2017

COMMISSIONER WHITE: And exhibit 76 for the second.


COMMISSIONER WHITE: Are there just two, or three?

MR CALLAGHAN: They are the only two that will be tendered at the moment. Mr Tasker has prepared others that will not be tendered at this stage.

You are currently the training officer at the Alice Springs Youth Detention Centre?---That’s correct.

When did you commence in that role?---Approximately 2013-14.

And it is the latest in a long series of positions you have held within the youth detention system in the Northern Territory; is that right?---That’s correct.

When did you start working in youth detention here?---It was actually 20 years ago this year, when the government of the day opened up Aranda House.

Has all of your work in youth detention been here in Central Australia?---Yes. I have had a few trips up to Darwin, the Don Dale Centre, for escorts and so forth. I have spent about a day in Don Dale but the majority of it has all been in Alice Springs.

The employment positions that you have held have all been here?---Yes. That’s correct.

Yes. Okay. You now conduct training for, what, all of the youth justice officers in Alice Springs?---That’s correct.

And what about those involved – those based in Darwin; do you train them as well?---No. I don’t have any dealings with the guys in Darwin.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

As indicated, you have got a lengthy history and have held a number of positions. One of those involved being in charge of the Alice Springs Youth Detention Centre for an extended period in 2012; is that correct?---That’s correct.

You were the acting deputy general manager between February and December of that year?---Could I just rephrase – have that rephrased, please. The acting deputy general manager, I don’t think he came on until about 2014 from memory. It was the officer in charge.

We are talking about the title of the position that you held?---Yes.

Okay. The responsibilities – that might be easier to come at it that way. What were your responsibilities during that period?---Basically it was the officer in charge of the juvenile detention centre.

Right. Now, going back to when you started, which I think you told us was 20 years ago, what qualifications, if any, did you have before you started work?---Sorry. I’m just getting over the flu.

That’s okay?---Yes. When I first started it was just PART training. That was all that was done back in those days. And obviously the seniors first aid kit.

That’s the PART training?---That’s correct.

Which went for how long?---Five days. There were three days of it, then the other two days were evade tactics.

So there were five days of training and that sort of thing, and some first aid training?---The first aid was actually separate. That was part of the job position that you had to have – was a first aid certificate.

And that was it? In terms of training and qualifications?---I’m sorry. Could you repeat the question.

In terms of training and qualifications that was all that was required for you to start work?---That is correct.

I don’t need to any personal details but did you have any health difficulties back in 2012. I don’t need to know the details if you don’t want to share them?---2012 was a very difficult year for us. I did have a rash and so forth, but that was not stress-related. I actually went to my doctor and that was deemed to be of a hygiene dilemma which he believed I picked up from the Alice Springs Juvenile Detention centre, areas such as clothing, washing, toilet facilities and so forth.

So this was an illness, and again I don’t need to know personal details, I really don’t, but this was something that was contracted during your work at the detention centre, that was the - - -?---That’s what the doctor was led to believe.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

You received treatment, presumably?---I was prescribed medication from my doctor.

Yes. Was there any question of workers’ compensation or anything like that?---No. It wasn’t brought up.

Okay. Well, let me just ask you this: did your health difficulties have any impact upon your ability to manage the centre?---It would be fair to say – yes.

In what way?---We had a lot of casual staff back then, including myself. There was issues with contracts, people were working and weren’t being paid and so forth. There was even times myself. We were trying to run the centre on casual pools and it was very difficult.

I’m going to come to that, but my question was really whether those health difficulties that you had had an impact on your ability to do your job?---No. I don’t believe they did.

Okay. Can I go to tender bundle tab 119. This is a document that is attached to an email from Michael Yaxley to Russell Caldwell. You know both of those gentlemen?---That’s correct.

It’s a communication between them. I don’t suggest that you created the document, but I want to use it as a platform, if you like, to assess the situation at the Alice Springs Juvenile Detention Centre as at the time of that document which I would suggest to you is I think 16 November 2012. Have you had the opportunity to view that document yourself?---Briefly this morning.

This morning? Alright. It contains quite a list of problems that were believed to exist at the centre whilst you were managing it; is that right?---Yes. I’m sorry, but that’s dropped out a little bit there for me.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: You can’t see it?---No. It’s minimised. Can I have it enlarged, please.

Could you enlarge it a bit more. It’s a bit hard to – is that all right now?---Thank you, Ma’am.

MR CALLAGHAN: And can we just get the numbers 1 and 2 at the top. Thank you. So you have had a look at that this morning; you have had an opportunity to think about it?---That’s correct.

