transcriptcreator - web viewthe youth justice officers themselves will tell of the great...

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-762175

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

10.08 AM, MONDAY, 13 MARCH 2017

Continued from 14.12.16

DAY 12

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

Copyright in Transcript is owned by the Commonwealth of Australia. Apart from any use permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 you are not permitted to reproduce, adapt, re-transmit or distribute the Transcript material in any form or by any means without seeking prior written approval from the JURISDICTION.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 20170313 P-906©Commonwealth of Australia

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

MR McAVOY: May it please the Commission, I appear as Counsel Assisting with my learned friend Mr Callaghan SC.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes, Mr McAvoy. Ms Brownhill.

MS BROWNHILL: Please the Commission, I appear with my learned friend, Mr Jacobi, on behalf of the Northern Territory of Australia.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thanks, Ms Brownhill. Any other appearances to be announced now? Mr O’Brien.

MR O’BRIEN: Yes. O’Brien, I appear once again for Mr Voller with my co-counsel, Ms Goodhand.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you.

MR WOODROFFE: Commissioners, Woodroffe for North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thanks, Mr Woodroffe.

MS GRAHAM: Commissioners, Graham for the Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid service.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thanks, Ms Graham. Any other appearances on this part of our sittings?

MR GEORGE: Your Honour and Commissioner please, I appear on behalf of Harold Morgan. My name is George.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I’m sorry. It’s very hard to hear you. You will need to address the microphone, is best - - -

MR GEORGE: Thank you, your Honour. Your Honour, my name is Andrew George. I appear on behalf of Harold Morgan, who is a person who adverse material notices have been served upon, and I have granted leave by the Commission for a brief and short cross-examination, if necessary, of one witness.


MR GEORGE: If your Honour pleases.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: We covered everyone? Can I just check with those of you who are here whether the audio is adequate to hear? If there are any problems do let us know. Yes, Ms Graham.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 20170313 P-907 ©Commonwealth of Australia

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MS GRAHAM: It is difficult at the back to hear what other counsel ahead of us are saying, although we can hear the Commissioners.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: You can hear - - -

MS GRAHAM: We can hear you clearly.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. And we will test with the witnesses. I think if counsel who are speaking would be conscious that you actually need to be quite close to the microphones, so it’s difficult for us to hear you – Ms Graham, then. I think it was more your natural voice that we could hear, rather than the augmented voice, so if everyone would be kind enough to keep that in mind. It means, really, that you can do it most comfortably sitting rather than standing. It is important that we hear, so if that be the case you might need to do something which would probably be a bit strange to you, and that is sit down if you’re going to say anything of any length. But when you come, of course, you will come to the lectern and then that will be satisfactory, I hope. Alright. With those preliminaries.

MR McAVOY: Commissioner, I understand that there are some gentlemen here to welcome the Commission to this place. And if it’s an appropriate time to – for that occur, perhaps they can be invited to speak.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Thank you. Commissioner Gooda will invite our guests to this room to ask them to welcome us to their country.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Mr Wallace, thank you for joining us this morning to welcome us to your country. And can I introduce Mr Peter Wallace, Central Eastern Aranda man. Thank you, Peter.

MR McADAMS: I will just introduce Mr Wallace. Office of the Royal Commission into the Protection and Detention of Children in the Northern Territory, Commissioner White and Commissioner Gooda, I would like to introduce you to Peter Wallace. He is a central Aranda, eastern Aranda elder of this country and he would very much like to welcome you with his own language and our own language. Mr Wallace.

MR WALLACE: Thank you. Yes. Good morning everyone. As I can see, good morning, and for this I would like to talk in my language a bit and welcome you all here today. (Aranda language spoken). What I just said was you are doing a good job from around Australia and some other places, I don’t know, but we are pretty proud of you guys and you ladies and all the lot of you. We are happy to do and happy to think what you are trying to do for our younger ones. And then that’s why I’m proud to do a welcome to the country for you all. And I am very proud of all of you, as I can see this morning. Good on you. Thanks very much everyone. Thank you.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Thank you Mr Wallace, thank you Mr McAdams. As a Gungalu man from Central Queensland, it is my honour personally to be on your country and to be welcomed by you. Mr McAvoy.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Perhaps if we just - - -

MR McAVOY: Thank you, Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: - - - pause, Mr McAvoy. If – Mr Wallace and Mr McAdam might like – would this be a convenient time for you to go now?

MR McADAM: Yes .....

MR WALLACE: Yes, thank you.

MR McADAM: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: All right. We might pause while they take their exit, because it might be a little distracting otherwise, Mr McAvoy.


COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thanks, Mr McAvoy.

MR McAVOY: Commissioners, I propose to make some opening remarks before we embark on these sittings in earnest. I will follow those opening remarks with some discussion of some preliminary matters that need to be attended to before we move on to our first witness for these sittings. Commissioners, it is a significant moment for counsel and solicitors assisting the Commission to be part of these historic hearings on the traditional lands of the Aranda people. Today the Royal Commission resumes for a three week sitting period and in that time we will hear from more than 60 witnesses. The schedule is full, and you will hear the story from many perspectives.

We will hear from those responsible for youth detention in the Northern Territory, those working in the system, and the young people who will tell us how the system has and continues to fail them. These stories will help the Commission identify failures in youth detention, and possible breaches of law, policy, and human rights. In particular, the stories will help demonstrate how youth detention came to be in the critical state it reached, how senior management in successive governments saw fit to respond, and how the children in detention fared. Current and former detainees will speak of their experiences and provide an account of their life in detention. Commissioners will be told of children being detained in rundown facilities, often involving prolonged isolation and mistreatment and excessive physical force.

We will hear from – hear that the detention in the Northern Territory offers these young people very little in it the way of rehabilitation, stability, and hope. Here in


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Alice Springs loneliness and fear will be a theme many young people will talk about. Then, being transported from detention in Alice Springs to Don Dale, halfway across Australia away from loved ones and support. The inquiry’s terms of reference recognise that to look to the future you must examine the wrongs of the past and understand the position the system was in and continues to be in to this very day.

In October co-Counsel Assisting Peter Callaghan SC referred to a culture of commissioning reports as a substitute for action. There can be no doubt that this Commission represents the best opportunity for the Northern Territory government and the people of the Northern Territory to commit to wholesale change. Over the next three weeks you will hear from young – from the people working on the ground day in and day out in the detention facilities. This will be the first opportunity they have had to give their views publicly. This follows private group meetings that you, Commissioners, held with detention centre workers both here in Alice Springs and in it Darwin.

It became apparent at those meeting that there were many concerned and dedicated workers within the youth detention system in the Northern Territory. The Commission expects to hear stories of a culture where bullying, lack of support, chronic and constant short staffing and woeful training are the norm. The Youth Justice Officers themselves will tell of the great challenges they face working in a system which does not give them the tools to do their job: support and rehabilitate the young children in their charge. The Australian community expects that the Royal Commission will hear from the leaders who oversaw a system in disarray and disrepair.

To that end, in these sittings the Commission will hear from all positions in the chain of command. The Commission will hear from the superintendents, the deputy directors, the Commissioner for Correctional Services, and former ministers. The former Minister for Correctional Services, the Honourable Gerry McCarthy, will be giving evidence in this room on Friday. And in Darwin we will hear from the honourable John Elferink, a former minister with responsibility for corrections. We have seen the Northern Territory government – we have seen that the Northern Territory government has taken steps to improve the system, announcing increases in youth diversionary programs, housing for regional and remote communities, and an expansion of the Families as First Teachers programs.

But the evidence will show there is still much to be done, and it will take commitment, leadership, and courage to reform the system, because as the detention workers and the children will tell us, the system appears to be making these kids angrier and tougher. And the research and experiences confirm that they will be much more likely to commit further and more serious crimes as a result. This does not serve anyone’s interests in the Northern Territory. At a recent roundtable held here in this centre we heard from the community, leaders, and experts about solutions and alternative approaches to detention that are already working. However, as one young person has said:


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

I don’t think the detention system makes kids better. The whole time I was in detention I was worried about being assaulted by guards or other kids.

And further:

I think that most of us come out of detention – come out more angry and acting tougher than when we went in. It didn’t make me want to be a better person.

These young people are not being given every chance to rehabilitate in detention. In fact, in many cases they are not given any chance to rehabilitate at all. Since the Commission last rose the Commonwealth of Australia and the Northern Territory Government extended the term of the Commission. An interim report will now be delivered by 31 March 2017 and the final report delivered on 1 August 2017. This extension shows an appreciation of the breadth and the complexity of the issues we seek to unpack, and the reality that many of the witnesses are vulnerable people who require additional care and protection.

Shortly we will begin to hear from these young people, and I ask the Commissioners to note that the evidence will be given in different ways to ensure the safety and wellbeing of each of the individual vulnerable witnesses. Many of the witnesses will provide testimony in closed sessions, some remotely through audio-visual link, and some in open court, Commissioners. It’s appropriate for me now, Commissioners, to turn to some preliminary matters. Firstly, the Commissioners and the parties have a detention tender bundle. It contains some 348 documents. Commissioner, for ease of use and reference by you and the parties, it’s proposed to tender a tender bundle index which might be given a separate tender number.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you thank you. I think that’s exhibit 64. So the tender bundle index will be given that numerical identifier.

EXHIBIT #64 TENDER BUNDLE INDEX

MR McAVOY: Secondly, it is important for me to draw attention to the practice direction with respect to vulnerable witnesses. In the next three weeks, Commissioner, the Commission will hear evidence from a number of young people who have been in custody in the last 10 years. Given the vulnerability of young people in custody, and the Commission’s need to hear about their experience, the Commission has made directions as to how their evidence will be taken and how it can be used. The evidence of many of these witnesses will, as I’ve referred to in my opening, be heard in closed hearing. The Commission has directed that the identity of witnesses giving evidence in a closed hearing must not be disclosed.

Any information that might lead to the witness being identified must not be disclosed. That might include the names of family members, ages and dates of events, or facts that together may mean the witness can be identified. The


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Commission has directed that if a person gives evidence in closed session their evidence is confidential. The only information that can be published or discussed is the information in their redacted statement after it is tendered, and the redacted transcript published on the Commission’s website. It is also important - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: It is important, Mr McAvoy, that not just the other participants in the Commission understand those directions and guide lines, but that the media and the general public who like to use social media should be well aware of the ambit and the reach of those guidelines. They are made for a very practical reason and it would impede the work of the Commission to disregard them and would have consequences that might involve making use of the powers in the Royal Commissions Act. So I take it that you really want to have underscored that this is a serious embargo on how the evidence of vulnerable witnesses might be used?

MR McAVOY: I do indeed. Thank you, Commissioner.


MR McAVOY: Now, I also need to draw your attention, Commissioners, and indeed those in attendance at the sittings, that we have the services of Relationships Australia available at the hearing rooms. We understand that some of the evidence which we will be hearing can be distressing to people. Representatives from Relationships Australia and Congress are set up outside and happy to meet with you if you wish – meet with people if they wish.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Is there any sign outside that would direct people to where they can be found?

MR McAVOY: I’m not sure, but I will find out, Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Alright. Thank you. It might be obvious, of course, if you’re out the front, which we didn’t do. Alright. Thank you.

MR McAVOY: Commissioners, the first witness to be called is a vulnerable witness, currently known to the Commission and parties by the pseudonym AV. He is over 18 and has consented in writing to giving evidence in person in open court without a pseudonym. According to the Commissioners’ direction, the examination of this witness, of AV, will be conducted by Counsel Assisting the Commission, and with some leave for the witness’ legal representative, who – Mr O’Connell is present in court, even though he may not have announced his appearance.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: No. He will do that in a moment, though, I should think.

MR O’CONNELL: My name is O’Connell .....

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Thanks, Mr O’Connell.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR McAVOY: Commissioners, having made the decision to proceed with the evidence from this witness without use of the pseudonym, it’s proposed that for the duration of his evidence he be referred to by his name and the witness is Mr Jamal Turner. Before the witness arrives, Commissioners, I will alert you to a potential issue in that, as the evidence is going live, being webcast, and there are – the evidence is being given in open court, there are some persons referred to in Mr Turner’s statement who have before this point been – their names have been redacted and have not been made public. It’s proposed to avoid reference to those people’s names in the evidence from Mr Turner. In the event that mention is made of those names, I propose to seek that the webcast deal with that immediately. And I will - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: But I take it that you or the solicitors have discussed it with Mr Turner?

MR McAVOY: I have in the company of Mr Turner’s legal representatives.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes.

MR McAVOY: I’ve also discussed with the solicitor for the Northern Territory the need for there to be potentially some nonpublication order from the Commissioners in the event that the names are said in the courtroom.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: You will just need to speak up a little, Mr McAvoy. I’m not sure that everyone in the back of the courtroom can hear you.

MR McAVOY: Certainly. I will just repeat that the last part. I have had discussions with the solicitor for the Northern Territory about the potential need for a nonpublication order to be made in the event that there is an inadvertent reference to somebody’s name who should not be mentioned openly. And I’m sure, between both of us, we can alert you, Commissioners, to that if it arises.


MR McAVOY: The other option is for you to make a nonpublication order at the outset, but my view is that it’s probably easier to deal with it if it arises.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Right. Thank you. And there might be some names, I take it, that might be mentioned but that they are in fact going to be witnesses giving evidence; is that the case?

MR McAVOY: There are some Youth Justice Officers’ names who will be mentioned in the evidence. They are people who have been served with notices and they have provided responsive statements to Mr Turner’s statement. They will be giving evidence tomorrow in the hearings.



5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Ms Brownhill, do you want to respond?

MS BROWNHILL: I didn’t catch the last part of what Mr McAvoy was saying. I apologise.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: The Youth Justice Officers who might be mentioned by name are those who are going to be giving evidence tomorrow.

MS BROWNHILL: Well, not necessarily tomorrow, as I understand it, but in the course of the next three weeks.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Or the next day. Within the – Mr McAvoy said tomorrow. It may well be that it’s the day after for one or two of them. Anyway, they are immediate witnesses.

MS BROWNHILL: Yes. Save for at least one officer for whom we don’t actually act as his legal representative, but I note that there are no representatives for him here. That may raise some concerns if - to the extent that he is referred to in an adverse notice. But yes, there are at least two persons who can be openly identified because they will be giving evidence in the next couple of days.


MS BROWNHILL: As to inadvertent disclosures, yes, we are happy with the nonpublication order if that should arise. I’m not sure whether there is a proposal for a delay in the need to address that, but we may have to just see how that goes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I think we have the standard delay.

