Transcript 13 December 2016 · Web view.ROYAL COMMISSION 13.12.16P-737A. CARROLL XN ©Commonwealth of AustraliaMR CALLAGHAN.ROYAL COMMISSION 13.12.16P-750A. CARROLL XN ©Commonwealth

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-736400

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

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

DARWIN

10.06 AM, TUESDAY, 13 DECEMBER 2016

Continued from 12.12.16

DAY 10

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 G. O’MAHONEY and MR C. JACOBI for the Northern Territory of AustraliaMS T. LEE appears for AA, AB and ACMR A. HARRIS appears for Mr John ElferinkMR J. TIPPETT QC appears for Mr Ken MiddlebrookMR P. O’BRIEN appears with MS C. GOODHAND for Dylan VollerMR P. BOULTEN SC appears for the North Australian Aboriginal Justice AgencyMS F. GRAHAM appears for the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid ServiceMR J. LAWRENCE SC appears with MR S. O’CONNELL for ADMS A. ROSE appears for Antoinette Carroll

.ROYAL COMMISSION 13.12.16 P-723©Commonwealth of Australia

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Mr Callaghan.

MR CALLAGHAN: Some housekeeping first. I believe that I am now in a position to tender the redacted version of Mr Dylan Voller’s statement.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you.

MR CALLAGHAN: that all parties have had the opportunity to contribute to, and which is – subject to the tender of a further version after issues of preservation of identity are better resolved – but, for the time being at least, I tender a redacted version of Mr Voller’s statement.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. I think that is 51. Is that what those who are the keepers of these things agree? Exhibit 51 .....

EXHIBIT #51 REDACTED VERSION OF MR VOLLER’S STATEMENT

MR CALLAGHAN: For clarity, the concept of redaction extends to the proposition that there are no annexures to that statement being tendered.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Well, we – that has got a little way to go yet.

MR CALLAGHAN: Subject to a separate deadline, yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. A separate deadline indeed.

MR CALLAGHAN: If there’s nothing further, I call Antoinette Carroll.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Was there just something to resolve about exhibit 46, or one of those - - -

MR CALLAGHAN: In relation to exhibit 46, as I understand it, by agreement the exhibit is to comprise only the DCF annual report of 2015/16 and not the statement by Mr Davies.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. So the description of exhibit 46 is amended to reflect that.

MR CALLAGHAN: Thank you, Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thanks, Mr Callaghan.

MR CALLAGHAN: Eerily quiet in respect of any other applications, so I call Ms Carroll.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 13.12.16 P-724 ©Commonwealth of Australia

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I think we are getting application fatigue. Thank you.

<ANTOINETTE CARROLL, AFFIRMED [10.07 am]

<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR CALLAGHAN

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you, Ms Carroll, please be seated.

MR CALLAGHAN: Would you tell the Commission your full name and occupation, please?---Antoinette Carroll.

And your occupation, Ms Carroll?---I’m the youth justice advocacy project coordinator at the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service.

Ms Carroll you prepared a statement for the purposes of this Commission; is that correct?---Correct.

The Commissioners have that statement, and I’m not in the position at the moment to tender a copy, but the parties have access to it. Can I commence by indicating that it may well be the case that a further statement is going to be prepared by you in relation to some issues specific to Central Australia?---That’s correct.

And, with that in mind, you anticipate that you may be recalled to give evidence to this Commission in relation to those issues at a later date?---Yes. That’s correct.

But a lot of your statement refers to your involvement with Mr Dylan Voller?---Yes.

And, of course, a lot of the involvement that you had involved engagement with systemic issues that affected Mr Voller’s progress through various systems; is that correct?---That’s correct.

Can I clarify a couple of aspects about your statement at the outset, beginning with paragraph 64. I should indicate that, for the most part, the evidence that you are going to give today relates to paragraphs 52 and onwards which is where you have the heading relating to Mr Voller?---Yes.

Paragraph 64, you refer to your presence at court appearances involving Mr Voller but there was a period during which you were on, as I understand it, not long service leave but leave without absence, is that right?---That’s correct, yes.

And that was in fact from July to December?---Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Is that what you meant to get the witness to agree to, “leave without absence”?---Leave without pay.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 13.12.16 P-725 A. CARROLL XN©Commonwealth of Australia MR CALLAGHAN

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR CALLAGHAN: Leave without absence – leave of absence?---Leave of absence.

Without pay?--- ..... yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: .....

MR CALLAGHAN: ..... with absence, and not long service leave, was really what - - -?--- No, not long service leave.

- - - I wanted to establish. And I might possibly have just got there.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Some of us might make that less complicated by saying simply that, “I was on leave.” Is that - - -

MR CALLAGHAN: We can do that. We can do it that way if you want to be brief about it.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Simple. That’s the case, isn’t it?---I was absolutely on leave, yes.