Because I want to go through some of the concerns that are itemised there that were found to be issues with the centre at that time, including the proposition that basic safety and security and good order were not being adhered to. That’s item 1 on that list. Do you have a sense of what is being addressed in that part of the document?---Are you referring to item 1?


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Item 1, yes?---We would always rely on staff to make sure doors were secure at all time.

What do you say to the proposition that basic safety and security was not being adhered to at the Alice Springs Juvenile Detention Centre while you were managing it?---I would disagree with that.

Do you disagree with it because you assert that it was being managed well, or because you would say that other people weren’t doing their jobs, or on what basis would you disagree with it?---It was being managed as well as could be expected. We had a lot of casual staff on and it was difficult.

Well, let’s pick up on that, because when you say it was being managed as well as it could be expected, you immediately referred to staffing issues. And indeed in your statements, we can go to them if you like, but you have referred to staffing issues in your statement as well?---Yes.

Please elaborate. Please tell us what the staffing issues were at that time?---Well, back in 2012 we were not only running the juvenile detention centre but we also had detainees in Aranda House and we also had the detainees that actually escaped. They were housed at the Alice Springs Correctional Centre. And it was extremely difficult to try and manage the three centres.

You just didn’t have enough staff, is that – does it come down to that?---That’s correct. Yes. That’s the - - -

What steps did you take to raise that problem with management?---I’m sorry, Ma’am, but that light is very bright in my eyes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Would you like if you turn your chair a little so you are not looking at it. You don’t have to look at me when you answer. If you want to look out that way towards counsel, can you avoid the light that way?---Could you repeat the question, please. It was just the light that distracted me.

MR CALLAGHAN: What steps did you take to raise the staffing issues with management?---These staffing issues were raised with the management.

Were or were not?---Were.

And who did you raise them with?---From memory it was at a staff meeting and I think we addressed the staff to Michael Yaxley.

Mr Yaxley?---That’s correct.

He is the author of the email to which this list was attached. What do you say you said to him about staffing levels?---We just didn’t have enough staff to try and manage the facilities.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Did you say that in writing, or did you just - - -?---Verbally.

Did you ever put it in writing, do you recall?---I can’t recall. No.

Did you convey a sense of the level of staff that you did need to run things properly?---Sorry. Could you repeat that, please.

Did you tell Mr Yaxley anything about the number of staff that you felt you did need in order to run things properly?---No. Because I was only a step-in role, so I never went into that.

Well, you say you were a step-in role, but it was between February and December, wasn’t it, with a period of leave perhaps, but – a period of 10 months?---Yes. Yes. I certainly didn’t want to be in the position for that length of time. It was my understanding that they were actually looking for an officer in charge.

Did you tell people that you didn’t want to be in that position for that length of time?---The last time I did, yes.

What do you mean the last time?---I mentioned it to Mr Victor Williams and Mr Kevin Cooper.

I see. Well, look, there is quite a list on the screen in front of you of things that were found to be inadequate at the centre whilst you were in charge. There is probably not a great deal of point in going through each one, although there is one I will come back to. But as a general proposition are you prepared to say this was all fair comment or that it was a biased opinion or what’s your reaction to that summary of the state of affairs?---I don’t think it’s a fair comment. I was actually never given any further training to deal with Aranda House or the Alice Springs Juvenile Detention Centre. The only training I had was actually PART training.

I might be confusing two different things. Whether it was fair to blame you for it is one thing, because you might say you didn’t have the training or the staff or whatever, but as to whether it’s a fair summary of the way things actually were, what do you have to say to that?---That – I would agree with that.

That’s - - -?---Yes. I would agree with that.

So it’s a fair summary but it’s not fair to blame you for it?---That’s correct.

Okay. There is one particular aspect of that list that I wanted to ask you about, and that’s item 9. Staff have been inciting detainees. What do you understand that to be referring to?---Looking at that, I would say they are trying to get staff to wind up detainees.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And what does that mean to you in terms of the person who was there. What sort of things did you observe that might fall into that category?---It could have been talking down to detainees, or shouting.

Talking down to them, shouting. You use the phrase a moment ago “winding up”. What sort of things might have been done to wind up a detainee?---Perhaps it could have been lengthy court dates, things like that.

I don’t follow that, I’m sorry?---So if there was a lengthy remand date.

I’m still not following. We are talking about staff winding up detainees. I can understand a lengthy remand date might be something that a detainee would be - - -?---It may be a staff – “Look, I’m going home tonight; you get to stay here.”

Yes. Okay. Sort of a - - -?---I am just giving you examples.

Yes. A bit of a nasty sort of a remark on the way out the door; something like that?---Possibly could have been. Yes. Not that I witnessed anything, but I’m just giving you examples.