MS BROWNHILL: Yes. Thank you.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Our tech people are on top of that, and alert to the fact that it might happen.

MS BROWNHILL: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Good. Alright. Is the Youth Justice Officer who is not represented at all someone about whom you wish to make some statement, Mr McAvoy? And has he been found?

MR McAVOY: Well, certainly it was – it was intended to adduce evidence from this witness and indeed the witness’ witness statement covers a significant amount of evidence in relation to that officer. The officer is represented; I understand the officer’s representatives aren’t present.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: He is represented?


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR McAVOY: Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: So they have received all the appropriate notices, inasmuch as knowing that there will be evidence today?

MR McAVOY: I am – I can’t answer that question directly, Commissioner.


MR McAVOY: I can find out in a moment, and perhaps I should.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Perhaps we will just delay it for a moment while you do that. Thank you.

MR McAVOY: Commissioners, I can advance the position in this way: the person – the Youth Justice Officer concerned is a party in the proceedings, I understand. He has been given notice of the running list for this week and that this particular witness would be giving evidence this week, and has – and the Commission has had served on it a responsive statement from that officer yesterday. I can’t take it any further as to whether – I don’t understand there to have been any communication by the legal representative with the Commission about attendance today or not, and I’m not sure how much further I can take it at this point.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well, because he’s giving evidence, there’s no need to seek leave in a formal sense.

MR McAVOY: No.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: So that hasn’t occurred and it doesn’t have to happen. So it must – well, must be the case then that his legal representatives are choosing not to attend today. There can’t be any other explanation in the absence of something more colourful.

MR McAVOY: Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: So what do you propose to do then? Just to proceed?

MR McAVOY: I propose to proceed. I can indicate additionally that the only application for cross-examination of Mr Turner, apart from the examination to be undertaken by counsel assisting, is from his own legal representatives. There have not been any other applications for cross-examination of him.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Alright. Thank you.

MR McAVOY: And that would include the Youth Justice Officer concerned. I can also - - -


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Alright. Well, if he’s represented and there is no breakdown in communication as far as you can say, I think you can proceed then.

MR McAVOY: Well, there doesn’t appear to be, and - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: No.

MS BROWNHILL: Can I just clarify that situation, Commissioners. It’s not the case that we haven’t made an application in relation to cross-examination. We have provided questions to Counsel Assisting to be asked by Counsel Assisting.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Correct.

MS BROWNHILL: I just wanted to clarify.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes, I understand that. And perhaps there does need to be some general clarification about that issue. Where – particularly, I think it’s the case of the Northern Territory government, have identified topics for cross-examination and they happen to coincide with the topics that are going to be raised with the witness by Counsel Assisting that, in our view, is a coincidence of interest rather than saying that the Northern Territory Government didn’t wish to cross-examine.

MS BROWNHILL: Well, the point I want to ensure is understood, and the reason for my making the clarification, is to ensure that everyone understands that we don’t sit idly by and accept everything said by a particular witness. That we have taken steps to ensure that certain topics are explored with the witness in relation to the things that they say in their statement.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. And as you will be aware, Commissioner Gooda and I were provided with a fairly extensive list - - -

MS BROWNHILL: Correct.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: And we made rulings as we went through them all and particularly made the point that it was not a refusal to cross-examine when there was that coincidence, it happens to be a coincidence of interest, that’s all. And so we do recognise, that for – I think for all of the witnesses the Northern Territory government has provided topics for cross-examination and they are to be taken up.

MS BROWNHILL: Yes, thank you.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Alright. So we will come – it’s a question of definition, probably, Mr McAvoy, but I think it is better to have it on the record that in fact the questions that are being sought to be asked by the Northern Territory government are in fact being asked through counsel assisting.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR McAVOY: Indeed, Commissioner, and that was my omission. Indeed, I should also mention that there were topics or questions for cross-examination provided by two other parties. They were CAALAS, and the representatives for Voller, and there have been representatives by Counsel Assisting in relation to those matters.


MR McAVOY: If there are no other matters which you, Commissioners, wish to raise with me, I propose to call Mr Turner.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Thank you.

MR McAVOY: Yes, Commissioners?

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Nothing else from me.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Nothing.

MR McAVOY: I call Jamal Turner.

<JAMAL TURNER, SWORN [10.44 am]

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. You may be seated. Mr McAvoy.

<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR McAVOY [10.44 am]

MR McAVOY: Thank you. Mr Turner, the proceedings today are being recorded, so I will ask you to keep your voice up. Do you mind if – should I call you Jamal or Mr Turner?---Whatever.

I will call you Jamal. If you can just sit a little bit closer to the microphone please and try to keep your voice up?---Yes.

Jamal, you’ve provided a signed statement to the Royal Commission, have you?---Yes.

Could you just have a look at that document on the desk in front of you. Do you recognise that document?---Yes.

I beg your pardon?---Yes.

And at the bottom of the first page is your signature?---Yes.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 20170313 P-916 J. TURNER XN©Commonwealth of Australia MR McAVOY

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And, as you turn over each page, your signature appears at the bottom of each page?---Yes.

And then on the 10th page your signature appears on the back. That’s the back page?---Yes.

Mr Turner, are the contents of that statement true and correct to the best of your knowledge?---Yes.

Thank you. Commissioners, I tender the statement of Jamal Turner, dated 21 February 2017.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Exhibit 65.

EXHIBIT #65 STATEMENT OF JAMAL TURNER DATED 21/02/2017

MR McAVOY: Mr Turner, I’m going to ask you a number of questions about your statement, and you understand that this Royal Commission is inquiring into the detention of children in youth detention centres in the Northern Territory?---Yes.

And, before you came into the hearing room to give evidence I discussed with you the need to avoid using the names of certain people, and I will try and assist you to do that, but if you mention somebody’s name that ought not be mentioned I – or perhaps my learned colleague Ms Brownhill – may alert you to that and try and stop you immediately?---Yes.

It doesn’t mean that you are any trouble, it’s just a technical matter that the lawyers have to deal with?---Yes.

Firstly, Jamal, I just wanted to ask you a few questions about your life and your experiences in had youth detention. Firstly, it has been brought to my attention that your mother is in court today; are aware of that?---Yes, I see her.

Thank you. Jamal, were you born in Alice Springs on 24 June 1996?---Yes.

You are going to need to keep your voice up, Jamal?---Yes.

We might just wait a moment and they will move the microphone a bit closer to you. How old you are now, Jamal?---I’m 20, turn 21 in June.

You turn 21 in June?---21 in June, yes.

Yes. Can you just tell the Commissioners a little bit about your family and where you grew up?---I grew up in Alice Springs most of my life. I went to primary school here, high school. Did heaps of sport and stuff growing up, young. Yes. Moved


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

over to Perth for a while, went to school there. Come back to Alice. Got into trouble. I was on a good path and started falling off because peer pressure and me and my cousins – older cousins and that. Started smoking heaps of drugs and that. Getting caught up using drugs. And yes, started getting locked up – like, yes.

Thank you. Thank you, Jamal. You grew up speaking English?---Yes. English most of my life.

Do you speak any other languages?---I learnt a few other languages but – Chinese a bit. Aranda, eastern Aranda, yes.

Eastern Aranda?---Eastern Aranda.

And that is because – that’s your father is an eastern Aranda man?---Yes. Stays out bush.

And your mother is an Aboriginal woman?---Yes. Aboriginal.

Yes. And you have some – an older brother and two younger sisters?---Yes. Two younger sisters, older brother.

Can you just tell the Commissioners about the first time you went to court?---Would have been when I was 13 or 12. I was charged, but I was too young at the time to be in custody so, yes.

Do you recall what it was in relation to?---Stealing a bike, I think it was, when I was younger.

And do you remember now what year that was?---2009, 2010.

Do you recall the first time that you went into detention?---2013.

The first time in detention?---Yes, first time in detention.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: How old were you then, can you remember that?---13.

You were 13 then, were you?---Yes.

It was here in Alice Springs?---Yes, Alice.

MR McAVOY: And where were you placed in detention, which detention centre?---Aranda House – Aranda House, they call it. I was placed there for two – two, three months. I was waiting for a flight where they fly you up to Darwin. I was waiting for a flight to Darwin.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Were you on sentence then or were you on remand, Jamal?---Was remand at the time.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR McAVOY: Do you recall being released to a program?---Yes.

What was that program?---BushMob.

And that’s a program here in Alice Springs?---Yes.

And what was that program about? What was that program for?---A place to stay, do better things.

So how long - - -?---Just to better yourself in the community.

Thank you. How long were you at BushMob?---A couple of days. Two days, I think it was.

And so did you stay at a facility, a house that BushMob ran?---Yes. I stayed there for two days.

And did you do some things with the BushMob people during that two days opinion?---You went out, did – got firewood and that, for – there’s – there’s fires in the back. At night you sit around the fire, tell stories, whatever.

But after two days something happened; what happened?---I ended up jumping the fence and running away.

Where did you run away to?---To – back home.

Why did you run away from BushMob?---Wasn’t comfortable there at the time, because I’m used to sleeping in my own bed, being at home around my family. Yes. Jumped the fence.

And at the time you were 14 years old?---Yes. 14, 13.

And you ran away to go home?---Yes.

Did the police catch up with you after that?---Yes. I ended up getting caught the next – the day after.

Where were you when the police arrested you?---I was at home asleep at the time.

Now, where were you taken after the – after you were arrested by the police?---To the watch house.

And do you remember being brought back to Aranda House?---Yes.

Who took you back to Aranda House from the police station?---Derek Tasker, one of the JJOs, a youth worker.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And do you remember him saying anything to you at the time?---He said, because I just got out about a couple of days ago, a week, he said, “You’re back again.” I said “Yes, what does it look like. I’m standing in front of you.”

So you said that he said to you, “You’re back again.” Can – how did he say that. Was it in a friendly manner or what was the manner in which it was said to you?---I don’t know, I didn’t pay attention at the time.

But from that period did you spend more time in detention?---Yes. I spent another two months there.

In the years that have passed since that first period in detention, have you thought about the BushMob program?---Yes. Just thinking back now still running through my head, I should have stayed there and completed the program.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: You wished you had stayed there?---Yes. I wished – I wished I stayed there.

And persevered through the program?---Yes, followed through.

MR McAVOY: Do you think that – well, can you say why you wish you stayed with the program?---Just to choose a better path, really, and not thinking about negative stuff going forward. And just getting a job and that. The next step to getting a job, instead of jumping the fence and catching up with old mates, doing the same stuff.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: So you think that wasn’t a wise move, looking back now?---Yes.

MR McAVOY: Do you think that’s had an effect on your ability to do any other diversion programs, the fact that you left BushMob?---Yes, a bit.

Have you done any other diversion programs?---No, not since.

Do you think things might have turned out different for you had you been able to do – had another go at BushMob or do some other programs?---Yes, I’ve – talking to a counsellor, doing rehabilitation programs, talking to people.

I just want to ask you some questions now about Aranda House. Are you able to remember what Aranda House was like when you first went there?---Yes.

Can you just describe for the Commissioners your memory of Aranda House?---It’s a cage. You first go in you are drive in the sally port, there’s a cage the sally port is in and then there’s a camera, camera facing down when you first drive in. You walk in to – there’s a caged off area, there is two door, and you go inside, it’s just square with four brick walls, like – like a maximum security in the prison.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

If I could just ask you to repeat that last part, Jamal?---It’s – looks like a maximum security in an adult prison.

That’s what you think it compared to?---Yes.

And cells in Aranda House when you went there, what were they like? I’m going to have to ask you to try to keep your voice up a bit more?---Yes.

What were the cells themselves like?---Not much space in there. It’s quite small.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Did they have any natural light? Could you see the sky from there?---No. It was all paint and stuff on the windows so you couldn’t see out. No sunlight. Like – like a dungeon.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: What about in that open area. You talked about the square. Could you see the sky from there, was it open?---No. When you’re out, like during your – during the day exercise, is a cage on top, but there’s – there is a green – like a – like a shade cloth.

Shade cloth?---No sunlight at all, really.

So that was the whole facility. So you had windows blacked out?---Yes.

And when you walked out the shade cloth?---There is a shade cloth on the roof.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: And what did you have in the cell?---Just a bed, a mattress, pillow, blankets and just a pen, pencil and pens, couple of books.

MR McAVOY: Did you have a TV?---Yes.

Did you have a – was there air conditioning?---There’s DVD players, you get DVD players.

And apart from that what activities could you do in Aranda House?---Just colouring ins, crosswords and word finds, and stuff like that.

Did – before you went to Aranda House, were you involved in any sports or anything? Did you like to run around and play sports?---What was that?

Did you like to run around and play sports before you went into detention?---Yes, I did heaps of sports. So I was quite active.

And were you able to do that when you were in Aranda House?---No, it’s too small. There was no room there.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Did you go to school?---Yes, there is schooling in there.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR McAVOY: And - - -?---Didn’t have much time to do it.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Why was that?---Because I was worried about phone calls, like, speaking to our family, trying to get on to our lawyers and stuff.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: So there was a square. Was there any opportunity to go outside the facility to play sport? We have been to detention centres before where there is playing fields and all of that, was that happening at Aranda House?---No, it’s too small and - - -

So you never went outside?---No, I wasn’t allowed.

MR McAVOY: And do you have – can you recall what the food was like at Aranda House?---It was all microwave food. There was no fresh food there.

And I take it you didn’t – you prefer to eat fresh food?---Yes. I felt quite sick after – like a week, two weeks of eating microwave food.

Do you have any recollection of how the guards talked to the detainees at Aranda House? What was the relationship like?---Got along good in the start, and started, like, being a bit more hard on us, swearing at us. And - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: What do you mean by saying, “being a bit hard on us”? Can you remember some particular things that you would say was being hard on you?---Like first, when you first went in there, our first admissions were cleaning up and they would tell us to do something and would say, “Wait, wait, I’m doing something else.” They were cleaning the wall or something. So I would say – they would tell me to clean – clean the window, and I say – I would say, I would say “Wait a minute, I’m doing something.” And yes, just start snapping from there. And - - -

Did you have any good relationships with any of the guards, Jamal?---Yes. I got along good with them, like, most of them.

Were there any Aboriginal guards at Aranda House?---There was one Aboriginal guard there, I think she’s Aboriginal.

A woman?---Yes, a woman.