Yes, thank you.

MR CALLAGHAN: Alright. Can I clarify another aspect of your statement at paragraph 100, and this relates to a conversation that you say you had with Ms Boyle, the Children’s Commissioner, at the Children’s Commissioner’s Office?---Mmm.

Might it be that, in this conversation, there was also reference to the criminal prosecution of others, specifically guards against whom charges had been laid in relation to things that they had allegedly done to Mr Voller?---Yes. That would be correct.

And that that was in fact the reason for – or a reason for the delay in the delivery of reports by the Children’s Commissioner?---Yes. That’s correct.

Do you accept that?---Yes, I do.

Can we come back then to Mr Voller, and I would like to address your evidence in relation to him under a series of separate headings. Firstly, can we discuss the observations you made about Mr Voller’s engagement with the criminal justice system. You were, as you say, present in court for so many of his appearances. You heard his evidence yesterday that when he was charged with a criminal offence, he would plead guilty to it?---Yes.

Does that accord with your experience?---That does accord with my experience.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

You also give a description of the events at the point in time when he received a sentence of 18 months detention at the Alice Springs courthouse in 2011 and I’m referring to paragraph 65. Would you just tell the Commission about that?---During that period, obviously Dylan had had some – numerous court appearances. Some had resulted in court-imposed orders, which he was in breach of, and then for further offending. He – in my view, and I think many people’s view, was still at the very low end of offending and then he was sentenced to 18 months, which really was quite devastating for such a young child to receive that. Such a long period of a sentence.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Can you remember for what offence, or was it for a number of offences? Was that sort of a wrapped up sentence or was it for one specific?---No. It was a wrapped up sentence in terms of his breaches of conditional orders and then, as I said, for further offending. But again, looking at the further offending, that was predominantly offending relating to offences of – in out-of-home care situations and/or in detention as well. So still quite low end.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: And it probably is neither here nor there, but I assume that some of those were cumulative sentences, because in many jurisdictions the breaches of bail conditions are made cumulative on whatever other sentence is imposed?---That’s correct, yes.

Would there have been some accumulation in that 18 month sentence, if you can recall that?---I – I – I can’t necessarily recall, but he might have had a short suspended sentence, that that accumulation was taken into account.

Yes. Thanks. I was really just interested in whether – what the offending was, if it was a single charge that gave rise to 18 months, because that is a considerable sentence?---It is a considerable sentence, yes.

Thank you.

MR CALLAGHAN: Well, you were present, as you say, at a number of these hearings, and I’m interested to learn about the process generally that these hearings followed and the extent, if any, to which they became entangled with other care and protection related court issues. Could you just address that?---Yes. Essentially, you know, he was a very young child who came before the court for criminal offending, who was also in the care and protection system as well, so what became very evident was that obviously Dylan was a young person presenting with challenging behaviours. There was an overwhelming lack of therapeutic support in place, but importantly there was a lack of coordination in relation to how he should travel through the justice system whilst in care. So if we look at pre and post court planning, for example, that was often somewhat ad hoc, and I would say that there wasn’t the attention given to it for a young person who was presenting with such high needs.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

What effect – or how did the care and protection issues get entangled, if you like, with the issues that might have been relevant to his sentence, and what effect did that have?---Well, essentially, since one of the key roles is to be able to present a judge – magistrate with alternative to detention, and that’s something that we work very hard to do, to ensure young people – detention is a last resort as per the Youth Justice Act. Sadly, in Dylan’s case, it was of the case we couldn’t – the department couldn’t present an alternative due to not having an appropriate out-of-home care replacement, or due to a lack of planning around to supports being put in place, for example, for family connection as well, for his – you know, his family supports.

So as a general proposition, would it be fair to say that those sorts of considerations complicated the processing of the criminal matters?---Yes. It then put the judge in a very difficult position in some cases in terms of what the sentencing outcome would be. So often matters would get delayed, would get adjourned, for the department to present a comprehensive plan to put before the court, given that they were the lead agency.

And these things were happening within different systems, is that right?---That’s correct.

The criminal system and the care and protection system?---And the care and protection system, yes.

They had to be addressed separately?---Yes.

And that created special difficulties?---It did. So obviously, you know, the idea is to expedite a young person’s matter in the criminal justice court and then look at the broader issues and the causal effects of their offending. To get them out of that system, to take them out of the criminal justice system, which is very intimidating place and then welcome the bigger long-term care support plans that that young person would need. Sadly in Dylan’s case it got amalgamated into the one court setting, which was the criminal justice court setting.

Amalgamated into one court setting, but without the supports?---Without the supports provided to – you know.

By the other setting?---Yes.