Alright. Well, did you witness anything that fell into this category?---None that comes to mind.

Any idea where that information came from to allow it to be recorded, that staff were inciting detainees?---No. I don’t know where that’s come from.

You have just suggested to us a couple of examples, like talking down to them or saying something like, “You’re staying here, I’m going home”, that sort of thing. Those seem to come to mind fairly readily for you. Were they things that you do – even if you don’t recall specific people doing them on specific occasions, are they the sorts of things that you do actually recall happening?---No. That doesn’t come to mind. I was just giving you examples.

Alright. Were there particular effects on operations as the result of a lack of female staff?---That has always been a big issue.

Please tell us about that. That’s something we are interested in?---Even as I speak before the Commission today, we only have the one female officer and it is extremely difficult to deal with when you get a female detainee that comes in and it’s happened over the years.

Are you telling the Commission that even now at Alice Springs there is one female officer?---That is correct. There is only one female officer currently that works at the Alice Springs Juvenile Detention Centre.

And that cannot be enough for things like strip searches or - - -?---No. It’s not enough.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

For any number of operational moments would occur when you needed more than one female staff?---I would agree with what you’re saying.

Yes. But this was an issue or has been an issue, you say, for how long?---I have known this to be that issue over the last number of years. There has been a - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: The entire time you have been working in the youth justice area, Mr Tasker, do you think?---Ma’am, yes. Back in Aranda House it pretty well became full-time when we had a detainee that came and he was severely handicapped.

Yes. You refer to him in your statement?---Yes. And that detainee couldn’t be flown to Darwin or anything like that. So it was noticeable – and all of that was a male detainee, but we just didn’t have enough female staff.

Did you need a female staff officer to deal with that young person who was disabled? Specifically, Mr Callaghan is asking you questions of course about the ratio of female staff to female detainees that come in?---Not as such for strip search and so forth of that particular, but for a mother role, if I can explain it like that. Sometimes it’s better that the female would talk to that particular detainee rather than the male detainee. I have observed that. Yes.

Yes. I understand. Thank you.

MR CALLAGHAN: Well, what steps are you aware of that have been taken, and at your level it may simply be requests, but what steps have been taken to address this issue of female staffing?---Yes. There is currently a course that starts in Darwin next week and it’s my understanding that there are a number of female officers that are – well, female staff members that will be participating in that course. I would also like to make mention to the Commission the last recruitment course for – that I was involved in, I think there was about half a dozen, and those people were deemed suitable and they were actually offered employment but, means beyond my control, the course did not go ahead. Those people were actually – it just didn’t happen.

Do you know why not? I understand it may have been beyond your control, but why didn’t it happen?---It possibly could have been to a budget – but I’m not 100 per cent sure.

Who would know?---That would have to be head office.

Anyone in particular?---Bill Carol, from memory, was the executive director in Darwin at that time. I’m not sure if Vic Williams was the general manager at that time, but I’m fairly certain Bill Carol.

You have mentioned, I think, that there is some recent, some current attempt to address the problem of female – the shortage of female staff. But it has been a problem, seemingly, for a very long time. Has it taken this Royal Commission to –


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

or the existence of this Royal Commission to spark some action on this front?---I believe that’s correct what you’re saying. Perhaps if I could further advise the Royal Commission as well: since we moved to the Alice Springs Juvenile Detention Centre we have had some – I don’t know the exact numbers, but we have had over 20 escapes from the juvenile detention centre and the fence line is just totally inadequate. And I think it has got to the stage where it needs to be addressed to the Royal Commission to advise the government something needs to be happen there.

Look, I was going to ask you, you make reference in your statement, I think to security concerns?---Yes.

Is that right?---Yes. I was just giving that as an example.

Okay. We don’t – there is no particular order we have to do this in. That’s one – that would fall under the category of a security concern?---Yes. And the concern of that is, as well, that as recent as last week we had three escape from the Alice Springs Juvenile Detention Centre. The young fellas shouldn’t have done what they done, and I accept that, but when they were confronted by the police officer with the dog handler, and I’m not blame – I’m not having a go at police or anything like that, the young fellas were directed to stop and they refused, and the dog let – the police handler let the dog go, which resulted in it one of the young fellas being bitten by the – on the leg and around the wrist area and so forth, and for that young fella to be operated on at the hospital that night – I don’t think they should be put in that position. They shouldn’t have escaped, and I accept that, but the centre should be secure that these kids are not in that position and it’s not just a one-off thing, as I don’t have the exact figures, but it would be up around 20 that have gone over the fence.

So, correct me if I am wrong, but your point as I understand it is that, the way things are currently built, the temptation to escape is put in the place of – put in the face of these detainees and - - -?---The temptation is right there.