MR McAVOY: Do you recall, Jamal, whether any elders came to visit at Aranda House while you were there?---No, not at – not at Aranda House, but over at the other detention centres.

Jamal, I would like you to look at your statement at paragraph 40, please. Have you had a look at that paragraph?---Yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

I would just like you to tell the Commissioners about that incident in your own words, not reading from your statement, but just how you remember it?---Me and my cousin – or uncle, it was.

Sorry. And this was at Aranda House?---Yes, at Aranda House. We got escorted from the police tower. Aranda House – we just got locked up that day, and was in custody, and I remember the police taking me there and my uncle was with me at the time and there was a dog in the cage, the cage area. And I walked through the police with the handcuffs on and I went to touch the dog, I went to pat the dog, walking in there, and yes, I just remember touching the dog at the time and walking through. And – because I went to pat the dog and he is holding me at the time, he thought I was trying to escape – escape custody. And yes, he grabbed me by the throat and choked me up against the wall. Yes, I just remember being choked against the wall with two hands, held me up against the wall.

Okay. I’ve got a couple of questions to ask you about that incident, Jamal. You will see at paragraph 40 of your statement the first sentence says, “It was the first day I arrived at Aranda House.” Was this incident the first time you had ever been to Aranda House?---Yes.

Was it the very first time you went to Aranda House that this happened?---I think it was the second or third time.

It was later?---It was later on.

It wasn’t the first time. Okay?---I was quite used to the place.

The dog that you said that you patted, had you seen that dog before?---Yes, I used to put – like feed the dog. Chuck biscuits in its bowl. Fill up water for it.

This is before this incident?---Yes, before this incident. That’s why I went back then, I went – on the way in, I went to pat the dog. He thought I was trying to escape, and he choked me up against the wall.

Did you know why you were attacked in that way?---No.

Nothing was said to you about – no?---No, it just happened. I was quite shocked.

You were shocked?---Yes.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: How old were you then?---Only 13 .....

How much?---14.

14.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR McAVOY: And you said you were shocked. I mean, what did you think when that happened? I mean, you were – had been just admitted into Aranda House, you were just coming into detention?---Yes.

What did it make you think about going into detention. Were you worried that something like that might happen again?---Yes, a bit worried.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Can you tell us a little bit about the dog. Was he someone’s pet or was he a police dog?---Yes. One of the workers that was on shift at the time, I think it was one of their dogs.

Just come forward a little bit?---One of the workers at the time, I think the dog belonged to one of the workers that were working.

I see. And you said that earlier you had given the dog some biscuits when - - -?---Yes.

So you had, you know, you had some little relationship with this dog?---Yes.

Is that right?---Like I used to feed and it just care for it, clean – fill the bowl, a bowl of water up for it.

And this was known? The other guards obviously saw you doing those sorts of things with the dog?---Yes. They told me to do it.

Was that a job that you were told to do?---Yes, like a job.

Right. Can you remember what breed of dog it was?---No, I can’t. I can’t remember what breed.

Was it a bitzer?---Yes, or something like that.

Right. Okay.

MR McAVOY: So you don’t know who owned the dog, Jamal?---No – no.

I can tell you that Derek Tasker has provided a statement to the Commission in which he says that you kicked the dog; did you kick the dog?---No. I went to pat the dog. I didn’t kick the dog.

Mr Tasker says that after that he told you off strongly. Do you have any memory of being told off strongly by Mr Tasker?---No.

No. At paragraph 41 of your statement you talk about that really being the only time that Derek Tasker did something bad to you, but that he was rough with you and the other boys. What do you mean by when you say he was always rough?---Just, like, restraining some of the younger juveniles. At the time there was – only about 13, 14,


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

only weighed like 40, 50 kilos. And, yes, just used more force than they should have used, really. Like kneeing the back – putting the handcuffs on the ground to restrain them, putting the knee in their back, and just putting all their weight on the kids, not – they use more, used all their weight, and not like – there was too much force. Just, yes, seeing too much force, really.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: We – you talking big kids, small kids?---Just young, small. 13, 14. Wasn’t as big, tall.

MR McAVOY: You were one of those 13 and 14-year-olds at the time?---Yes, I was – I been assaulted a couple of times, but not as much as a couple of other people that’s been – been assaulted.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Jamal, what sort of things would lead to that action?---What was that, sorry?

Just in your view, what sort of things – say, you or other kids would do to lead to that?---Just - - -- - - happening?---?--- - - - just being kids, really. Just do what kids would do, have fun and - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: We might have a slightly different view about what fun is, so can you be a bit more specific?---Just like playing games. We get – footy, basketball, stuff like that, having fun. Coming back in, yelling around. Yes. And then, I don’t know, just they started finding it hard to do their job, couldn’t cope with us.

MR McAVOY: I just want to take you back to the incident with the dog for a second, Jamal. I’m sorry about this. Did you make a complaint about the way you were treated by Mr Tasker?---Yes. I didn’t end up making a complaint to the special visitor that came in.

You didn’t?---I did.

You did make a complaint?---Yes.

Do you know what happened with the complaint?---I made a few complaints, but I didn’t think it was going nowhere, so I gave up making complaints.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Did you have – as far as you were concerned there was no follow up when you made a complaint?---Yes. So I - - -

Did anyone get back to you and ask for some more detail?---Not that I know of. I made a few - - -


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

So when you say it was to the special visitor, that’s someone called the official visitor?---Yes, an official visitor.

Who comes in to the centre from time to time?---Yes.

And would you like to explain how you made that many complaint to the official visitor on that particular occasion about ..... the dog?--- She had come in – she had come in – I told her what happened and she wrote down what happened, and I was waiting to see if anything – like, if she would get back to me if anything happened, and kept complaining for a while and then I feel as if it wasn’t going nowhere, so I gave up making complaints.

Did you see that particular – there were a number of official visitors that came in weren’t there?---Yes.

There wasn’t the same one all the time?---It was - - -

But did you see her again, that person?---Yes. I seen her – she would come in twice every fortnight and then the next month it would be someone else.

So did you follow it up by mentioning it again?---Yes. I mentioned it to my lawyer too, a couple of times. Ringing CAALAS or the Ombudsman, that’s on the phone system, the PTS system. I got on to him a couple of times and mentioned how we was being treated, like what food and stuff they gave us. Just everything really, and ring up, complain about it, then all they would say to us was, “I will get back to you.” “I will get back to you on that.” Yes, hang up and will be waiting a week, two weeks for a phone call and nothing would happen. So we would get back on to them and ringing them up and just keep saying the same thing, “I will get back to you. I will get back to you.” So - - -

Can you remember any complaint where you actually had any follow-up with the – either the official or the organisation that you contacted? If you can, we would like to hear about it?---What was that, sorry?

Can you remember any occasion when you made a complaint either to a person who came and visited at the detention centre or you made a phone call making a complaint?---Yes.

Can you remember any follow-up from any of those complaints?---I don’t remember, no follow ups, really.

Not one?---No, not one.

MR McAVOY: Thank you. I just want to ask you some questions, Jamal, about the Alice Springs Juvenile Detention Centre. That’s the detention centre near the adult Alice Springs Correctional Centre?---Yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

At that detention centre there were some guards that you had particular difficulty with?---Yes. Some.

Can you have a look at paragraph 42 of your statement?---Yes.

You can see there is a guard’s name mentioned there?---Yes.

I don’t want you to mention the guard’s name, but can you just explain how it was that you – how you saw that guard being particularly rough with the detainees?---I don’t know, he just – no words to describe him, really. Had no patience with kids and didn’t – didn’t get on with kids. Like, he had a short fuse, just start snapping for no reason.

You said that he didn’t get on with kids?---Yes. Or he did get on and, I don’t know, he would just have mood swings. Just start snapping and start swearing at us for no reason.

So did you – was there anything that gave you a warning that he was going to snap?---No. Just when I would see him swearing at me, that’s when I would know he snapped.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: And what were some of the things then that you saw him do that you would describe as being unnecessarily rough?---Just he would be telling someone to do something, say he’s telling someone to clean up, until they would say no, and then start swearing at them, like, I don’t know, can’t – can’t explain, really, from what he did because it was – I wasn’t the one that did it, he did it.

Alright. Can you describe what you saw?---Well, what I saw was just him swearing at people and just aggressive, aggro, had no time. Like, yes, just swearing at people.

So was it just swearing or was there any physical conduct that went with it?---Yes, there was – he kicked me up the – kicked me up the arse a couple of times.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Literally, like - - -?---Yes. Like, I was in the kitchen, me and – me and my cousin was in the kitchen at the time and we were entitled to fruit and muesli bars at the time, and it was around about that time of the day and I asked him – I asked him if I could have fruit and he said, “No, wait till later.” And I said, “Why not, we usually get it this time of the day any other day.” And, yes, I kept asking him, and he said – kept saying no. So I just grabbed it and walked out, because I knew it was at that time of the day that we were entitled to fruit. And I just remember grabbing it and walking out, and then just feeling his boot or whatever he was wearing on my backside, like a knee in the back. And just, yes, kicked up the arse. You know, the – I got kicked up the arse.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR McAVOY: How hard was the kick?---It was hard, but I didn’t feel no pain because I was shocked and just being shocked took over feeling the pain. So just, yes, couldn’t – didn’t describe the pain, really. But it did hurt.

But it wasn’t a light kick?---No, it wasn’t – he had boots on at the time, so picture being kicked up the arse with boots. I think I wouldn’t myself.

Jamal, when you were getting ready to come into court your lawyers discussed with you an incident report that was made by that officer. Commissioners, it’s document 6 in the SFNT bundle, which is an IOMS report which will be tendered at the conclusion. I don’t intend to show the witness.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Right. Should we have a look at it now?

MR McAVOY: Yes. That – your lawyers explained to you that that was an incident report filled in by the officer that we are talking about?---Yes.

And they explained to you what had been written in the incident report?---Yes.

And can you just tell the Commissioners what – your understanding of what was written in the incident report about what happened. You’re aware there was a discussion about fruit juice; yes?---Yes.

When it was read to you by your legal representatives, the description, what did you think about that description?---The – what – what, sorry?

Yes. I will ask the question again, Jamal. Sorry. You remember your lawyer read to you the incident report by that officer we are talking about now, about that incident with the apples in the kitchen?---Yes.

What did you think about what was written down?---That, like, most of it was right, what happened that day, except the bit where he assaulted me.

Thank you. Were you shown another incident report made at around about the same time, or did your lawyers discuss another incident report with you?---Yes.

I’m referring now to document 7 in the SFNT bundle. If you could scroll down. Thank you. And that report is made – that incident report was made at about the same time?---Yes.

Do you remember being told that? And that incident report included a complaint from you to an officer?---Yes.

In that report you complain of being kneed in the back. Were you told that by your lawyers that that’s what the report said?---Yes. He said he kicked me or kneed me in the back. I don’t – I just remember what happened to me, really. I just – yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Do you remember making a complaint to another officer, the one – the complaint that’s referred to in that incident report that I was just talking about?---Yes. I made a complaint to [REDACTED INFORMATION], one of the officers that was on shift that day.

And do you know – did you hear anything back about that complaint?---No. They never got back to me on that.

MS BROWNHILL: I note that a name of an officer has been mentioned. She’s not one of the officers who is going to be called. I would ask that the transcribing be delayed because, if the suggestion is that she didn’t follow up appropriately with a complaint, then that’s an adverse allegation made against her and the name has been mentioned.

MR McAVOY: I have no objection to the name being deleted for the present purpose, Commissioners. It was only the first name, but I suppose that the witness might be – the person might be able to be identified on that basis.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Thank you. I must say that I didn’t even pick up the name being said, Ms Brownhill. So it was a quiet part of the answer. Alright. Yes, of course we will.

MS BROWNHILL: Thank you.

MR McAVOY: Yes. I won’t repeat the name of the person.

MS BROWNHILL: No. And it will be redacted. So thank you.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. Thank you. Done.

MR McAVOY: Can you just – Jamal, can you just look at paragraph 44 of your statement?---Yes.

And paragraph 45. Now, that – paragraph 44 and 45 refer to an incident with an officer. I don’t want you to say his name, but do you recall that incident?---Yes.

Can you just explain in your own words the Commissioners what happened during that incident? It was at the Alice Springs Juvenile Detention Centre?---Yes.

Can you just explain to the Commissioners what happened with that incident, from the beginning?---Me and my cousins and that was - - -

Just step a bit closer to the microphone, please?---Me and my cousins were, like, in the lounge room, the rec room, whatever.

Sorry, where had you been just before that?---In the – kicking the ball around, or in the shower. And I just remember jumping – getting out of the shower and my cousin and that were sitting on the couch, and I took – took a seat at the last couch, and I


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

just heard the office and my cousin swearing at each other, and all I remember hearing is the officer saying, “Come. Come to the toilet, I will kick your fucking head in.” And yes, that’s what he said. One of my cousins said, “I will get my big brother here for you – I will get my big brother for me,” to the officer. And I stood up to them and I looked at him – and I looked at him and I said, “What’s your problem, why you are picking on them for, they are only little kids. Look at the size of them and look at the size of you.” And he just snapped at me and he said “Do you want a go too? I will kick your fucking head in the toilet.” And yes, I just remember grabbing him by the shirt and holding him up against the wall. Like, had him – had him by the shirt and had him up against the wall, then he restrained me, tackled me to the ground and – yes.

Could you see what the other detainees in the room were doing at that time?---They all got up with chairs and stuff, about to hit him. But I said, “No, leave it. Put the chairs down, don’t worry about it.” Yes.

And then what happened?---And then I got taken to the BMU for about 30 minutes.

Who by?---The screw that was swearing at us, he try to, like, restrain me and take me down there in a rough manner, but I said, “I will cooperate with you, walk with you, what’s your problem?” And so I just walked down with him, telling him that I would walk with him, and just – was in the BMU for 30 minutes, then one of the bosses come out, said that he’s going to check the footage and he come back out and he told me to apologise to – to [REDACTED INFORMATION] and - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Could you just delete that name, please.

MR McAVOY: Sorry. I misheard it, Commissioner, I thought he said “him”.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: It’s alright. I think it is done.

MR McAVOY: If I can just take you back a couple of steps, Jamal. When you discussed – when you said that the guard said, “I will take you in the toilets,” did that have any meaning? I mean, what’s special about going to the toilets?---There’s no cameras there, so comes down to a fight from my point of view.