As I understand it, there are reforms afoot to fuse the systems. Is that your understanding?---Well, yes, one of the key recommendations of the Northern Territory Youth Justice Review and Making Justice Work campaign is looking at a course jurisdiction, and criminal justice. So we’re looking at the needs of young people who are essentially crossover clients through care and protection and criminal justice and establish a therapeutic court model that would best meet the needs of these young people.

A therapeutic court model?---A youth justice therapeutic court model.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Does your experience with Dylan that we’ve just discussed underscore and affirm the need for such a model?---With Dylan and all the – numerous other young people who come before the court in Alice Springs, absolutely. It should be an urgent priority.

And you said a moment ago that it was always the desire to avoid incarceration if possible, or words to that effect. What would you have to say about the diversion opportunities afforded to Dylan throughout the process, and I realise we are talking about a long period ..... generalisations?---Yes.

But do you have an observation to make about the diversion opportunities that were available to him?---Sadly, diversion wasn’t really made available to him and it should have been given the low level of his offending. It would be to other young people, but again because Dylan presented in a different way to some other clients in the court in Alice Springs it just became very evident from the go-get there would be a punitive approach taken to Dylan as he travelled through the system. He was never afforded, as I say, a diversion or other mechanisms that would really, you know, advise or – you know, address his causal effects of offending, especially around – through therapeutic needs.

Can I move then to the topic of Dylan Voller in detention, because you observed him in detention everywhere that he was in detention; is that correct?---That’s correct.

In your statement, you have described the situation at Aranda House. Can I take you to paragraph 87 of your statement, please, because you speak there about a team from the United Nations subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture and other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Perhaps – could you tell us the background to that visit by that team?---Essentially I was contacted by the United Nations who had a visiting representative in Central Australia and asked if we could facilitate the meeting at Aranda House, which I did with full cooperation from the then OIC. We facilitated the meeting, I think there might have been about five young men there at the time. The OIC was present. The young men were able to speak openly, so it was a very transparent process, around the conditions around the house, the lack of education supports, therapeutic supports, the lack of recreational space, for example, and lack of professional visiting space. So it was a very – it was a very robust conversation that young people were able to really value add to.

You visited Dylan Voller at Aranda House on a regular basis?---That’s correct.

In paragraph 89 you record a rather poignant observation about a particular visit there?---Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Since Ms Carroll’s statement is not generally available because it’s still – it might be helpful for those who don’t have access to the statement to know what the content of the paragraph is.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes. I was about to ask in that particular case for that to be described.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. If you could keep that in mind, I think, while it’s not going up on the screen it might be necessary to be perhaps a little longer in describing the content of the paragraphs than otherwise.

MR CALLAGHAN: Could you do just that, please?---Okay. Essentially because Aranda House – Alice Springs is a very small community it’s very easy to travel, so it’s like two minutes to get to Aranda House from my office, so I could visit regularly young people there. And at that time officers were very open to – you know, allowing visits at any time, so it didn’t necessarily have to give 24 hours’ notice. If a young person was distressed we could just go at any time. So obviously Christmas Day was a day that was very – sorry. Essentially, I visited him there on Christmas Day with another young person and - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: And how – and perhaps you could indicate how many young persons there were on Christmas Day?---There was only one other young person ..... on that day, but it was just a very sad situation. There was no Christmas decorations, for example; there was no Christmas tree; there was no – there was nothing. So, yes, it was a very dismal place to be spending Christmas for such a young child, both those young children. So we just – as I said, sat around and played Lego and – you know, we brought jigsaw puzzles and just made that day a bit more comfortable, essentially.

MR CALLAGHAN: He would have been 13 at that time; would that be right?---That’s correct.

He was a small child though, wasn’t he?---He was really little, yes.

And do you recall how old the other child was?---He was older. He would have been about 15.

In the context of what you say about Aranda House in paragraph 90, you talk about an Immediacy Response Program?---That’s correct.

Was that – well, can I get you to speak about that concept. Tell us, first, what it was?---So essentially, you know, we had to take it in the context that we had Youth Justice Officers who received little training. There was little training in responding to high needs of young people who potentially presented with challenging behaviours, who might be for example – you know, experiencing withdrawal from alcohol and drug misuse. So clearly there was a very heightened state for young people in that space, and as the Commissioners have seen that space, it’s not very – it’s not a very therapeutic space.

So we managed to put in a system in place where if a young person, Dylan being one, and there was other young people as well – if their behaviour is heightened, they


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

could contact me at any time essentially, to be able to really diffuse the situation to support the young person to de-escalate their behaviours, but also provide some critical stress debriefing to staff as well, who were very under skilled and underequipped to deal with those types of – I suppose, for want of a better word, outbursts, which was a good system in place. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn’t, and essentially the aim was trying to resort to not using that BMU room. The idea was to try and not put young people in that room.