And it’s offered by the way the building is constructed?---The way the building is constructed, not only by the fence, but also by the building itself.

Can you – thank you for this. Just – can you be a bit more specific in that regard. Not just the fence but the building itself: what exactly are you talking about?---Well, perhaps if I could advise the Commission: last Sunday these young fellas were able to get through the - - -

MS BROWNHILL: Can I just interrupt, I’m sorry. Public interest immunity concerns may arise if evidence is to be given about weaknesses in the security of the facility.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: You mean compromise the security if the escape routes are identified by Mr Tasker?


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MS BROWNHILL: Correct. Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well, there is something to think about, Mr Tasker?---I’m sorry, Ma’am. I’m not – I don’t understand what you mean.

The solicitor for the Northern Territory quite rightly raises this issue: that if you identify for the Commission what you see as the weaknesses both in the physical structure of the buildings themselves, and in the perimeter fences, such as to make it easier to escape than had they not been built in that way, this may be information at large which can be utilised by those housed within it to try your escape routes?---Ma’am, I would put to the Commission - - -

MS BROWNHILL: Can I just make a submission that the witness should be – well, the Commission should not – and should prevent the witness from indicating the kind of material that I have - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. I don’t think he – Mr Tasker understood your objection. I was trying to use slightly facetious language to explain to him what the concern is.

MS BROWNHILL: Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: And I think you understand that now, don’t you, Mr Tasker? Do you understand what the concern is? If you identify escape routes in your evidence?---It may pass on to the detainees that are currently housed there.

Correct---Having said that, Ma’am - - -

Just pause a minute. So you accept that that’s what might be a consequence?---That’s correct. Yes.

Alright. Now, just hold it there. Mr Callaghan?

MR CALLAGHAN: The point having been taken, and understood - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: And it’s a well-taken point, Mr - - -

MR CALLAGHAN: And understood. I wonder if – there is a competing interest, though, of this being something which I would submit is directly relevant to the business of the Commission, but it doesn’t have to be done in public.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well, also, we don’t actually need the details. Surely it is sufficient for Mr Tasker to have alerted – or raised the concern that there are security issues because it’s up to somebody else to do an audit of the detention centre.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR CALLAGHAN: It is. Look, I am not going to pursue this line of questioning further in public, but it may be something – whilst he has raised the issue, it may be that there are – there is a bit more detail to be teased out, but it doesn’t have to be publicised. I accept that. And we might discuss ways in which we can do that.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well if there are ways, or if it’s necessary. But perhaps if you move on from this very interesting topic. I’m sure lots of people are listening with some interest. We might leave that for the time being, Mr Tasker.

MR CALLAGHAN: Mr Tasker, we will move on then to a passage of your statement of 16 February that I want to ask you about, and that is at paragraph 91. Can we get that up. I might actually read that out:

Isolation was necessary for particular behaviour, for example, assaults. And when the detainee may need some time out. In 2012, the placement went for 24 hours. In 2016, after two hours the superintendent or deputy superintendent would be given an update.

Then it goes on to talk about further reviews after two hours. A few things about that. Isolation was imposed for particular behaviour, for example, assaults, and when the detainee needed some time out. Assaults we can understand, but how do we understand when isolation was imposed because of the need for some time out?---It may be that that particular detainee is presenting himself to be very aggressive and in a threatening manner. There may not actually be the physical assault there.

Well, would poor behaviour generally be a reason for isolation?---It would depend on how that poor behaviour was escalated.

Well, could isolation be imposed for, I suppose, a variety of reasons. But can you give us some examples of that sort of poor behaviour that might result in isolation?---Threatening behaviour, threats of physical assault.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Might it also happen that a young person would feel that they were just too distressed by their environment with other detainees around them, get agitated and need to have some time to themselves separate from the other detainees. Was that – is that ever an issue?---Yes, Ma’am. I have actually witnessed that. I have had detainees come up and ask me, “Can we just have some time out. I need to – and have a chill pill.”

And do they go back to their own rooms when that occurs or do they go to one of the other dedicated cells for isolation?---Back to their rooms.

Thank you.

MR CALLAGHAN: When you say that in 2012 the placement went for 24 hours, does that mean when they were placed in isolation it was for a period of 24 hours?---No. It was to be reviewed after a two hour period, and we would notify the


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

deputy general manager or the general manager in Darwin and give them an update of the detainee’s behaviour.