So you knew that there were no cameras there?---Yes. I knew there was no cameras there. That’s why he is saying to come to the toilets and no one sees it, there’s no witnesses.

Do you think the guard knew there was no camera there?---Yes.

Okay.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Mr McAvoy, if we are going to have a morning break, probably now is a good time.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR McAVOY: Yes, Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: We seem to be going rather leisurely through the statement, so I thought there is a bit to come yet, isn’t there?

MR McAVOY: There is a little bit.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Alright. Thank you. Could I just remind people in the Commission hearing room that the taking of photographs while you’re in the Commission is not to occur. People – any person who is using a mobile phone or any other device to take pictures is requested to cease doing that and to delete any photographs that they might already have taken. Thank you. So we will adjourn for 20 minutes. Thank you.

MR McAVOY: Thank you, Commissioners.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [11.37 am]

ADJOURNED [11.37 am]

RESUMED [12.08 pm]

MR McAVOY: May it please the Commission. During the adjournment I was able to have some discussions with the people who make arrangements for our off-site audio visual link and it appears that the – necessary to go to AVL link for witness BC, that that witness – their evidence will be conducted in closed court.


MR McAVOY: I would ask that, Commissioner, that you make the direction that the court be closed and draw your attention to paragraph 9 of NPD02 of 17 which provides that the evidence given in a closed session is confidential, must not published except to the Commissioners, witnesses, legal representative, people and organisations against whom allegations are made, and as the Commission otherwise orders or directs. My expectation, Commissioner, is that the – in the ordinary course, the legal representatives for the parties would remain while the witness gives evidence but that it would otherwise not be streamed and the usual orders would be made regarding confidentiality.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. That protocol is all occurring, isn’t it, Mr McAvoy? I don’t have to make the detailed rulings that it not be streamed and so on. Everyone knows that’s – alright, thank you.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR McAVOY: Just for the purpose of ensuring that the court is closed, however, Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. That’s true. The following evidence will be received in closed court, so that all persons who have not been previously authorised to be present in the courtroom are requested, if they would be kind enough, to leave. A reminder, in accordance with practice guideline number 2 of 2017, in paragraph 9, that evidence given in a closed session, including any statement of the witness and other documents forming part of the witness’s evidence, are confidential and must not be published except to the Commissioners, counsel assisting, solicitors assisting and Royal Commission officers and staff for the purpose of exercising their functions and duties.

The witness’s legal representatives, people and organisations against whom allegations are made in the evidence and their legal representatives for the purposes of responding only to the extent of affording natural – procedural fairness unless and until the Commissioners publishes a redacted de-identified transcript of proceedings.

CLOSED HEARING ENSUED

[REDACTED INFORMATION]

ADJOURNED [12.52 pm]

RESUMED [1.51 pm]

[REDACTED INFORMATION]

ADJOURNED [2.39 pm]

RESUMED [2.54 pm]

PUBLIC HEARING RESUMED

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Are we going to resume with Mr Turner now?

MR McAVOY: We should finish with Mr Turner now. If Mr Turner can be returned to the witness box, please. Commissioners, I’ve just received some communication that Mr Turner is not far away.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: That’s alright. Two minutes..ROYAL COMMISSION 20170313 P-932 J. TURNER ©Commonwealth of Australia

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

MR McAVOY: Yes.

<JAMAL TURNER, ON FORMER OATH [2.56 pm]

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Jamal, we are terribly sorry that you have been kept waiting around so long today?---Yes.

I hope someone has explained to you that the problem was that we had some video links for other witnesses which we had to stick to a timetable about?---Yes.

So we hope you were reasonably well looked after?---Yes.

Good. Thanks. Thank you, Mr McAvoy.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 20170313 P-933 J. TURNER ©Commonwealth of Australia

5

10

15

<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR McAVOY [2.57 pm]

MR McAVOY: Thank you. Commissioner, I propose to ask Jamal to read some of the paragraphs from his statement in a way – in a manner to perhaps short-circuit things.


MR McAVOY: Jamal, could you turn to page 7 of your statement. Paragraph number 54. I seek leave for my instructing solicitor to approach.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Yes, certainly. Sometimes it’s helpful to have someone just point out that - - -

THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes, no, that - - -

MR McAVOY: Can you see paragraph 54 on page 7?---Yes.

Jamal, would you mind just starting at paragraph 54 and reading down the page, and I will let you know when to stop. But we will continue towards the bottom of the page - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Are you happy about reading out aloud – aloud?---Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Good.

MR McAVOY: Thank you, Jamal?---

I have been put in isolation for up to 72 hours four or five times. One time I was kept in isolation at Aranda House for about 80 hours. I never attempted to self-harm ..... endangered the health, safety of guards or other detainees. I was put in isolation just to be punished. The conditions in the isolation cells were especially bad, sometimes in isolation we would be allowed out of the cell for 30 minutes every seven hours, and other times we would only get 30 minutes per day. During those 30 minutes we had to shower, brush our teeth and get whatever exercise we could in the centre area. We couldn’t go outside.

There was one time when I was transferred from Alice Springs – ASJDC to isolation and Aranda House, after Aranda House had closed down. I don’t recall exactly when this was. I was around 15 at the time and it was around four or five months after Aranda House had closed down. Earlier in the day, at ASJDC, another detainee was yelling out at the adult detainees at the correctional centre next door. A guard came why and said, “Who is yelling out?” I said, “It wasn’t me.” And he said, “You need to stay in your room for the rest of the day.” He then locked me in the room with my cousin. I asked


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

when I would get out and the guard said, “Not until tomorrow.” I repeated that it was me who was yelling – that it wasn’t me who was yelling, but he just walked off.

And keep going, please?---

I was upset at being accused of doing something I didn’t do, and for being locked down for it. So I started kicking the door of my cell. I think I was kicking the door for a while. It was a thick steel door, and it didn’t move when I kicked it. I soon got tired of kicking the door and lay down in my bed. Not long after I lay down, guards Derek Tasker, Barrie Clee and – just Derek Tasker and Barrie Clee rushed into my cell with shields and bats. They restrained me with handcuffs and pushed my face up against the wall. They handcuffed my hands behind my back. One of the guards pushed his elbow against – hard against my back and it really hurt.

They then walked me outside to a van and drove me to Aranda House. Derek Tasker and Barrie Clee accompanied whatever the fact that – me to Aranda House. Barrie said to me, he actually said, “We had to move you to Aranda House.” Aranda House seemed like it had been a completely abandoned at the time. The – there were bugs everywhere and ants crawling around under the door. The room was covered in thick dust and dirt. And then – and there was even a dead mouse stuck to my mattress in my cell. I flicked it off and tied sheets and blankets to the bed. It was in my – my cousin was in another cell at Aranda House, but he couldn’t see me from my cell. This is the time when I was kept in isolation for 80 hours.

Thank you. When you said that the guards Derek Tasker and Barrie Clee rushed into the cell, your cell with shields and bats, were there other guards with them?---There was a lady with me, or with them, and there was three males and one female at the time.

I don’t want you to use their name, but three males and one female?---Yes.

That’s your recollection?---Yes.

Do you have any recollection as to whether they all had shields and bats or some of them?---I remember seeing shields, but I don’t know if there were bats at the time.

Do you have any – do you have a specific memory about the shield being used?---Yes.

Can you just explain that?---Just - he held it up to his arm, had it on his arm. And I got handcuffed, I don’t know – I don’t remember him using the shield on me, but they held me up against the wall, sort of put my neck into the wall, so my head has been – my neck has been bent to the walls.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

I can indicate Jamal Holding his arm up at right angles from the shoulder with his elbow bent. Jamal, did the shield – were you touched by any of the shields?---No, I wasn’t.

Now, there are statements from Mr Tasker and Mr Clee to the effect that you and the other boys in the cell – you and – you and [REDACTED INFORMATION] were trying to escape from your cell. What do you say about that?---That was just kicking Crimsafe. Kicking the Crimsafe, seeing if it would break at the time, taking the anger out on the Crimsafe. And, yes.

So what’s a Crimsafe?---The – like, mesh up against the window.

And you were kicking that?---Yes. I was kicking it.

Why were you kicking it?---Just to see if it will break. Kicking the doors and stuff. Just - - -

How did you feel about having been locked in your room?---Besides kicking the door and Crimsafe, because we got locked in the room for nothing, for something we didn’t do.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Jamal, where did that door you were kicking, where did that lead to?---To the rest of the detention centre. Like, just in the cell – just, like, to come out of the cell.

Okay. So if you got through it you were still in the detention centre?---What?

Just say you broke through that and you kicked it?---Yes.

You would have still been in the detention centre?---Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: And you were angry, I take it, from what you say in your statement and you’ve just read out to us, because you had been accused of something that you hadn’t done; is that what was making you behave like that?---Yes.

MR McAVOY: Jamal, the Crimsafe – that was attached to the window in the cell. Yes?---Yes.

And what was on the other side of the window?---Just – just the yard.

The yard?---Yes.

So the detention centre yard?---Yes. The detention centre yard.

When you were taken to Aranda House, you were put in a cell there?---Yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

All the cells at Aranda House are single cells, aren’t they ..... ?---Yes. All single cells.

Yes. But your memory is that you were kept there at Aranda House for 80 hours on that occasion?---Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Can I ask you about the elders visiting, while Mr McAvoy is finding his place. You say that you remember the visiting elders once or twice and that it was a good experience for you. How did the – how did the visits take place with the elders. Can you explain physically where you gathered and - - -?---I sat down in the – in the rec room and just sat down, told stories.

Had a few yarns, did you?---Yes, had a few yarns. Just telling me not to come back and be good and stuff like that.

Were they elders that you knew or had known about? Did you know what country they came from?---Yes, one was – yes, two of my nannas come out at one stage, and the rest was from other tribes around Alice Springs.

Do you think there were only two visits by elders the entire time that you were in detention?---Yes.

Did you express to any of the guards or any of the management that you liked their visits, that they were helpful?---Yes. I told them that it’s a good visit, a good time.

Did those visits make you feel calm? Did they help you?---Yes. Relaxed me a bit.

Did other young lads go to the visits with the elders as well – were a group of you or - - -?---It was just – they just sat, sat down and told people who wanted to listen that they are free to listen. Sat down with them. Listen.

Do you think more visits – more regular visits by elders would be beneficial, helpful, for young people in detention?---Yes.

How often would you like to see visits from elders?---It would be good if it happened a bit more often.

What do you think, once a week would be a good time?---Yes. Once a week or twice a week maybe.

Even twice a week?---Yes.

Alright. Thanks.



5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Jamal, just going back to when you were removed from your cell with the other detainee, after you were kicking the windows with the Crimsafe. Do you remember whether the guards had to dismantle the door to get in?---Yes, the door – one of the doors got jammed and they had to get a screwdriver or a drill to open – open the door.

And they had to do that from the outside?---Yes, from the outside.

Okay. And you were handcuffed then and taken to Aranda House?---Yes.

Did you go along willingly or was it – or was it something where you were restrained by the guards with force?---No, just walked with them at the time. Never - - -

And were you wearing cuffs, handcuffs?---Yes, I was handcuffed at the time.

Thank you. Jamal, in your statement you talked about some of the rehabilitation programs you’ve done. Do you remember the names of any of those programs? No?---No, I can’t remember.

Do you remember whether were some parts of the programs that you – the rehabilitation programs that you’ve been in that worked better than others. There were some things that worked for you?---Yes.

What were they?---Where’s this – at the detention centre?

At – I’m talking now about community-based rehabilitation programs. If you can just look at paragraph 15 of your statement.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Do you want to ask the witness some questions about it? I mean - - -

MR McAVOY: Sorry, Commissioner. Having looked at paragraph 15, do you remember now the names of some of the rehabilitation programs that you’ve done?---Yes, I did two months in DASA rehabilitation centre.

DASA?---Yes.

And where is DASA, just across the road – creek, in Kempe Street.

Yes, in Alice Springs?---Yes. Alice Springs.

And did you find that program to be good?---Yes, it was good

What was good about it?---Just some of the programs I did.

Was it a live-in residential program, do you remember?---Just relaxation stuff like that. Like learning to relax. Yes, just from using ice.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Do you know how long those programs ran for? Or that program at DASA in particular?---Just a couple of days, two, three days.

Do you recall whether there was any help after you were released from detention or after being in rehabilitation programs, any help for you when you – in dealing with drugs when you went home?---What?

To help you stop from using drugs after you finished those programs?---Yes. I didn’t complete the program though.

You didn’t complete the program. Okay.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Because drugs seem to be a huge issue for young people, around – well, everywhere, but let’s just concentrate on Alice Springs. From what we’ve read in the statements, you must have given it some thought as – well, you’ve had a bit of time to think about a lot of things. Have you got any ideas as to how young people can be supported away from getting involved in consuming illegal drugs and alcohol? Because it seems to blight everybody’s life who gets involved in them, doesn’t it? Messing their lives up?---Yes.

Got any thoughts?---No, not really. It’s up to them if they choose to do it or not.

MR McAVOY: Jamal, I’ve just got a couple more questions. There were detainees in the detention centres you were in that didn’t speak English very well?---Yes.

That spoke Aboriginal languages?---Yes, language.

As their first language. Did you – do you think that detention was harder for them than for people who spoke English like yourself?---Yes.

Why is that?---They found it hard talking to some of the workers. Yes. Just found English kind of hard talking.

So it was hard for those detainees to speak to the guards?---Yes.

Did you try and help them?---Yes. I just told them not to get shame and just tell them what they wanted.

And what about for those – those detainees who didn’t speak English very well, or as a second or third language. How did they go in school in the detention centres?---As good – it was good.

Yes. Do you think they found it harder to do the school work?---They got smart in the time that I was there.

Sorry?---They got heaps smarter in the time that I was there.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Yes?---A couple of months – than when they first come in.

Okay. Now, I just wanted to take you to the paragraph 88 of your statement. Can you see that?

COMMISSIONER WHITE: The very last paragraph of your statement. The last page, Jamal.

MR McAVOY: Could you read that for me please, Jamal, out aloud. If you don’t mind?---

I don’t think the detention systems makes better – the kids better. The whole time I was in there in the detention centre I was worried about being assaulted by guards or other kids. That’s why I mostly kept to myself. I also acted tough, because if you don’t then people would pick on you. I think most of us that come out of detention come out more angry and acting tough than when we went in. It didn’t make me want to be a better person.

Thank you, Jamal. They are my questions in chief, Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Thank you.