So this was a program developed when he was at Aranda House?---Yes. It wasn’t really a program, it was just more of a – I suppose an understanding between myself and the Youth Justice Officers.

Well, that’s why I ask. I mean, you describe it – it’s not a criticism?---Yes.

But you capitalised the letters when you describe it in the statement, and it’s described as a program, but it was more of an informal sort of an arrangement?---Yes.

Having said that, it presents as something which is very sensible and which could sensibly be formalised into a program of some kind?---Yes. Absolutely.

Is that your suggestion?---Absolutely. And I think it’s really important to recognise that if you have a young person, for example, from a remote community who is used to constant contact, you know, possibly lives in an overcrowding situation, really, the last thing – you want to avoid, at all cost, putting that young person in a behavioural management room for a lengthy period of time, isolated. So I mean – to build to the – this Immediacy Response, we should be having key people in communities that can take similar type calls, speak in language to try and assist that young person to de-escalate their behaviours, and importantly find out what was the causal effect of that young person’s behaviours escalating in the first instance.

So are you aware of that sort of thing being done other than on an informal or by arrangement sort of basis? Is - - -?---No. I’m not aware of that, no.

.....?---No. I think that would be a good program to put in place. I think it would be – it would need to be resourced, for a really good – good, key community members, who can have a – and when I say immediacy response, it really is. That call can come at 3 o’clock in the morning, or it can come on weekends. It has to be a call you can answer.

Presumably tailored to the individuals, as this was?---Yes – yes. And somebody that that young person possibly has a connection with, via community members. It could be a – a strong family member.

Moving from Aranda House to the Alice Springs Youth Detention Centre, can you share with the Commission observations you made about the times that you saw Dylan at that centre, and the conditions in which he was being detained?---Again, it’s


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

– for those, if you haven’t seen Aranda House, when you do at some point in time you will see that we would think the new Alice Springs Detention Centre was a vast improvement on the Aranda House facility. However, it still wouldn’t be up to standard in – by the best practice youth justice detention centres. There is no facility to conduct professional – I think Dylan really highlighted that yesterday – family meetings, professional meetings, family care meetings. So to really glean – and how you inform therapeutic support, and post release planning, it’s important to have everybody around the table to do that, for it to make it a meaningful experience for the young person. So the Alice Springs Youth Detention Centre doesn’t allow for that to happen. The school is very – it’s a small room. It’s – you know, there’s no space for young women, for example. But, yes, I don’t know if that answers your question.

I think it does. Dylan also spent some time at the Alice Springs Correctional Centre for adults?---That’s correct.

Is that the case?---Mmm.

Even though he was – this is while he was still a juvenile?---Yes.

You know the background to that?---Yes, I do. That was something that we talked to Dylan about. He nominated that was his – some young people can nominate to go to the – the correctional facility, if – I can’t remember the exact age. He was – he was of the view that possibly being there would – he would be somewhat autonomous. He wouldn’t have the – didn’t have the same relationship and history with the guards of the Alice Springs Youth Detention Centre, so he felt that being at the prison, the Alice Springs prison, he would be sort of free of that kind of daily interaction, and so he nominated to go there.

So he went at his own request?---He did. We did try to - - -

It didn’t work out so well?---It did not work out, no.

Why not?---Well, essentially because of his age, he was kept in isolation. He couldn’t interact with the adult prison population; he was in a very small cell which just – which led into a tiny courtyard that he could pop in and out of a couple of times during the day, but very short periods. So yes. I visited him there, I think on the second week, and was deeply distressed in terms of what I observed in his appearance. He was shackled. It wasn’t good. So then we made a request to get him out of there as soon as possible.

We have heard, and will no doubt hear some more evidence, about the Old Don Dale and you were present when Dylan Voller gave evidence about it yesterday. Is there anything you can add to the Commission’s learning about the Old Don Dale, do you think?---Well, other than the fact that, you know, it was a very – the – the – the riot that took place, I suppose, having that quick knee jerk reaction to transport young – transfer young people into the then Holtze, but the Berrimah facility, I think could


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

have been done a lot differently because prior to that, although Don Dale wasn’t a perfect facility, it was certainly by all means much more user friendly for youth than the Berrimah facility. So I think that was a highly traumatic time for the majority of those young people.

Well, I was going to ask you about the Berrimah facility, but seeing as you’ve mentioned it, why don’t you do the comparison now and by what you have told us by reference to each of them?---Essentially, the Don Dale prison – detention centre allowed for more interaction. There was a much more broad communal space. Yes. Back in – many years ago, they had a small swimming pool there, that sadly was closed. But it just – it felt more – it had more of a feeling of a Youth Detention Centre, as opposed to the Berrimah site which is clearly an adult facility. From the minute you entered the gates there it’s an adult facility, so on that basis, I think that certainly had a big impact on young people’s social and emotional wellbeing, because – you know, the small child is placed in that facility, you can really – I find it very confronting going in there, so I can only imagine how they would find that as well.