Well, is it just the difference of notifying the manager or the superintendent? Is that the difference between 2012 and 2016? You see, in your statement you draw the distinction between the situation in 2012 where you say it went for 24 hours, and in 2016 you say, well, after two hours there would be a review. On one reading of that, in 2012, the placement went for 24 hours.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Have you got your paragraph in - - -?---Yes. It did go back in 2012. The two hour placement was actually brought into place when the current Commissioner, Mark Payne was in the – was in the position of the Commissioner.

MR CALLAGHAN: Right. And so before that, if someone was placed in isolation, it was for 24 hours?---That’s correct. Yes.

I see. Okay. Still in – I will tender the exhibit which is tender bundle 119.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I think that’s exhibit 64.119.


MR CALLAGHAN: What – Mr Tasker, one of the problems identified in bold type towards the bottom of the page that’s on the screen at the moment, is - - -?---May I have that enlarged, please.

Yes. Sure. In that document concerns were expressed about allegations of sexual harassment. You agree with that? You don’t have to comment on the specific allegations at the moment, just that you were aware that allegations of sexual harassment were said to have been a problem at the centre whilst you were in charge?---I was aware that there was an officer that was having some issues with another officer of harassment and that was referred on to Darwin.

Is that the same – in your own statement – we might get statement 26 and annexure DT2. If we can get that on the screen and I think we will need to enlarge it. This is an email chain which you have annexed to your own statement, in which you demonstrate the way in which you dealt with a staff member who had been accused of sexual harassment. Are you familiar with this material?---Yes.

Yes. It’s in your statement?---Mmm.

And in brief what happened was this: there was a female staff member who sent you an email in which she recorded a list of complaints about this particular staff member?---Yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And you, in the first instance, spoke to that staff member and we can see a reference in the email chain to a phone call on Sunday 4 November 2012. We take that as a reference to the conversation that you had with this male?---Yes.

Can we take it that you raised with this male staff member all of the complaints that were made by the female staff member?---I can’t recall if I raised them all, but I have obviously raised that it was a concern there.

Yes. Alright. You can’t specifically recall but as a matter of the way you would ordinarily deal with such a situation. Alright. Can we just remove that from the screen now, please. Can we take it that as a matter of the ordinary course of business that you would – you would raise all of the complaints that she had made?---That’s correct.

And so in this case does that mean that you would have raised with him the concern that she had expressed that he had spoken inappropriately to detainees?---That was quite a few years ago. I obviously would have raised concerns with him, yes.

Yes. And in particular do you recall there was a complaint that a member of staff at the centre had said to it a detainee, “You just want to touch my dick. You’re gay”; do you recall that I can’t recall that.

And I’m getting this from the complaint made by the female staff member. I’m querying whether you raised it with the male staff member. You may have?---I can’t recall raising comments to that effect.

Alright. He also said –he is also recorded as saying to a detainee, who was doing a task, “Well, that’s good. Now do it – well, great. Now do it without pants”?---I have no knowledge of that. I can’t recall it.

What about the proposition that this staff member had been talking with some of the young detainees about dildos and vibrators?---No. I’m not aware of that.

Well, it’s all in the email chain that you have attached to your own statement.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: That’s – you have just put that in very recently, Mr Tasker, so did you not read the documents that you attached to your statement?---There was concerns with that staff member. I did raise it and I advised the management in Darwin.

MR CALLAGHAN: You did.

MS BROWNHILL: Can the witness be shown the document specifically, either – or perhaps in his hard copy version so that he can see whether he is familiar with the document or not.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. I understand that Mr Tasker has his documents with him.

MS BROWNHILL: Yes.

MR CALLAGHAN: That was my understanding. He has got a pile of papers in front of him. Notification was given that these documents would be referred to.

MS BROWNHILL: Mr Jacobi will come out and point out the page.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: It is sometimes hard when you are sitting in the witness box to find your place. That’s true.

MR CALLAGHAN: Does that refresh your memory?---Yes, sir.

As you rightly point out, you – or as I pointed out to you, you spoke to this staff member who was behaving inappropriately, and you followed that up with an email, in which you referred to your telephone conversation, and told him that, well, that a formal caution was warranted?---Yes. I can remember that.

Yes. It’s – again, it should be in front of you. If you need more time to have a look at it, by all means. But the point I’m getting to is this: that you sent him that email in which you accepted his apology about comments of an inappropriate nature, you referred to the conversation that you had had with him, and in effect gave him a formal caution?---That’s correct.

He responded to you saying:

I understand and will keep my mouth closed.

He went on to say though:

Can it also be brought to your attention that I am not the only JJO talking like this in front of detainees.

That was his email to you 5 November 2012, 9.14 am, on the front page of DT2. Okay?---Yes.