MR McAVOY: I understand that Jamal’s lawyer may have some questions. Mr O’Connell.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Mr O’Connell.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR O'CONNELL [3.19 pm]

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

Jamal, I would like to pick up from where the Commissioner was talking about drugs. Drugs have been a big issue in your life; is that correct?---Yes.

If you were to suggest to you that the main reason that you got into trouble outside of Don Dale was because of drugs; is that true?---Yes.

When were you in detention did you ever receive any rehabilitation or counselling or education about drugs?---When I was out?

When you were in detention?---Yes. There is some people that come in that talk about us, talk to us about drugs, and what damage and stuff that that does to you.

And how often would that happen?---Twice a month. Two, three times a month.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 20170313 P-940 J. TURNER XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MR O'CONNELL

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And did anyone give you a particular program to follow while you were in detention in relation to avoiding drugs once you got out?---Yes.

What was that program? Can you remember what you were told?---About what?

Can you remember if anyone gave you a particular program to follow to help you stay away from drugs when you got out?---Yes, there was Reconnect, just lawyers. Speak to lawyers around town, councillors.

And Reconnect, was that Antoinette Carroll?---Yes, Antoinette, Tom, who works in CAALAS.

So Antoinette gave you some assistance?---Yes.

Anyone else?---Heaps of people. I forgot most of them.

Jamal, I just want to ask you some quick questions about the dog that you gave evidence about. You said it was one of your jobs to look after the dog; is that right?---Yes

Can I just clarify, is that they told you to do?---Yes. They just told me to do it, so I just – I did it.

And did you enjoy doing the things in relation to that dog?---Yes, a bit.

Sorry?---Yes.

So you enjoyed - - -?---It was something to – it was something to do at the time.

Alright. Did you enjoy giving him food and water?---Yes.

And did you pat him often?---Yes.

Would you say that the dog was like your mate?---Yes.

Yes. And did you ever kick him?---No, never kicked him.

The first time you were in detention you were 12 and it was around 2008; is that right?---2010, I think. Or ’13.

Alright. Is it hard for you to remember the years?---Yes, the exact dates, but I know it was around 2010, 2011.

You did say in your evidence that at the beginning the guards were good but at some point they became harder. Do you remember saying that?---Yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Are you able to say whether that was – how many months or years you had been going to detention before you noticed the guards were getting harder?---About a year or a year and a bit.

And when you say they were getting harder, was that all of the guards, most of the guards or some of the guards?---Just some of them.

And how were they getting harder?---Just because when we first moved in there to get settled in there, it was a bit – like a bit easy on us, because we were still getting settled in there, and after a year when they - - -

Sorry. I will just interrupt you, when you are talking about getting settled in are you talking about the new - - -?---Yes. The new detention centre that was built. The – it was getting settled in there and then after a year, I don’t know, it just got too comfortable with the attitude too, just started to, like, settle with swearing at us and stuff like that.

So would it be true to say that you noticed a real change of attitude in the guards?---Yes. Like their attitude changed too.

And how did you notice their attitude changed. What kind of things were they saying?---Just swearing more often, giving us more things to - - -

Now, you told me before you were giving your evidence that you didn’t – you didn’t like to swear in public; is that right?---Yes.

Okay. But if I asked you to say the particular words that the guards were saying to you, would you please tell us what they were. Not just to you, but to the other Detainees?---What I heard was, “what kind of dumb black kid, you know fucking is.” Stuff like that.

So just – on that one, so you heard some of the guards say the words, “Dumb black kid”?---Yes. And - - -

And who were they referring to - - -?---To most of the kids that come from communities and that.

And were those kids, the ones that came from the communities, the ones that you told Counsel Assisting had difficulty speaking English?---Yes.

Did you hear the guards say anything else to those kids, like that what you just said?---I just heard a lot of swearing. Like the ‘f’ word. “Cunt.” And just heaps of swearing. Foul language.

And what about in relation to the other kids in the centre. What kind of – were there particular phrases that the guards – when I say phrases, were there particular words


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

that the guards would use when they were swearing. Things that they would call you?

MS BROWNHILL: I object to this questioning. (a) It’s not in the statement anywhere and, (b), what’s the point of asking about particular words said by someone at some point unknown. Where does it go? And we haven’t received notice about this kind of evidence. The reason I object now is because I’m not sure what else is coming in relation to other evidence that’s not in the statement. So I want it understood that if we haven’t been – received notice of it then we will object on that basis, but there’s no point to the question in addition.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well, I will say that – without even calling on Mr O’Connell I would suggest that the statements are littered with references to guards swearing, when they get punished themselves for using swear words. It might be that that is sufficient link to the statements to actually have the actual words that are used. I don’t – I’m not troubled by it so far Ms Brownhill.

MS BROWNHILL: The Commission please, thank you.

MR McAVOY: So Jamal, can you remember actual words used by the guards when they were swearing at detainees? As many as you can remember.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well, we don’t have to have an exhaustive list.

MR O’CONNELL: Well, no, not an exhaustive list, but ones that stand out to you that you can remember now?---“Where the fuck did this kid get his ears from.” “Gee, you’re a dumb – you’re a dumb fuck.”

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Was this by most guards that used bad language or was it just by a handful of them. Are you able to give us some idea whether it’s – it was just a usual way to speak to detainees or was this – you know, just one or two ..... ?--- Just mainly the two bosses at the time.

Sorry?---The two bosses, that was the two bosses at the time.

The bosses?--- ..... Clee and Tasker.

Okay. Thank you?---And, yes, they started swears and none of the officers did. So I don’t know why the two bosses did it.

Okay. Thank you.

MR O’CONNELL: Can I just clarify that. Jamal, what – are you talking here about swearing generally or the particular words you just used before in relation to the community kids?---Just everyone, really. Most community, town – people in town.

Was – did the guards – some of the guards also talk a lot about fighting?---Yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Is that something that they were particularly interested in?

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well, what do you mean by the question “Fighting”. It has got to have some parameters to it, Mr O’Connell, to make sense.

MR O’CONNELL: In particular, Jamal, mixed marshal arts?---Like play fight a lot or kickboxing or something.

I will just get you to lean forward into the microphone?---Yes, play with one of those – one of the screw – officers that was a trained kickboxer or something, and he just teaching us stuff. Like having fun, playing around. And I don’t know, just other officers thought it was fun at the time and took it a bit too far.

So there was a lot of – would you say play fighting between some of the guards and some of the detainees?---Yes.

And did sometimes that become physical?---Yes. There was physical, but just wasn’t – not heaps of force, like just mucking around and him showing us what he would do if it was real.

And you told Counsel Assisting about the roughness that you saw and detainees being put on the ground and the knees in the back. Did you ever see any of the detainees picked up off the ground?---Yes, in Darwin. I seen the one detainee get restrained from the officer and he held – he held his jocks over the back of his head and like a wedgie, in a wedgie, and took him down the back into the cells.

Sorry, I will just get you to lean forward again, Jamal?---No, one of the young fellows – the detainees got restrained, and like pulled up in a wedgie from his jocks, and got told to put his arms around his back, first thing, and got pulled up in a wedgie by his jocks and he held his jocks to the back of his neck.

The back of the detainee’s neck?---Yes.

And was the detainee off – was his legs off the ground?---Yes, it was off – off the ground.

How many times did you see detainees picked up in that particular manner?---Like four or five times when I was there, and then I thought it was normal, so I didn’t pay attention and just looked away from it.

And were there any particular guards that you saw do that?---Yes, Yogi was one of them.

Who, sorry?---Yogi, a nickname Yogi. I don’t know his real name.

And how many times would you have seen him do that?---Like four or five times, and I just thought it was normal and kept happening every day.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

I just want to ask you some questions about schooling in Aranda House. You said that there was some school there. Was there an actual classroom in Aranda House that you would go to?---There was just where the TV and the lounges were.

So just in the normal recreation area?---Yes. They just took a table into the kitchen.

A table into the kitchen?---A table into the kitchen and just did work.

And were there teachers there?---Yes. There’s one or two teachers that come in at the time.

And would they come in every single day?---Like twice, three times a week. Twice a week.

So you only had school in the kitchen at a table two or three times a week?---Yes.

At Aranda House. Is that right?---I was only – I was only there for a month and I only had, like, two or three sessions and got ..... flew me up to Darwin, so I can’t remember much. I don’t know if they - - -

And when they flew you up to Darwin it was on a public flight; is that right? You had to go to the airport - - -?---Yes. A Qantas plane, like normal – normal plane.

And you had to wear – handcuffed?---Yes, handcuffed on the plane.

And how did you feel wearing handcuffs on the plain and at the airport?---A bit weird at the time. Shackles on my legs and handcuffs on my hand.

So it made you feel weird. Anything else?---Yes.

Did you feel ashamed?---Yes, a bit.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well, he has got that in his statement, Mr O’Connell.

MR O’CONNELL: Yes. Thank you, your Honour – thank you, Commissioner. How did you – just a couple more questions, Jamal. How did you feel about giving evidence today?---Yes, good. I just felt like I throw – throw the truth out – truth out there, so what happened – happened.

Did you feel a bit nervous?---Yes, a bit nervous.

Yes. And why did you want to give evidence today?---So it doesn’t happen to, like, other juveniles that get locked up, most of my cousins and stuff.

So you’ve got a lot of cousins who are starting to get into a bit of trudge – trouble?---Yes. Getting into a bit of trouble, younger – younger cousin.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And do you worry about them going into detention at the moment?---Not really. A bit.

And last question, do you feel that detention, spending all that time in detention when you were younger, do you feel that that has somehow changed you as a person?---It has a bit.

And can you tell the Commissioners how you feel it has changed you?---Just a bit isolated away from the community and my family.

Do you still feel that sense of isolation?---Yes.

Anything else?---No, not really.

Okay. Thank you, Jamal.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thanks, Mr O’Connell.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR McAVOY [3.36 pm]

MR McAVOY: One question in re-examination.

Jamal, when you spoke about Yogi, can – are you able to describe the Officer Yogi?---He’s a big fella, with grey hair. He’s got grey hair, old fella.

Was he – is he a white fella?---Yes.

Okay. Thank you. Nothing further?---I don’t know if he’s white, black.

Is he an Indian fellow, the guy that you are talking about, Yogi. You don’t know?---I don’t know, I just know his name. Know him as Yogi.

Thank you. I won’t take it any further. Thank you, Commissioner. I think that’s all the examination for this witness and he can be released.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Alright. Thank you very much, Jamal, for assisting us and I also thank those who facilitated you coming here to talk to the Commission today. And we know it’s been a long day for you as well, as for all those who have been here with you as well. So we are quite grateful to them?---Yes.

Thank you?---Thanks for that.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [3.37 pm]


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR McAVOY: Thank you, Commissioner. I just might check that Mr Turner’s statement was tendered.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I believe it was. He was - - -

MR McAVOY: My recollection is that it was, but - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Exhibit 65.


COMMISSIONER WHITE: But are there some documents in the – I don’t think the Northern Territory’s bundle of documents went in.

MS BROWNHILL: Correct, Commissioner. I would like to tender that now, please.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes, thank you. That is exhibit 70. Thank you.

EXHIBIT #70 NORTHERN TERRITORY BUNDLE OF DOCUMENTS

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thanks, Mr McAvoy.

MR McAVOY: Commissioner, the next witness is Mr Callaghan’s witness.


MR CALLAGHAN: The next witness is Trevor Hansen. There are a few preliminary issues to be resolved before he commences his evidence. Perhaps I can introduce it this way: Mr Hansen has prepared a number of statements. I do not propose to tender any of those at this stage. They are all what might be termed responsive statements. That is, responsive to the statements given by other witnesses, for the most part child detainees, or perhaps exclusively child detainees. And one of those is a statement from Mr Dylan Voller, or responsive to the evidence of Mr Voller. Now, I understand Mr O’Brien has some objections to the contents, or part of the contents, of that statement.

It’s also the case that Mr Voller and Mr Hansen join issue on a number of matters. I don’t propose, during the evidence that we are about to hear, to dwell upon those issues, but Mr O’Brien may well wish to and, in my submission, should indeed be allowed the opportunity to do so, but he has the difficulty of having received a lot of material that is potentially relevant to that very late. This is a problem which will recur, we apprehend, with the witnesses to follow. There is nothing to prevent us from hearing evidence from those witnesses, they have a lot of relevant evidence to give that does not relate to Mr Voller, and it’s proposed that we


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

should hear the evidence that can be heard from these witnesses and specifically I’m talking about Mr Hansen, Mr Fattore, Mr Tasker, and Mr Clee.

I can examine all of those witnesses without getting distracted by the many and varied issues raised by the evidence from Mr Voller, but those issues will have to be addressed at some stage. So the proposition is that those issues be deferred for perhaps a few weeks, and that we reconvene with these witnesses if necessary in order to resolve them. There are other issues or other reasons to defer or to concentrate, if you like, the resolution of all issues outstanding relating to Mr Voller in one session. There are, for example, unresolved issues as between the Commission and the Northern Territory government about the number of documents that should be tendered that are relating to Mr Voller, and all in all it’s the submission of Counsel Assisting that the cleaner and more efficient way of doing that, albeit one that will occasion some inconvenience, is to address those at a separate session in the not too distant future.

We have no interest in putting this off for any length of time. The practical consequence is that I don’t propose to tender any of the responsive material to Mr Voller, nor do I propose to tender at in stage any of the six statements I have received from Mr Hansen since lunchtime, all apparently signed today. I’m fully prepared to proceed with his evidence, and indeed I’ve already got some questions for him about those statements, but there won’t be any tendering of the material at the outset. So that’s the position of the Commission – of Counsel Assisting on these issues. It may be appropriate to hear from Mr O’Brien and Ms Brownhill before we continue.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. We don’t have any of those extra statements.

MS BROWNHILL: Commissioners - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Do you want to be heard first, Ms Brownhill?

MS BROWNHILL: Well, I will be short. We have instructions in relation to the proposal for the hearing at a later date of evidence relating to Mr Voller’s allegations, and we are content for that to occur, and I understand my learned friend’s difficulty in relation to statements that he received at lunchtime today. So we are fine on both counts, on the understanding that at some point – and I’m not sure, currently, how this is going to fit in, but Mr Hansen’s responsive statements will be tendered and then my question is how is it proposed that his evidence in relation to those responses will be dealt with?