Can we take it - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Can I just ask that question: part of that, it seemed to us when we were visiting the two facilities, was that you could call the rooms in the Old Don Dale where the young people were housed – something of a stretch, but you could call them bedrooms?---Yes.

Whereas in the adult converted facility they were very clearly cells?---Yes.

Of a fairly old fashioned kind too, I would suggest?---Yes.

That seemed to us to be a very stark contrast?---Very much so. And no ..... freedom of movement, so professional visits that I historically conducted at Don Dale, there was a lot more freedom of movement, so you would see young people that you knew, that you could talk to informally, that you could sit down with in that common area. Whereas of course with the Berrimah prison that’s just not possible. It’s very regimented, very controlled.

And there’s no ..... at the former one?---Yes.

..... which would be available for them too?---Yes.

MR CALLAGHAN: All of what’s said about the Old Don Dale is, I would suggest to you, subject to a qualification relating to the BMU?---Yes.

And you wouldn’t necessarily endorse it as a suitable facility?---No, not at all. Not at all.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Drawing on your experience at all of those facilities, and accepting that each in their own way has had an impact on those who have been detained there, what are the positive recommendations about correctional facilities that you would make? And you may have anticipated this already, because you have already spoken about the need for professional meetings and to have a space available for people like yourself. So what, from your perspective, doing the sort of work that you do, are the recommendations you would suggest for any future youth detention facility?---Look, from a Central Australian perspective on this, if that’s okay. So for my view, I think if we were to resource the Youth Justice Act appropriately, and look at the provisions such as provisions of the Youth Justice Act, for example – such as pre-sentence conferencing, or diversion also, I would question the need actually, with our data, for a detention centre per se. Because we look at – remand periods are quite long, but we’re – if we had a youth justice system with an appropriate therapeutic court in place, with trained practitioners, I am of the view that we would see young people diverted from detention and engaged in therapeutic and more diversionary type programs. Early intervention prevention, essentially. So it would be interesting to see if we had – and I – I – I stress the pre-sentence conferencing, for example. If that was fully resourced from the Youth Justice Act, how many people would be diverted from detention? But if we are looking at a detention centre per se, I think Central Australia does allow for some really good community initiatives of more, I suppose, I mean, look at adventure therapy, but a more culturally appropriate way of having a detention centre established could be addressed. That it doesn’t need to sit alongside, co-located with, the adult prison as it currently does. We could look at different spaces, different models and establish how, I suppose, key community – and I mean remote community members can lend to what that’s – that would look like. So what would that detention centre, if we did have one – which we will – look like for the users. So it’s important to get the users’ input. Often we might have things that are developed without any consultation with young people in particular, no participatory input whatsoever. I think it would be really valuable to ensure that young people have a say in whatever is developed in terms of a detention centre.

I’m going to move on to ask you about the involvement that Dylan had with the Department of Children and Families and your observations about that. You have made some observations that are applicable both to his involvement with that department and with the detention regime. For example, you have said in paragraph 94 that when you raised certain issues about Dylan’s requirements with DCF or detention staff, on his behalf, you were careful not to be too forceful, because you did not want him to lose further privileges. Are you able to elaborate upon that?---Yes. Essentially – obviously, all young people are entitled to video games or different types of privileges. In Dylan’s case, I think he highlighted that perfectly yesterday. He never got to that point where he would – his classification would drop. He would get to a certain – he would nearly get there, but then some minor incident would take place and his classification would be heightened again. So ..... permanently – he was permanently in a place of not necessarily being able to take advantage of some of the reward systems that are in place. So I was very careful to not in any way hinder that process by some of the conversations that I might have had with him about mistreatment, for example, so it was very important for me to


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

bring a – I suppose conflict resolution might be the word I would use when talking to detention centre staff and DCF staff around some of the concerns that Dylan had raised, without coming in into – not an adversarial way. It was important to strike that balance, because I didn’t want it to ripple out to him being denied any privileges, essentially.

And did it stem from the – or was it your perception that these difficulties stem from what you record in paragraph 143, where you suggest that you never felt like either DCF or the officers at correctional facilities every truly recognised Dylan’s right to independent advocacy? By which I interpret that they didn’t recognise he had a right to actually make his point?---Well, exactly. I mean, you know in every other state and – I think anyway, from every other state and territory, young people have independent advocates, and they have the right to have independent advocates, to really navigate what their human rights are in the care and protection and detention centre settings. There – there continues to be a lack of understanding of that, despite the fact that young people – yes, they have committed crimes; yes, there’s – you know, victims of our community that have been impacted by this. They still have rights in that system. And that was a very hard message to drive home around his care and protection and his time in detention. And, thankfully, over the time he became very strong in advocating for his own rights, which – essentially, it would be an interesting thing to see if other young people did the same, took the same course of action.