So this man, who was behaving in the way I have described, brought it to your attention that he was not the only JJO talking inappropriately in front of detainees and my question for you is what inquiries you made to find out what other staff members were talking inappropriately in front of detainees?---At the time I can’t recall if I did. I just referred it on to Mr Yaxley.

Indeed, you did. And so can I ask you whether Mr Yaxley asked you to make any further inquiries about other staff members who were talking inappropriately in front


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

of detainees?---I can’t recall that he did. I actually think that they came down from Darwin at that time.

Alright. At that time armed with the information, no doubt, that you had sent them in that email that you forwarded to Mr Yaxley; is that right?---That’s correct.

Thank you. Can we take a look at your 16 February statement again, please. And specifically paragraph 33. Can I just get you to read that to yourself. It’s possibly just a bit ambiguous. Is what that is intended to convey was that there was a need for a brief period of three days to do three things: operate the ASYDC, Aranda House, and supply staff for the ASCC?---That’s correct.

That was for three days. But Aranda House was, in fact, open for a much longer period?---That’s correct.

Yes. And for how long until your recollection was Aranda House reopened?---I don’t have the exact dates at hand, but it was in the months, but possibly three months, somewhere around there.

Thank you. If we go to paragraph 75. During your time as acting officer in charge you are not aware of the use of any control measure being in breach of any legislation, regulations, policy or directives. Is that your evidence?---Yes.

Can we put that in some context, though. Because in May of 2012 the children’s Commissioner conducted an investigation into Mr Voller during the course of which you were spoken to by interviewers, and perhaps we could get tab 86, tender bundle tab 86 on the screen. At page 4714. Scroll down. Down a little further. Okay. Just excuse me for a moment. Can we go over the next page, please. Alright. Can we take that from the screen. I just suggest to you that the investigators took the view that notwithstanding your willingness to cooperate with that investigation you had little to no knowledge of policy and procedures regarding juvenile detention. Are you aware that this conclusion was drawn about you?---No. It was only brought to me recently.

Alright. What’s your response to that proposition?---I disagree with those comments from that particular officer. I don’t know the policy and the procedures word-for-word. Having said that, they are in our office and we are able to access them if need be. In all my 20 years I have never known any officer to know the full procedures and policies.

When you say they are in your office, you mean copies of the relevant policies and procedures?---That’s correct.

Were they always in the office when you were operating the centre?---That’s correct. They have always been there.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

While we are talking about paperwork, I suppose, can I ask you about the use of force register at the Alice Springs outh detention centre. There was such a thing, I take it?---That’s correct.

What form was it kept in?---It was just, like, in a journal and there was a use of force register.

I see. And that was the case while you were – for as long as you were charge, and was it a bound journal?---Even prior to me being in charge. Yes.

Alright. Thank you. Your statement of 16 February at paragraph 117 describes the admission booklet that is used for new detainees. I think in your statement you say it was given to detainees in 2012 through to 2016; is that right?---That’s correct.

And you annexe it a copy of that to your statement at DT3?---That’s correct.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Mr Tasker, what happened for young people who didn’t speak English very well or at all, for example, those young people who came from remote communities where English may have been well down the list of the languages they spoke at home?---Yes, Ma’am. We would utilise other resources.

Such as?---I have even utilised other detainees that would know that particular detainee to actually help. We would also, if need be, be in a position to contact the Aboriginal case workers over at the Alice Springs Correctional Centre. From memory I think we possibly may have even given the detainee a phone call as well to family members.

Well, they couldn’t, of course, explain the conditions under which they were detained and what the rules of the facility were, which is the essential that you had to convey with the booklet. So how could you be confident that the other detainees who spoke in language with them were conveying the correct things to them?---Just by their facial expression and their body language and so forth. They presented themselves to be quite happy and cheerful.

Thank you.

MR CALLAGHAN: Was that as scientific as it got?---We would ask the other detainees if the particular person would understand that, but having said that, I haven’t come across that many incidents like that.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: How did you satisfy yourself, Mr Tasker, that the young person could speak and understand English and know what the booklet was conveying to them. Many we have heard have not a very high level of education?---Show them the booklet, and so forth. I think there may have been photos and that. And just continually talk to them and reassure them that they are in a safe environment as well.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

How long would that induction take on average with any young person who came into the care of the detention facility?---Normally it would take up around 30 minutes. Perhaps if I can also point out: we also had the medical people as well would look at the detainees as well, and we could be guided by that.

We have heard that a lot of young people in detention suffer from hearing deficits, along the spectrum from profoundly deaf to moderately deaf to slightly deaf. And I take it that an audiology test wouldn’t be done within the first few hours of the young person coming into the detention centre?---No. I have not known one to be conducted that quickly.