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. It certainly has been canvassed briefly with us outside the Commission, and we don’t have – Commissioner Gooda and I haven’t even seen any of the most recent statements. But this sitting is quite lengthy, it may be that we can get back to it at the end of the sittings if there are some spare days. It may be that it’s in the April sittings. But I – we are envisaging that it will be dealt


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

with within a pretty reasonable time frame while it’s fresh. So thank you for the cooperation there, Ms Brownhill. What about you, Mr O’Brien?

MR O’BRIEN: We obviously agree with Counsel Assisting on this. We came prepared to deal with these allegations, but when we talked about late service on a great deal of material, we are talking about over 10,000 pages received at – in the very early hours of Saturday morning, and we just don’t have the capacity to get on top of that amount of material so quickly. It is imperative that we do so, we have been asked by the Territory government and by Counsel Assisting to do so, and we will. We can’t do it immediately, so this regrettably has to be deferred. I agree with counsel.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: So in effect we can corral the Voller evidence, if I can call it that.

MR O’BRIEN: Yes.

MR CALLAGHAN: I understood Ms Brownhill’s inquiry then, though, to extend beyond that to querying how the responsive statements which I’ve received since lunchtime, which relate to witnesses other than Mr Voller, how that should be dealt with. All I can say to that is I will take it as far as I can on the notice that I’ve had, and we will review the situation. I should say, I apprehend very little difficulty in the tendering of all of this material eventually, but I’ve already seen some child identifying information on some of the stuff that was given this afternoon.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well, it is always important to take a little bit of care over these things, but it may well be that Mr Hansen can be finished tomorrow, when you’ve had an opportunity to perhaps look them overnight; that sort of thing.

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes. I notice the time now. It looks like we will be going into tomorrow, but I would think that would be so.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well, w can sit on, of course, but there is a limit because people have got work to do when we rise, so that it’s sometimes counterproductive to sit too much longer. But we should try and make up some of the lost time that we’ve had with the time out with the – you know, with the video connection and so on.

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes. Commissioners, could you just excuse me for one moment.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Of course.

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes, I call Trevor Hansen.



5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

<TREVOR HANSEN, SWORN [3.47 pm]

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

<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR CALLAGHAN [3.47 pm]

MR CALLAGHAN: Could you tell the Commission your full name, please?---Trevor Hansen.

Mr Hansen, you were employed by the Northern Territory Correctional Services between 1994 and 2014; is that correct?---That is correct.

Can you tell us what positions you held within that organisation?---Yes. I started off as a – what they call a junior justice officer, I acted in the position of the senior Juvenile Justice Officer, and then was appointed to the shift supervisor position.

Is it true that you were known by the nickname Yogi?---That is correct.

What training did you have prior to your appointment as a Juvenile Justice Officer?---On my first day, none.

And subsequently. Perhaps if you can just give us a potted history of the training you received over the course of your career?---Well, after starting with Corrections we eventually – or I did get first aid training. We had - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Can I just interrupt you there. When you first joined the service as a Youth Justice Officer, that lay within the Department of Corrections, is that so?---That is correct, yes.

And did it remain – just so that I can keep this clear and not keep asking you, did it remain with Corrections throughout until very recently?---In my time, yes it did.

Thank you. Sorry, Mr Callaghan.

MR CALLAGHAN: No. And if you could – you were telling us about training?---Yes, training was first aid, we then had some prison officer training which was cell insertion, cell extractions, and then years later we started with PART training. And that was every two years as, in first aid.

PART training. PART being an acronym P-A-R-T?---That is correct, yes.

What is that?---Professional Assault Response Training.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 20170313 P-950 T. HANSEN XN©Commonwealth of Australia MR CALLAGHAN

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

What are the key principles of that sort of training?---Basically, to be able to move a detainee from point A to point B without hurting them, defensive training for the officers themselves so they won’t get hurt while they are waiting for help, and so the detainees don’t get hurt.

And how much of that sort of training did you get?---We went on a course when it first came in, and I’m sorry I can’t remember when it first came in, and then we got refresher courses after that.

With what sort of frequency?---Every two years I think it was, from memory.

And how long did a course go for?---Two days?

So perhaps two days every two years was basically was the standard?---Basically, yes.

Mr Hansen, as indicated you’ve provided some six statements today, is that right?---That is correct.

And you’ve also had your attention drawn to a number of other statements received by this Commission and made other statements in response to them; is that correct?---That is correct, yes.

Can I ask you about one particular statement, or I want to draw your attention to a statement made by one of your former colleague, Eliza Tobin who provided a statement to the Commission, and I think we are table to get paragraph 39 of that statement up on the screen. But perhaps before I do, could you describe your working relationship with Ms Tobin?---We were work colleagues.

No more, no less?---That’s correct, yes.

You had no issue with her?---We were work colleagues.

Yes?---I work with them. Yes.

Alright. Just excuse me. So we are looking for the document last four numbers 0001, and we have paragraph 39. Can I just ask you to read that paragraph.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: To yourself.

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes, I’m sorry.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. We will need to provide Mr Hansen with a copy, Mr Callaghan, because he doesn’t have ….

MR CALLAGHAN: He doesn’t have a screen?


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: No. I’m sure how that slipped up.

MR CALLAGHAN: I’m not sure how I didn’t notice.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: There seems to be plenitude of screens everywhere.

MR CALLAGHAN: We will get a hardcopy.

I’m very sorry, Mr Hansen?---That’s .....

Everyone else in the room can see it except for you at the moment. Alright. Look, we will come back to that.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: No. I think we might actually deal with it right now. I’m sure we can manage. Can one of these computers be put in front of Mr Hansen.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

MR CALLAGHAN: It’s paragraph 39 of that statement, Mr Hansen. Could you read that to yourself?---Do you want me to read it out loud?

No, to yourself?---Okay.

I place that before you to join the issue at the outset, if you like, because you are aware of the statements – the several statements that have been made by former detainees and the things they’ve said about you, and I would suggest to you that the upshot of what those several statements allege is that you were, in effect, a bully towards detainees. You understand that’s the issue I’m exploring with you?---I do now, yes.

Okay. And do you have any comment to make about the comment made by Ms Tobin in that paragraph?---No, I don’t. That’s her opinion. I may disagree with it, but that is her opinion.

Alright. Well, can I ask you about some specific incidents, and we might explore the proposition that’s contained in that paragraph. There was an incident that occurred on 1 April 2009. You were working at the old Don Dale on that date, April 2009?---I assume so.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. No one expects you to remember these dates particularly, Mr Hansen, so if there are any issues from documents subsequently we can revisit them. But if you just ask Mr Hansen to assume that’s correct, and I’m sure he will be happy to accept that.

THE WITNESS: Thank you very much, yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR CALLAGHAN: It’s more just getting the time frame, April 2009 you were at Don Dale, right?---Yes.

There is an incident, the details of which recorded on a document which I will place before you, and that is the document ending in 3939 underscore E. Tab 4 in the tender bundle. So, Mr Hansen, can I ask: have you had look at that document recently? Have your lawyers drawn your attention to this document?---I will have to read the whole - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Do you have a hardcopy? It might be of more assistance for Mr Hansen to recognise the document or otherwise.

THE WITNESS: Yes, I do – I actually do recognise that document. That’s fine now. Thank you.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Would a hardcopy be more convenient for you?---I have actually got one of that copy of this one.

You’ve already got it?---Thank you very much.

MR CALLAGHAN: Notice was that these particular documents would be referred to. So I apprehend - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: So if you want to have a look at your own copies - - -?---Yes. Thank you very much.

- - - I’m sure there is no problem with that.

MR CALLAGHAN: And so you’ve refreshed your memory, not that you – you weren’t the author of that document, but you’ve refreshed your memory about the incident by referring to that document?---That is correct, yes.

Thank you. We are not going to use any names, Mr Hansen, you understand that?---Yes. I understand.

But it’s true to say that the incident involved a 15-year-old girl?---I would say that would be correct, yes.

And this particular girl had been misbehaving?---That is correct, yes.

It’s also true to say, though, that she did not have a weapon or anything like that?---That is correct.

She had not actually hurt anybody?---That is correct.

She was being verbally abusive?---Yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Making threats?---Yes.

And, as recorded in that document, abusing property?---That is correct, yes.

Can you just clarify what might be meant by “abusing property”?---Damaging property.

Is - - -?---Kicking.

If property was actually damaged would there be a separate report about the property that was damaged?---No. That would – that would be added to it, yes. Kicking doors, trying to damage the windows, that would be added in there.

Alright. Well, that – I don’t want to bog down on this, but one way in which I might have read it would be abusing property might be trying to damage it, whereas actually damaging then you would have seen a record of actual damage?---That would be correct, yes.

Okay. And this girl was not following directions to desist from this bad behaviour?---That is correct.

So she was escorted to the security unit?---That is correct.

But she did not have to be restrained for that purpose?---That is correct, yes.

She was then placed in the security unit?---That is correct.

You were in the company of another youth worker, a lady who was named in that document, and again we don’t need to name her for those purposes?---That is correct.

And it is part of the procedure – or was part of the procedure in much is a case that the clothing of the – in such a case that the clothing of the girl in question was to be removed in order to prevent self-harm; is that – is that right?---The outer garments, yes.

Well, which procedure prescribed that the outer garments be removed?---It was in the at risk and the procedure manual that we remove outer garments and it was procedure of the centre to remove the outer garments so as to not allow them to – or not give them a chance to hang or hurt themselves.

Well, was that the procedure as you understood it?---That was the procedure at the time.

And that was written down in the - - -?---In the procedure manual, yes.

Alright. So this 15-year-old girl was then asked to remove her clothing, is that right?---That is correct.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Who actually asked her to do that?---The female officer that was there at the time.

But you were there?--- I was there, yes.

You made no indication that you would go away to allow her to remove her outer garments?---That was offered to start with, yes, but she declined and was abusive.

So you offered to go away?---I offered to back away, yes, and watch the officer.

Well, did you offer to remove yourself from the situation such that you could not see this girl remove her clothes?---I did, yes.

I see. Well, the offer was declined, I take it?---She was abusive.

What happened then?---I again asked her to – if she could remove the outer garments. She refused. I went in and gave her to the count of three to do it, otherwise we would have to do it for her. I walked in I gave – counted to three both verbally and physically with my fingers. I then advised the other officer that I had restrained her and her outer garments were removed. We then left.

Tell us about the restraint?---I reached over and held her by the arm and she was face-down while the officer removed her clothes.

Was it not the case that she was placed into what’s called a leg lock?---She was placed in an arm lock first, and then a leg lock to get her T-shirt off.

Alright. When were you going to tell us about the leg lock?---I’m sure it was written in there.

Well, it is, but when I asked you what happened next you told us about the arm lock and about how you left the scene, but you didn’t mention the leg lock. So leave that. Just tell us what a leg lock is?---A leg lock is putting her – one ankle into her knee cavity. I apologise for that.

That’s all right?---And then lifting her other leg up over, so that they can’t actually wiggle and move.

So the girl in question is on the ground?--- She was actually on the cement bed at the time, yes.

On the floor?---No.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: On the cement bed.

THE WITNESS: There is a cement - - -

MR CALLAGHAN: Bed, I’m sorry?---Yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

I misheard. Alright. So on the bed in the cell area?---Cell area.

Cell area, I see. And you held her ankle up behind her knee; is that the way you describe it?---It is like a figure 4. So you bend one leg so it’s not hurting, and then bring the other leg over, so as they can’t move to protect her and protect the officers.

I see. So you are using your hands to hold her legs so that she couldn’t move?---Basically, yes, so the other officer could remove her shirt – T-shirt.

And the other officer removed her clothing while you were holding her in that way; is that right?---Yes. That is correct .

And this had to happen because she wouldn’t get undressed herself?---That is correct.

Can we take it – well, sorry, was there any procedure in place that suggested that you might have backed away from a situation like that all together and let it be handled entirely by female staff?---I’m not sure of the staff numbers on the day, but it may have been that the female officer we had was the only one on duty at the time.

And I appreciate that was actually an attempt to answer my question, but my question was whether there was any procedure involved that might have suggested that you should back away and at least attempt to let the situation be handled entirely by female staff?---As – again, I can’t answer that without knowing the staff numbers. I would – I attempted to back away to let the female take her off without me being anywhere near her and that was refused and she was very threatening and abusive.

I’m just going to try one more time. I understand that you may have been – there may – it may be the case – may have been the case that there wasn’t another female there. I’m asking whether there was a procedure or guideline or some other indication from management that a young girl should not be undressed by a man – or that a man should not take part in the undressing of a young girl at all?---Not – not at that time, no.

Okay. Did such a guideline ever come in?---Yes. We actually tried to make sure there was enough female officers so that would happen, yes.

But do you see the difference? That might be a staffing issue to make sure that it wouldn’t happen, but I’m asking whether there was a guideline or a directive in place to say that it shouldn’t happen?---We did get a directive in place that the detainees clothes would no longer be removed from the detainees once they were placed in the cell unless they were at risk.

But this was as at risk situation, or at least you deemed it as much?---No. There was not an at risk at that stage. This was a standard procedure that the outer garments had to be removed in case they would use them to hang themselves.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Isn’t that at risk?---No, not necessarily. This was in preparation in case they did try, but we changed this because of some of the rules and regulations that are around, we changed that if the detainees were allowed to keep their clothes on, and we would keep a closer eye on them with the CCTV footage, and regular visits down there, and if they then were fragile and went at risk then we would have to remove their clothing and give them the at risk gowns.

Well, just – we will just finish off this particular incident that we are talking about?---That’s fine.

Is your evidence that this was not an at risk situation?---No, it’s not. It was a cell placement.

It was a cell placement and as part of a cell placement the clothes of this young girl had to be removed?---The outer garments, yes. That was the procedure at the time.

And what was the logic behind that?---So that they couldn’t use those garments to hang themselves.

And there was an assumption underpinning that that you couldn’t use undergarments to hang yourself; is that right?---There was an assumption, yes. But that - - -

It makes no sense, does it?---That is why that was changed.

Did that change happen – I will start that again. Can you remember when that change happened?---No, I can’t tell you that. It would be notification of some sort that that changed, but I can’t remember exactly when.

Well, this wasn’t something that was being done in secret, this was a - - -?---It was procedure.

Yes. And no one in management ever suggested to you that it was inappropriate for you to be holding a young girl down while someone else took her outer clothing off opinion?---No.

As far as you’re aware management endorsed this procedure entirely?---It was procedure.

This young girl was clearly agitated after that experience, wasn’t she?---She was agitated before and after.