What you say does focus some attention upon the role of the Department of Children and Families, because it’s the case, isn’t it, that in the child protection regime there is a – this notion of an independent child representative?---That’s correct, yes.

We don’t need to go into the details, but you’ve recorded in your statement difficulties that you have encountered with such a representative in Dylan’s case; is that correct?---That’s correct. It’s – yes.

What you’ve recorded brings focus on a systemic difficulty, I would suggest to you, in that these independent child representatives who act for children in court in relation to care and protection issues - - -?---Yes.

- - - have a duty to represent, objectively, the best interests of the child. That’s their responsibility, isn’t it?---That’s correct.

Whereas someone like yourself, in your engagement with Dylan, you would perceive your duty to give voice to the desires of the child?---That’s correct, yes.

But the desires of the child, what the child wants, are not necessarily always going to be objectively in the best interests of the child?---That can occur, yes.

It can occur?---Yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

The potential for that tension to arise is there; you would agree with that?---Yes, I would.

And in the example that you’ve given there was some tension indeed that arose even in relation to the independent child representative’s access to Dylan, and whether he could speak to him directly or not and, through you, Dylan was indicating a reluctance to speak to him at all; is that correct?---That’s correct, yes.

Without dwelling too much on that particular situation, can you tell us: is there a guideline or a policy or something to steer people through those sorts of situations, because it’s easy to contemplate that they could arise frequently?---Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: What do – can I just ask for some classification there, Mr Callaghan. Who are you – to whom are you referring when you say would steer people through? Do you mean DCF people, or Ms Carroll, or the child?

MR CALLAGHAN: Well, when the – how could a – that sort of – the conflict between the independent representative and someone like yourself advocating on behalf of the child, when it’s over something as fundamental as access to the child, whether the child should speak to the independent representative, how would such a dispute be refereed?---There is a lack of clarity in relation to child legal reps in the care and protection system in Northern Territory, and often there can be some conflict. Essentially, you know, we could question the training of practitioners that might act as child legal reps. They often might also work for the department and then also work as a child legal rep. We live in a small community. People come in with preconceived judgments of young people and that I think is where sometimes I think conflict can arise. But importantly, it’s important to bring it back to the child focused position and, from my role, I always will bring it back to the child focused position and be guided by, in this case Dylan, in terms of what his needs, wants were, and how he wanted to – wanted to communicate with his child legal rep. So, you know, there continues to be – I think there’s a lack of clear policy in relation to the role of the child rep. So, for example, young people’s – I refer to young people again from remote communities – use of interpreters. We often have fly in, fly out child legal representatives who might come from South Australia, come from Adelaide, no context of the young person. So, again, how do you really do that meaningful work as the independent person who is bringing the child’s views and aspirations of that young person to their care plan, to their post release planning in some cases. It’s very challenging, and takes a lot of time, and you need time to build rapport and have a meaningful, trustful relationship to do that work. I just don’t think that’s the case now. I think it’s quite crisis driven, crisis response, and it’s actually really unclear of when a young person gets nominated a child legal rep.

The process by which - - -?---The process by actually – how they actually are nominated a child legal rep is unclear to me.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: And is that – generally the legal representative who is allocated to the young person, so far as your observations, are they retained by DCF


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

or its predecessor, or are they retained in some other way to act on behalf of the child? And do they – or are they in house or are they at the private practice?---It’s a bit of both, I think. Private practice and some in house. Again, as I said, it’s quite unclear what the actual policy is. I do believe that there has been some work commenced on providing some clarity around child legal reps. There was a working group that was established about a – two years ago maybe, but I’m not sure how that has progressed. So essentially a young person hits the criminal justice system, and they are in the care and protection system as well, I will ask them if they have a child legal rep. Nine times out of then they will say they don’t. So it’s quite uncommon for a person, in my experience for that particular age group to have a child legal rep for the care and protection matters.

I know that you are dealing with high level systemic things at the moment, Mr Callaghan. Are you going to visit some specifics? For example, the things that we heard from Ms Jody Barney about the compromised hearing of young persons in detention at the interface of appearing in the Youth Justice Court .....

MR CALLAGHAN: I did not propose to do that in this session, Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Alright. Thank you. That’s for another time?

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes. The issue we are addressing now relates to a specific situation that was thrown up by the situation involving Mr Voller, and - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Alright. I’m happy to leave it, if it is going to be covered.