They were done sometimes?---Through medical, I can recall that hearing tests were done, and that we have conveyed detainees up to the hospital and also Flynn Drive for hearing tests.

How did you satisfy yourself then that for those young people who either could not speak English and had hearing deficits, or, while they might be able to speak English, could not read very well, and also couldn’t hear, how they would understand how the centre operated?---Mix them in with the other detainees, use the other detainees to help that particular detainee. But, again, we didn’t have a lot of detainees that I found that had that problem. Hearing, yes, and so forth, but the general operation of the centre – I found that detainees understood and fitted in quite well.

They worked it out; is that really what you’re saying, in effect?---That’s right, Ma’am. Yes.

Thank you.

MR CALLAGHAN: There are two other aspects of that book that I wanted to ask you about, or booklet. On the last page there is mention of the official visitor. It’s said that once a month an official visitor will visit the detention centre; the official visitor will speak to you regarding the way you are being treated. Is that the way the system worked in your experience?---That’s correct. And I always encouraged all the detainees to speak to the official visitor. I was actually very strong on that.

Alright. So every time the visitor attended the visitor spoke with each individual detainee?---It was up to that particular detainee. I have known incidents where the detainee declined to talk to the official visitor.

Sure. If we can go back to the 10th page of that document, it’s – I’m not sure whether it has a page number on it. It’s 0038 on our system. But if you’re working from a hard copy it’s the page that begins with, “What happens when you do something wrong at the Alice Springs Juvenile Detention Centre”. And the part I particularly want to draw your attention to is the last part of the first paragraph where it said:


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Different officers have different approaches and as a detainee you will need to learn the different ways that officers deal with situations. This will help you predict what will happen to you if you behave poorly.

Is that, in your opinion, an appropriate instruction for a child entering detention; that it’s up to them to work out what might be the unpredictable response of an officer?---I wasn’t the one that actually actioned this booklet, that was done in Darwin.

I understand, and thank you for that. And so now I’m asking your opinion: is that an appropriate instruction for a young person entering detention, that things – effectively, things are going to be unpredictable, so you better work that out for yourself. It’s no way to - - -?---No. It’s not.

- - - treat young people, is it?---I would not encourage detainees to – for that.

No. Young people need certainty. They need to know - - -?---They need guidance.

That’s right. And it needs to be consistent, doesn’t it?---That’s fair to say.

That’s really inappropriate sort of a message to send to a youth entering detention; would you agree?---I agree that with that. But as I have just previously said, I wasn’t the one – and I accept that you have already accepted that. But, yes, I think that should be rephrased.

Is this booklet still in use?---That’s correct.

They are all the questions that I have for Mr Tasker for the moment. Thank you.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Thank you. I’m noticing the time. Is it proposed that we should sit on, Mr Callaghan, to dispose of Mr Tasker’s cross-examination?

MR CALLAGHAN: I think – we might clarify this. As I understand it, CAALAS have some questions. I’m not sure what their time estimate is, having heard the examination. NAAJA likewise. Mr O’Brien – I think this is a clear case, I would have thought, where the Voller-responsive material is to be corralled, but he also has leave, I think, on behalf of another – on behalf of Jamal Turner. Perhaps, Commissioner, you might inquire of those representatives as to their time estimates and then assess whether it’s possible to finish Mr Tasker this afternoon.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Alright. Ms Graham, how long do you think you might be? Realistically. I’m not making people truncate their questioning at all.

MS GRAHAM: Realistically I think my time frame would mean that it would be more sensible to start tomorrow morning.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well, and you’re just the first one. Well, I think, then, if that’s the case - - -

MS BROWNHILL: Can we still have an indication, sorry, of how long each party intends to be, if that’s possible?

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Do you need that indication?

MR CALLAGHAN: It would be helpful for the management of Commission business.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Alright, then. Yes. Thank you. So by that, I take it, Ms Graham, you are looking at 20 minutes?

MS GRAHAM: I would say more 30 to 40, Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Very well. Thank you. Yes. And are you or Mr Boulton going to ask the questions for NAAJA, Mr Woodroffe?

MR WOODROFFE: I will, Commissioner. I would say in the order of about 10 minutes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Okay. Thank you. 50. Mr O’Connell?

MR O’CONNELL: Yes, Commissioners. I will be questioning on behalf of Jamal Turner, also known as AV. I would say 15 to 20 minutes.

MR TIERNEY: Commissioners, Tierney is my name. I appear for vulnerable witness BY, and I will making an application to cross-examine, and I will be about 10 minutes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. Will you be doing some re-examination, do you think, Ms Brownhill?

MS BROWNHILL: It’s possible, but I don’t know yet, having not heard the cross-examination.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well, so far, do you think you will be?