Well, you would accept, I would suggest to you, that however agitated she might have been beforehand, there was a risk that being undressed whilst being held down by a man might have increased that level of agitation?---I can’t answer that. I can’t – don’t know what her mindset was, I’m sorry.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

You can accept as an objective proposition that there would be an increased risk of agitation in those circumstances?---Again, I’m not sure, but I would say probably yes at this stage.

And was anything done in response to that?---Can you clarify that, please.

Well, in the moments after being held down by a much older man whilst she was stripped of her outer clothing by another person, did anyone do anything to lower the level of agitation that this girl might have been experiencing?---Yes. We organised the officer to take down a – what they call an at risk gown.

Anything else?---Not at that stage, no.

Were you aware of investigations into this incident?---No, I was not.

And to be clear – it’s probably covered by the answer you just gave, but you were never asked by the police to be interviewed about this incident?---No, I was not.

No. There was another case in which you – I’m sorry, before I move on I will tender that document, which is the internal investigation report at – I’m sorry – I’m told it is tab 5 of the tender bundle. It’s the internal investigation report. I think it’s undated, but - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: We are going to have a tracking system for these tender bundle documents, I think, Mr Callaghan. Can you remind me of how we are going to do it, so that everyone can keep track. The tender bundle index is exhibit 64. Is this going to be something like 64.5? Is that what you thought of?

MR CALLAGHAN: Can - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: What number would you like me to give it? The next in sequence is 71, but I thought we were going to relate it back to the tender bundle each time.

MR CALLAGHAN: 64.5 is the number – I’m advised is the relevant number.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Alright. That’s what it will be, then. Exhibit 64.5. Thank you.

EXHIBIT #64.5 INTERNAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

MR CALLAGHAN: I’m sorry. Can I ask for the next document to come up on the screen, it’s tab 133 of the tender bundle document ending in 1885. Thank you. Mr Hansen, this document is one that was – has been drawn to your attention in recent times, has it?---Yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And if you need to have you found your hard copy of it?---Yes. Thank you.

Thank you. Once again, this is a record of an incident of a situation where you were faced with a young girl who was being disobedient; is that right?---That’s correct, yes.

She was told to move inside and she said she didn’t want to?---That is correct, yes.

She resisted your physical restraint of her and kicked some doors and doorframes as she was being escorted and pushed by you into a cell; is that correct?---Yes, that is correct. Yes.

This girl was also 15 years of age?---Again, I would assume the age would be correct, yes.

And I’m not sure if you’ve seen the document which is at tab 132 of the tender bundle, which is – if you go to page 1842 of that document. That part of the document is not particularly helpful, whoever is managing the screen. There’s some details of the injuries – well, you can read that – those details for yourself?---Yes.

You accept that’s an accurate record of the incident?---No, I don’t.

Which parts do you take dispute with?---

The detainee states that she was standing near the water bubbler. The youth worker walked towards her, grabbed her twisted lock for no apparent reason.

You maintain there was a reason, that - - -?---That’s correct.

- - - she was ignoring a direction?---That is correct. Yes.

Yes. Alright?---They were talk – actually talking about jumping on top of the school and escaping from the officers.

And I think I introduced this by the proposition that she was being disobedient from that point on?---She was being disobedient before I went out there.

Or even before then?---Yes.

Alright. What else is there in that description that you take issue with?----I didn’t actually know about all the – I knew that she was sore, but I never seen the actual medical report, because we don’t get medical reports.

Fair enough. But you knew that she was sore after the - - -?---Yes. I was as well, so, yes.

Okay. Before I lose track of these, can I tender tab – the document that was tab 133.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: 133. So that becomes then exhibit 64.133. Thank you.

EXHIBIT #64.133 TAB 133

MR CALLAGHAN: And can I tender the document that was at tab 132.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Exhibit 64.132.

EXHIBIT #EXHIBIT 64.132. TAB 132.

MR CALLAGHAN: This young girl made a written complaint about this incident to the general manager; is that correct?---That is correct, yes.

Were you aware if the matter ever came to the attention of police?---No, I’m not, sorry.

No. That’s alright. Did anyone ever suggest to you that there were any deficiencies in the way that you had handled this matter?---Yes.

And - - -?---That was when it was being investigated and I also myself.

What did they suggest you had done wrong, if anything? And if you can tell us who suggested it as well?---I can’t actually remember who investigated it. I really am sorry. I think it was – well, Professional Standards, one of the gentleman from there. But obviously the messy nature of the way that we had to bring her inside makes you look at yourself in that regard.

What do you mean - - -?---The way things were done.

I’m sorry?---Well, I mean, you have quite obviously read the same thing, and it’s come up that there was a struggle, and she was fighting all the way through. And, I mean, quite obviously (a), you want her to comply so you don’t have to grab her in the first place, and secondly you want to attack them in – without injuring them, without any struggles, whatever. So that did not happen. So you look at yourself and what ways you can improve yourself to do those movements.

In what ways that the – well, when you say do those movements. What do you mean?---Well, you are taught in part that the problem is she was so slippery because she had been out exercising and she got water and put on as she went through. So it was very hard to hold her hands or put the arm restraints in, and it became very messy because was struggling kicking all the way through. So - - -


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

This was another situation, though, in which the so called leg lock was being deployed. Is that correct?---That is correct, yes.

In any of the feedback that you received from management, be it Professional Standards or anyone else, was there – was it ever suggested to you that there was anything wrong with the use by a man of your age on a – of a leg lock on a 15-year-old girl?---No.

No one had an issue with that?---No.

Alright. You – were you in earshot when Mr – when Jamal was giving his evidence before you came on?---No.

Alright. You are aware of a number of references in a number of statements, and I can take you to them, but you’ve done responsive statements to each of them now, I think, in which it is alleged that you performed the manoeuvre described in evidence earlier as a wedgie. You are aware that’s a recurring theme of the things that have been said about you?---That’s what they call it. It’s a one man or a one person escort, yes.

Well, not every one person escort in involves the so-called wedgie. The wedgie involves something quite specific, does it not?---It involves holding their shorts and the top of their sleeve, if not the sleeve their arm, and then guiding them to the front forward direction.

Just guiding them?---You hold their arm forward and you keep pushing through to take them through.

And what about the degree of force used by the hand that’s not holding the arm? What’s it doing?---It is holding the shorts.

And what’s it doing with the shorts?---Pushing them forward.

Not lifting them up?---Don’t lift them up, you push forward.

Don’t lift them up at all?---You hold so that you’ve got a grip, so they can’t get loose, and you push forward.

So is your evidence to this Commission that you, when performing manoeuvre, did not use upward force with the hand that was holding the shorts or the lower garment of the individual concerned opinion?---The idea is to grab the shorts so that you could hold them and then push forward. If the shorts rise up a little bit, but you would not try to use too much force to push them through, only what is required to move them in a forward direction. It is – says it’s a one man escort. Or, sorry, one person escort.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Was it ever called a wedgie?---I never called it a wedgie. It was never called a wedgie. Whether people called it that, I’m not sure. I didn’t like that terminology, if they did. It was called a one-person escort.

You say you didn’t like that terminology, does that mean you heard it being used?---I had heard it being used, yes.

In what circumstances?---Other officers when they come in, “You did the wedgie,” or whatever. I said, no, it’s not called that. I just didn’t answer basically half the time.

You didn’t what, I’m sorry?---I didn’t want to answer it. It’s not what I called it. It was – it was a one-person manoeuvre, basically.

Well, let’s – I’m sorry, let’s forget about you for a moment. You heard the term being used in relation to other officers?---I had heard other officers use that term, yes.

You had heard them use it or did you hear the detainees use it about what was being done?---I actually never heard the detainees use that terminology, no.

No. Okay. But you heard other officers talking about wedgies?---I did, yes.

Alright. Was it a source of amusement?---I never laughed at it.

Did you see others laughing at it?---I obviously can’t answer that. I don’t know what they were laughing at. I mean, if they said something it could have been something else. I don’t – don’t recall.

Was the manoeuvre that you’re describing something that was ever recorded in the use of force register?---If I touched a detainee and moved them I would put – yes, grab – held by shorts or arm, yes.

So it was considered sufficiently noteworthy to actually record in the use of force register?---That is correct, yes. It was force. You were forcing them forward or moving them forward. So, yes, you would put it.

And it occurs to me that I’ve skipped a step there, because I’ve used the term “use of force register”. So can we go back if you don’t mind and can I just ask you, what was the use of force register?---Basically what it said. Use of force. If you touched a detainee and use force to move them anywhere or do anything with them, you had to fill in the use of force register.

And what was the register?---It was a book that detailed the date, time, detainee’s name, what force was used, why it was used.

Just an ordinary sort of exercise book or - - -?---No, it was like a journal.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

A journal. Yes?---Yes.

Alright. And where was it kept?---In the office with all the other journals.

In the main office?---That is correct.

Okay. And what was the guideline or when were you – when was it indicated that you were required to make an entry in the use of force register?---When you used force.

Was force given a definition?---Yes, basically hands on a detainee.

Any hands on a detainee should be recorded in the use of - - -?---If it was requiring force, yes.

It was obviously – that was obviously an important document or important register, both – well, for many reasons I would suggest. There’s – it’s obviously a – some sort of protection for the guards to actually record when things were used and why in case there was a complaint about it later on?---Yes. The protection for the guards and the detainees, yes.

And indeed for the detainees. It’s a very important - - -?---That’s correct.

- - - piece of paper. And the entries were handwritten in it, I take it?---That is correct.

By the person who had used the force?---Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

When no?---Sometimes the officer has been injured and needs to seek medical attention, sometimes the officer may go down back to their section because we are so short staffed and the shift supervisor might fill it in, get them to sign it later on.

Other than those sorts of circumstances, if there was no injury or other reason - - -?---Then you should fill it in yes.

Yes. Okay?---That is correct.

And, indeed, in some of the statements that you’ve written today – and we will get to them in due course, but – or signed today, I should say, I don’t know when you wrote them, but you’ve invoked the absence of an entry in the use of force register as something to which we should have regard when determining whether an allegation about force has substance to it?---Could you - - -

Yes, alright. Allegations about use of force have been made against you in a number of statements?---Yes, that’s correct.

I’m going to break it down, step-by-step?---Yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

You’ve rejected those in separate statements that you’ve made?---That is correct, yes.

And in those statements that you’ve made, you’ve said, “This didn’t happen.” And you’ve listed a number of reasons in some cases why it didn’t happen or wouldn’t have happened?---That is correct, yes. And one of those reasons includes the fact that will there was no entry in the use of force register?---Could you rephrase which one that was, sorry.

Yes. There’s a statement you’ve made in relation to BE. Bravo echo?---Is that

They have all got the same date, I’m afraid?--- .....

I can’t narrow it down - - -?---Is that from today?

It’s one of the statements dated 13 March?---Okay.

And paragraph 9. It’s the statement that relates to BE.

MS BROWNHILL: If it would assist, we can send someone over to help Mr Hansen find the relevant statement, if necessary.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Perhaps you could do that.

MR CALLAGHAN: That might assist.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes, thank you.

MR CALLAGHAN: Okay. So you’ve had a look at paragraph 9 of the statement relating to BE?---That is correct, yes.

Can I ask you to look at the statement relating to AU, paragraph 9 again. AU, U for uniform?---Yes.

And the point being that you, in both of these, statements invoke the relevance of the use of force register?---Not just the use of the force register but the other areas, yes.

Quite so. But in both cases the use of force register?---Basically, yes.

Alright. Can I finally take you to the statement - - -?---Also, I was in the – in the building at the time. So - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I think Mr Callaghan is just focusing for the moment on your defence - - -?---Yes. That’s fine.

- - - that it wasn’t in the use of force register. Yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR CALLAGHAN: And finally on these statements can I take you to the one prepared in relation to AN, alpha November. And in this one I want to take you to a document that’s attached to it and can we just be a bit careful with that because this hasn’t been redacted, the child’s name is used?---That’s fine. Which paragraph are we looking at, sorry?

The attachment and the third line up from the word “signed”.

MS BROWNHILL: There are two attachments to that statement.

THE WITNESS: That is – yes.

MR CALLAGHAN: That’s attachment – annexure TH-10?---That’s correct, yes.

Okay. And, in short, there was an entry about a particular exchange with a detainee that – above that line there’s - - -?---Yes.

- - - details of that. And then you’ve recorded the fact – and this is apparently your document – that the use of force register was not completed as the journal was unavailable?---That is correct, yes.

Why was the use of force register unavailable?---It may have been utilised and was in the manager’s office waiting to be signed, and I have no key to the manager’s office to get in to sign it.

So it was being utilised in the manager’s office behind a locked door?---Well, it may have been utilised, once it’s done it has to go to management for ratification to be signed. It then comes back to our office and we can reuse it. But at that stage, because the manager was not in the building, because obviously it was afternoons, could not get it. So I logged it into an official document to say we could not utilise the use of force register, so that it was registered.

I’m really interested, though, in how – not particularly in anything you might have done in this case, okay?---Yes.

What I’m interested in is how the use of force register might come be to be unavailable at any given time?---It was still in the building. It was in – would have been in the manager’s office - - -

Right. But not available?--- - - - waiting for him to sign and ratify that document.

Which document?---That book. That journal. Well, there may have been another use of force. I’m not sure. Without the details, I cannot tell you if there was another use of force waiting in there.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Mr Hansen, can I just – just to clarify something which I might be missing here. Is it your evidence that for each description of the use of


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

force that was entered by an officer in the register, it would have to be signed off by the manager?---That is correct.

So the manager would have the book taken to him or her, or it would somehow or other be taken from its usual available place?---That is correct.

And you would have to wait for it to be returned?---Yes.

Would that happen very often?---Every time there was a use of force, the book - - -

Well, I’m assuming that’s right?---Yes.

But I suppose the unexpressed premise is did it – was the use of force book entered, entries in it often or on a daily basis, twice daily, weekly. What kind of - - -?---That depended what was happening at the centre. Sometimes you would go weeks without using it, months even. And then the demographics would change, and you would have problems, and you would have to deal with those. So then you had to use the use of force register. Ideally, you would love not to use any force at all at any stage, but unfortunately that’s never happened.

Can I ask you the further question then, and I think you can only speak from your own experience, were there more than one occasion when you went to enter an incident pertaining to the use of force in the register, and it wasn’t available to you?---Yes. More than once, yes.