MR CALLAGHAN: And whilst it – it is just an example of one of Mr – one aspect of Mr Voller’s case which throws light upon what seems to be serious systemic issue where there is, as the witness has just said, a real lack of clarity.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thanks. Alright. I will let it go till the next time, then.

MR CALLAGHAN: That’s one issue that you’ve identified, or that includes the discussion about one issue that was identified as being of concern in terms of Dylan’s involvement with DCF, but you’ve spoken of some others in some really quite pointed terms. For example, in paragraph 71 you’ve said that:

Dylan never received any genuine therapeutic supports that were specifically targeted to address his challenging behaviours. Rather, he was subjected to a punitive social work approach to his needs, void of any conflict resolution approaches.

Now, as I say, that’s quite direct?---It is.

And I invite you to elaborate and exemplify, if you can?---Essentially, as I say, that the care and protection – when Dylan first came into the care and protection system,


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

his mother was genuinely seeking some supports, respite, and how to manage Dylan and his challenging behaviours in many ways. So that was the first contact that I had with him around when he first entered the care and protection system. What became very apparent was that his care workers were somewhat helpless in dealing with his complex issues. The department seemed somewhat unwilling to resource the appropriate therapeutic supports that were needed to guide him and to hopefully disengage him from at risk behaviours. So rather than it being a very collaborative child focused approach, it became somewhat adversarial for each caseworker that came on board, bearing in mind that he was – you know, nominated lots of different caseworkers, he had many different caseworkers. That’s due, obviously, recruitment and retention in the Northern Territory care and protection but also just, you know, DCF workers at the time were transitioned to different departments. So there was a lack of, obviously, consistency. And I think from my observations what would happen was that the previous social worker or case manager would hit walls, wouldn’t make any progress. That would, I presume, go on the file note. Documented on to his file, and that would be the continued practice. So people just became, I suppose, somewhat judgemental in their approach to his – his behaviours and his care and protection plan. Importantly what was really unclear how he informed his care and protection plan, how his family informed his care and protection plan, and from my observations they were often excluded from that process. So decisions were made on behalf of him; decisions were made on behalf of his mother; and I think that was very problematic. And it became very obvious then that, you know, maybe being in the care and protection system wasn’t in his best interest, because clearly a lot of the offending that took place was whilst he was in the care of the Minister and in relation to out-of-home care situations.

And you go on in paragraph 72 to suggest that what he needed was a specialist practitioner to work with him, but that the supports that he received from the department were ad hoc and temporary, which is consistent - - -?---Yes – yes. So at that point he was referred into the child and adolescent therapeutic support team which is based within the Department of Family and Children Service – how can I say this – but Dylan needed a particular practitioner, somebody who had expertise in working with young people with challenging behaviours, but importantly somebody who could build a type of rapport with him as well and that applies to many other young people. I think he was often mismatched with his therapeutic supports, and as opposed to taking on the recommendations that he himself – so I used – I think – I am not sure if I’m allowed – am I allowed to mention people’s names, or – the practitioner that we put forward, we believed was the best fit for him, but there was a lot of barriers put in place from the department in terms of engaging that practitioner, who wrote many a comprehensive report that he presented to the court, that the courts were really in favour of and supported the plan, the behaviour management plan that he put in place to the detention centre as well, but sadly we just couldn’t get any traction with that within the department.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Just in relation to your query, Ms Carroll, about naming people?---Yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

There’s no embargo if they’re not adverse comments. It’s only adverse comments, and you know the reason for that, of course?---Okay.

Yes. Thank you?---Thank you.

Yes.

MR CALLAGHAN: Was the impression you got from the department that – which is recorded in paragraph 76, that your impression was that they thought it was too hard to arrange the educational supports; is that accurate?---Yes. I think, again, that if we look at that – if we are dealing with a child who has clearly experienced trauma, having a consistent case management approach is vital for their recovery, their reintegration, their socialisation. And having Dylan not being able to – able to enter mainstream education, from a very early age, was deeply problematic. So essentially, I’m of the view that no stone should have been left unturned to get him into a classroom environment with the appropriate supports in place like, you know, one on one tutor or, you know, counsellor on hand, or whoever needed to be there. But there just again seemed to be endless barriers to getting him into mainstream education, and it’s pretty evident he’s a highly intelligent young man.

Look, his story is a complicated one, and it doesn’t to oversimplify it, but I would suggest that at different points in your statement you use words that do seem to have a particular relevance. For example, at paragraph 130 you refer to a “merry-go-round”, paragraph 83 you refer to a “destructive cycle”. It does seem to be a recurring sort of a theme when you look at his case. I mean, if you want to give a specific example, I think in paragraph 71 you talk about his spitting, and it has been explained that he spits at older men who are aggressive towards him or who stand over him. He spits as a means of protection. But, of course – and you further observe it was a behaviour that he had learned. He had never spat at you?---No.