MS BROWNHILL: So far – no.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: No. Alright. Well, we are looking at an hour and a half, and we know, of course, lawyers once they are on their feet – time passes so quickly. Goodness me, they are not very good at time estimates.

MR CALLAGHAN: By the same token my learned friends have the opportunity overnight to hone their questioning and focus.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: That’s one way of looking what they might do overnight. They can also add questions, Mr Callaghan. In any event it is certainly unrealistic to consider thinking of doing it this afternoon and I think we should at least allow an hour and a half for Mr Tasker’s further examination tomorrow morning. So we will need to ask you to come back tomorrow?---Yes, Ma’am.

And that will assist with other witnesses.

MS BROWNHILL: I’m sorry. Another option is for the 10 minute voters, NAAJA and BY, to take – undertake that now. At least one of them could do that before 4.30.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I think we will just – I think we will just leave it as we are. We have got other things to attend to as well this afternoon, Ms Brownhill. Thank you. Are there any other matters that need to be raised with us? There is something I want to say on behalf of the Commissioners.

MR McAVOY: Commission, I might just confirm: I understand the solicitor for the northern – the solicitor-general has advised the Commission that the statement of Minister McCarthy has been received.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: She did?

MR McAVOY: It was received in full at 3.30, and I thank them for their efforts.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Thanks, Mr McAvoy. Commissioner Gooda and I wish to make the following statement:

The Commission has been told that some young people who may want to provide information to the Royal Commission or to give evidence to this Commission have been subjected to comments or behaviour both in and out of custody which may be interpreted as intimidatory conduct. It could also involve breaches of the Commission’s directions concerning confidentiality of information. Such conduct is unacceptable. We cannot stress too strongly to any person or persons who have engaged in conduct or comments of that kind that the Royal Commission takes any attempt to interfere with its processes extremely seriously.

We take this opportunity to remind people that it is an offence to intimidate, threaten, or otherwise prevent a person from giving evidence to the Royal Commission. The penalties for these provisions range up to five years imprisonment. The penalty for contempt of the Royal Commission is up to three months in prison. In appropriate cases the Commission will not hesitate to refer breaches of the Royal Commissions Act and the Inquiries Act to police. If there are no other applications then we will adjourn until tomorrow. Yes, Ms Brownhill?

MS BROWNHILL: Can I just ask, Commissioner, that you confirm that that position obtains in relation to witnesses called by the Commission whether they are


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

vulnerable witnesses or not. So that it applies to conduct directed to, for example, officers of the Northern Territory.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: It was not specific to vulnerable witnesses at all; it applies to all witnesses of whatever kind. And while some people may not think that their conduct could be described as intimidatory when they are simply making sarcastic comments or negative observations about a participation in the Commission’s processes, that will be for others to judge and self-righteousness, I think, will not be a good explanation. It is important to be very careful. Thank you. Please adjourn. I’m reminded there might be a view tomorrow. Is that your understanding, counsel?

MR CALLAGHAN: It was scheduled. We are rather hoping there might be some flexibility in that, though. It would be best, I think, if we can finish this tranche of witnesses in the morning.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Indeed. So 10 o’clock. Thank you.

MATTER ADJOURNED at 4.21 pm UNTIL WEDNESDAY, 15 MARCH 2017


5

10

15

20

Index of Witness Events

TREVOR HANSEN, ON FORMER OATH P-978CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR O’CONNELL P-979CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR O’BRIEN-HARTCHER P-991

THE WITNESS WITHDREW P-994

JOHN FATTORE, AFFIRMED P-994EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR CALLAGHAN P-994CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS GRAHAM P-1019CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WOODROFFE P-1027FURTHER EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR

CALLAGHANP-1030

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS BROWNHILL

P-1034

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR O’BRIEN P-1037THE WITNESS WITHDREW P-1045

DEREK JAMES TASKER, SWORN P-1045EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR CALLAGHAN P-1045

Index of Exhibits and MFIs


P-995


P-995


P-995

EXHIBIT #64.10 REPORT PREPARED BY JOHN FATTORE P-998

EXHIBIT #64.7 REPORT PREPARED BY JOHN FATTORE P-1002

EXHIBIT #74 CCTV FOOTAGE P-1008

EXHIBIT #64.41 DOCUMENT P-1012



EXHIBIT #64.29 LETTER OF OFFER P-1015

MFI #A PHOTOGRAPH OF CELL AT ARANDA HOUSE P-1022


5

EXHIBIT #74 CCTV FOOTAGE P-1032


P-1046


P-1046



transcriptcreator · web viewand i suggest to you that on many of those occasions it was for...

Documents