Would you estimate perhaps how - - - I couldn’t give you an actual detail. We eventually printed another copy to keep in so that way if that book was not available – because it did get to that stage – where you would have a book in there, so we actually printed our own journals at the end, made our own journals and that way we could have a spare one in the office, so for that fact of the journal going into the manager’s office – for some reason it didn’t get signed and back to us because he might have got called out to a meeting or something, we would then have a spare journal in the office specifically to stop that from happening.

Was it the case then that when the journal was returned to your office, Youth Justice Officers were expected to write up the incident nonetheless, even though it wasn’t immediately following the incident. Or did you just not do it because the book wasn’t there?---No, you would attempt to log it back in yes. Sometimes it would be missed because the person that was doing it – for example, I can’t remember if I wrote that into the use of force register, because when you come back you’ve got priorities elsewhere, you’ve got other kids and you’re trying to set up. So it could be missed, yes.

Yes. I understand that. So it could indeed be the case that - - -?---That is correct.

- - - that there were incidents that were unable to be recorded in the register because of the unavailability of the register?---That is correct, yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Thank you.

MR CALLAGHAN: And that was the point that I was wanting to explore with you, but I’m still struggling with the concept of unavailable. What would have been involved in getting the record, the journal, if you had really had to get it?---You would have to call the manager with his key to get the door unlocked.

So – okay, so it’s in an unoccupied, behind the locked door of an unoccupied office?---That is correct.

I see. And then whether or not an incident got recorded in it would depend upon whether someone kept the details in their mind long enough to enter it after that door got unlocked for whatever reason?---That is why you entered all the details on the incident report, if you didn’t have the journal, so that you could actually put that on there so you would still have the information regarding that.

Well, you’ve done that in this case?---That’s correct.

But as to whether or not that’s happened in other cases would depend upon the individual?---You would hope they would all follow that procedure.

You would hope so, but you would also hope that the journal would be - - -?---That is why - - -

- - - always available, wouldn’t you?---That is why we did eventually print more journals and had them in the office in a specific space, because beforehand we used to get our journals made for us.

Yes?---We then took that over ourselves because we could see that need. We made the journals, we printed them, we made them into a journal themselves, and then stored the extra journals in the senior youth or the shift supervisor’s office so – for that eventuality, so that we would have those extra journals.

Do you remember when that happened?---No. I could not tell you off-hand, I’m sorry.

But until that happened you might have struck this problem?---That is – that is correct, yes.

That was just silly, wasn’t it?---Yes.

Commissioners, I’m happy to keep going, but I am moving on to another topic.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well, I know that you’re running behind the list. How long do you think you will be with Mr Hansen?


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR CALLAGHAN: Look, I may not be that much longer, if you are happy to sit on.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: There’s a lot of merit in it allowing a witness to be finished in a day so he doesn’t have to be anxious about coming back tomorrow.

MR CALLAGHAN: Certainly. No, it’s - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Is that alright for you, Ms Brownhill?

MS BROWNHILL: We are content for that to happen as long as Mr Hansen’s comfortable to carry on. I’m sure .....

COMMISSIONER WHITE: He hasn’t been here that long.

THE WITNESS: I’m fine .....

COMMISSIONER WHITE: He doesn’t look as though he is wilting to me.

MS BROWNHILL: No. I’m not sure about whether others have sought leave to cross-examine and whether there will be other – no.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: No.

MR CALLAGHAN: I should qualify, Mr O’Brien flagged his interest in cross-examining Mr Hansen but we’ve agreed that that can be, as you’ve said, corralled.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: But that relates to the other – yes, as I understand it. Thank you. Well, if within a reasonable time you can complete Mr Hansen’s evidence then I’m sure he will be pleased not to have to come back tomorrow.

MR CALLAGHAN: I think I can without too much difficulty.


MR CALLAGHAN: There was one particular complaint made by the girl to whom we’ve been referring in the document that you’ve just been taken to, the girl we have described as AN, and she, as you know, or you will know, you’ve provided a statement in response to hers, has said that you picked her up by her shorts and bra strap and goes on to describe the manoeuvre that you describe, I think, as a one-person escort, but perhaps is described by others as a wedgie. You’re aware of that - - -?---I am, yes.

- - - evidence from her?---I am, yes.

And you’ve rejected the proposition that you’ve ever grabbed a detainee by their bra strap; is that correct?---That is correct, yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

But can I ask you this: was there anything that ever prevented you or any guideline that suggested that you shouldn’t perform what you call the one-person manoeuvre, or whatever, what others called the wedgie, was there anything that would have suggested that you should not do that to a female detainee?---Well, you would never, ever grab somebody’s undergarments for a start.

That’s not really answering my question though. It’s about the dealings with young girls - - -?---Well, you might - - -

- - - by older men with young girls?---Well, ideally you get – want to get them to walk. But if you still have to grab them or hold their shorts and grab their sleeve to walk them to a room, because sometimes they can hit just as hard, that may have to happen, but you try not to as much as you possibly could with the females, yes.

And – but – well, you might have tried not to, but there was nothing preventing you from taking hold of the clothes of a female?---Well, you would never grab them in certain areas. There is still that common decency.

Like the back of their shorts?---You wouldn’t grab their bras or around the chest or anything like that. Back of the shorts - - -

You would grab the back of the shorts?---Yes, sometimes, if that was the only way that I could move them, probably, yes. I mean, it’s a matter of their safety, your safety, and everybody’s safety, and you don’t want to see anybody getting hurt. Sometimes they wanted to swing or throw something at another detainee. Your job was to protect everybody around you, not just that one. You had to protect everybody. So that’s what I tried to do.

You understand the allegation that it goes beyond protection though. As AN puts it, she has alleged that you picked her up from her shorts and bra strap, that they would often grab her like that when she was in trouble, they would lift her up from the back of her shorts so the bottom of her shorts dug in hard between her legs:

…and then put their hand under my bra strap so it pulled tight on my chest.

The point being, she says, “This hurt and was a shame job”?---It actually - - -

Went beyond protection and was a shame job?---That never happened. Never happened.

To be fair, I should make clear that that last part of her statement she is saying “they”, and she’s not necessarily directing that specifically at you?---That’s correct.

But she does allege that you specifically picked her up from her shorts and bra strap?---No, as the incident report clearly shows, I had her by her wrist. She also states that I broke the keyboard, which I didn’t. I wasn’t anywhere near the incident. I was called in after this incident had happened.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

I think we might be on a different - - -?---This is AN.

Yes. And that relates to part of your statement that I haven’t actually asked you about?---Sorry.

I’m not – I know you are trying to help, but - - -?---Yes, I’m sorry. I apologise. But, no, I did not grab her bra strap or – you know. You would not grab a female’s undergarments.

Had you participated in the strip search of female detainees?---Never – what’s the best way to – never directly. When I first started in Corrections you didn’t have enough staff. There was four staff on duty. So there might be one female, three males. You get a female detainee come in, the female officer would do the strip search, the male officer would be on the other side of the room so you couldn’t actually see anything, and you would watch the female officer to protect the female officer, so that the female detainee could not say that anything happened. The female officer then would conduct a strip search. That was how it was condoned and how it was done on procedure. We actually, as officers, didn’t like that, and eventually that was changed so that it must be done by two female officers. If at the stage you did not have two female officers, depending on the time of day or whichever, then you had to wait. You would put them in an area where they could not mix with the other detainees, or you got a female prison officer from next door to come across to give them a hand.

So have you ever conducted a strip search on a female detainee?---No. Never.

Do you recall saying that you had?---No. I don’t. I recall saying that I had watched female officers doing strip searches on detainees, but never do one.

Alright. So are you aware of the document to which I - - -?---I am, yes.

I am referring?---I am.

Which is at tab 69 of the tender bundle. This was an investigation report into the allegation that you had been present during a strip search. To be clear, I think where all that ended was that the CCTV showed that you may have briefly entered a room where a strip search was being conducted of a female detainee, then returned to a position behind the open door?---That is correct, yes.

But the point is that during the course of this you were heard to say words to the effect that you had conducted strip searches on female detainees before and would do it again?---No, that’s not what was said. That might have been misheard at that stage, but what I did say, and I remember that, was that I had watched female officers do strip searches before.

And you will be familiar, by reference to this document, with the fact that two different – one worker did say, one fellow colleague of yours did record you saying


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

words to the effect that you had conducted strip searchings on female detainees before and would do it again?---I can’t help – I’m not sure where they got that from. There was a lot of noise because the girls were screaming a lot.

Well, indeed the other one said that you had said things that implied you were prepared to conduct the searches yourself if the detainee failed to comply with the instructions?---I would never - - -

Might you have said something like that?---I would never do that.

Might you have said that even just to get their compliance, as a threat?---I don’t think so, no.

Do you recall being asked, in the investigation of this matter, whether you had said those things?---No, I don’t.

No?---I was asked whether I entered and I said straight away, “Yes.” I had entered. Because I had spoken to the officers and said, “Is it all clear now to come in.” And I heard a yes. But the officers were obviously talking to the female detainees, so I must have misheard. I walked in and I noticed that the officers were still facing the area where the strip search was happening, and I could not see anything, so I just turned straight around and I walked straight back out again.

As I say, I’m not questioning so much about this incident itself, as what you said or recorded - - -?---Were alleged to have said.

- - - by two other people to have said during it?---Mmm.

Which I would suggest to you is a remarkable coincidence that two people would record you as saying that you had conducted strip searches on female detainees before and would do so again if you did not in fact say that?---I – as I said, there was a lot of noise in that room, and it echoes where it is, whether they misheard what I said. But, as I stated earlier, I was referring to a procedure where I was standing back and the female officers – because I was concerned for the female officers’ safety as much as the detainees’ safety, because they were very abusive and they were threatening. So - - -

Alright. I think I have made it clear I’m not asking you about the incident itself ?---Yes.

But about what you had said or what you deny saying. Just excuse me for a moment. I will tender that document that’s on the screen. Which is tab 69 of the tender bundle.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. So that’s exhibit 64.69.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

EXHIBIT #64.69 TAB 69

MR CALLAGHAN: Subject to that which might happen on Mr Hansen’s return, which we apprehend will relate only to Mr Voller – but I do qualify that by reference to the fact that we’ve received six statements today, but I’ve done as much as I plan to do with those. But subject to that those are all the questions I have for Mr Hansen.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Mr O’Connell.

MR O'CONNELL: Yes, Commissioners. I also represent AN. I only received the statement in relation to AN from Mr Hansen at lunch today. I do have some questions for cross-examination, but I should be fairly short.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Do you have some questions as well, Ms Brownhill?

MS BROWNHILL: No, Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Have you raised those with - - -

MR O'CONNELL: I haven’t, your Honour. I haven’t given the timing of the receipt of the statement and - - -

MR CALLAGHAN: To be fair, I’ve received it since we resumed after the lunch break myself. So - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Alright. How long do you think you might need, Mr O’Connell?

MR O'CONNELL: No more than 10 minutes, your Honour.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Let’s stop at 5. Alright.

MR WOODROFFE: Commissioner, can I also indicate at this stage that I – NAAJA acts for the vulnerable witness BE. I can also indicate we have only received the statement during the course of his evidence, and we have not had an opportunity to sight that document. We have flagged earlier of a consideration of cross-examination ..... COMMISSIONER WHITE: Alright. Well, thanks, Mr Woodroffe. Bearing in mind that Mr Hansen was almost certainly going to need to return to deal with the Voller adverse material, it may well be that those who have got the very – the statements late and can’t take instructions about them might wish to take it up then. I can see that that might be practical.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MS BROWNHILL: Mr Hansen has already missed the flight back to Darwin today. So in my submission it would be convenient for this kind of cross-examination to happen tomorrow morning, rather than having to call back - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: If that’s the case. Yes, certainly. Well, if you have to – if he has to be here, I’m not as familiar with, obviously, the people who live in Alice and Darwin about when the planes are.

MS BROWNHILL: Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: So Mr O’Connell, would you like, in fact, to have the opportunity then to just reflect a bit more on the questions and you can ask in the morning?

MR O'CONNELL: Yes, please, Commissioners.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thanks for that indication, Ms Brownhill. We should do it that way. Alright. So Mr Hansen, we will ask you to come back tomorrow morning. Maybe we could perhaps start a little earlier. We are a little bit behind, aren’t we, Mr Callaghan?

MR CALLAGHAN: Not much.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: So you think we can do it at the usual time?

MR CALLAGHAN: We were planning on finishing with Mr Hansen today, and if we have got another 10 minutes or so we are not far behind at all.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: All right. So 10 o’clock.

MR O'CONNELL: And I think it’s is possible that some of tomorrow’s schedule might open up a bit as well. So I’m not concerned.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Alright. Well, 10 o’clock then tomorrow, if you could be back here just a few minutes before we start, just to get ready. And we will hope to have you out fairly shortly.

THE WITNESS: Yes, Commissioner. Thank you.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thanks, Mr Callaghan. Anything else we need to mop up this afternoon?

MR CALLAGHAN: I don’t believe so.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. Just adjourn, thank you.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MATTER ADJOURNED at 4.55 pm UNTIL TUESDAY, 14 MARCH 2017


Index of Witness Events

JAMAL TURNER, SWORN P-12EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR McAVOY P-12

THE WITNESS WITHDREW P-27

BC, SWORN P-29EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR McAVOY P-29


BF, AFFIRMED P-41EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR GOODWIN P-42


JAMAL TURNER, ON FORMER OATH P-55EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR McAVOY P-56CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR O'CONNELL P-62CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR McAVOY P-68


TREVOR HANSEN, SWORN P-72EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR CALLAGHAN P-72

Index of Exhibits and MFIs

EXHIBIT #64 TENDER BUNDLE INDEX P-6

EXHIBIT #65 STATEMENT OF JAMAL TURNER DATED 21/02/2017

P-13


P-34

EXHIBIT #67 STATEMENT OF BC P-40

EXHIBIT #68 STATEMENT OF BF P-54

EXHIBIT #69 BUNDLE OF DOCUMENTS FROM THE NORTHERN TERRITORY GOVERNMENT IN RESPECT OF BF’S STATEMENT

P-54


P-69

EXHIBIT #64.5 INTERNAL INVESTIGATION REPORT P-80

EXHIBIT #64.133 TAB 133 P-82


5

EXHIBIT #64.132. TAB 132. P-82

EXHIBIT #64.69 TAB 69 P-94


transcriptcreator - web viewthe youth justice officers themselves will tell of the great...

Documents