But, of course, once he would spit at someone he would invite more in the way of aggression by way of a response, and so the cycle would go. That’s a small scale example of, I would suggest to you, of the larger problem. Intervention in that, or in the cycles that were at work could have occurred, no doubt, at any number of different points. But I would suggest to you there’s an opportunity for intervention in these life cycles at the point where someone is in detention, and prior to their release, and in the period governing their release, following their release. You use terms such as “reintegration plan”, that you’ve used in paragraph 47 and “post release plan” that you have used in paragraph 105. Are we talking about the same thing?---Yes.

Can you please tell us about such plans, what they are, how they’re developed, when they’re developed, what their effect is intended to be?---So essentially the young person enters into the criminal justice system. We would – and pre and post court support look at what type of support that young person – that can be put in place for that young person to assist them to disengage from the criminal justice system. So you start off at a very basic level, and again it’s really important to take into context


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

– you know, their connectivity with education, community, who are the key people in that young person’s life, who are the key person that should be around the table discussing this reintegration plan, and then making sure that it’s a meaningful plan that we can put forward before the court, as I said earlier, that can provide an alternative to detention. But that needs to be, in their context, a long term plan. So it can’t be a six month quick fix plan. It needs to be a good follow through care plan and, you know, with constant follow up, so it’s really important for caseworkers to make sure that they have – that we have, you know, regular joint case management meetings. Of course, government and non-government agencies who are involved in the care planning of that reintegration plan, to ensure that doesn’t get – like, the really big one is getting to crisis point. So often the plans fall down because the child and family have hit a crisis point, so to avert that crisis point it’s important to stay on top of that care plan to ensure the – you know, the – again, I say that the young person can really inform – when they are disengaging in school, then they are potentially – they are at risk of breaching community court imposed orders. To avoid that breach, what can we do as case managers, alongside the family and the young person, to prevent that from happening? That’s essentially the – well, care integration.

It’s correct to observe such a plan – a post release plan has to be developed while the individual is in detention, of course. There’s no point in getting to the point of release and then deciding you need a plan then?---No. No, you are absolutely setting up a young person to fail, and I think in Dylan’s case that he was very much set up to fail due to the overwhelming lack of post release and reintegration planning.

Well, can we just look at that in more detail, because in paragraph 132 you refer to communications with Dylan in June 2013, and you say that he rang you frustrated at the lack of impetus associated with his post release plans. Can you just tell us about that? Was it the case that he was obviously aware of the need for one and - - -?---Yes. I mean we – this wouldn’t have been the first post release plan that we would have worked on together, so really – we were really mindful of, you know, some of the barriers to implementation, so what the pitfalls might be on release. Like, it’s – you know, when a person is in detention they are very keen to progress their plan, but often the reality is that on release there’s several conditions that might be in place, such as curfew conditions or reporting conditions, so Dylan was very mindful of that, that there would be conditions in place upon his release. So he really wanted to ensure that, you know, the supports were in place. And because he was in, at that time, the Department of Family and Children’s care, it was important for them to be able to really, clearly outline what those supports would look like.

And just – we will come back to his specific case in a moment, but it’s the case, isn’t it, that these things aren’t just part of, or aren’t just relevant to, the rehabilitation of an individual. You’ve done some study in criminology. There is a community protection dimension to these orders, or these plans, as well?---Absolutely. The whole point is to ensure that a young person isn’t re-entering the community a hardened criminal, and then committing more crime. The absolute forefront should be ensuring that community safety is at the forefront of all rehabilitation,


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

reintegration plans. And I think that would really – you know, we look at our high numbers of recidivist offenders. It’s pretty clear we need to focus on this in the future, to ensure that we do decrease – disengage recidivist offenders from the at risk community, and offending in our community.

Just coming back to the specific situation, then, you indicated in June he was expressing to you frustration about the lack of impetus in his plan?---Yes.

Were you aware at that time – you may not recall now, I don’t know, but were you aware at the time as to whether or not he was in the BMU when he was - - -?---I would have been aware, I think, yes – yes.

You heard his evidence yesterday, and it was suggested to him that he was in the BMU for 24 days prior to his release on 17 July?---Yes.

So effectively going from isolation to - - -?---Community.

To the community. Could that ever be a good idea under any sort of release plan?---Clearly not, because he’s really entered back into the criminal justice system. So no. And again I come back to that absolute importance of having his family and him being key players in reintegration, post release planning – for all young people, not just necessarily Dylan. So there’s an overwhelming lack of – I suppose it’s vital that everybody is on the same page, you know, to what that plan will look like, who is doing what, when they are doing it, where they’re doing it, and sadly it’s really unclear for many young people coming through the system, when they are released, what’s next? Where to from here, essentially. Essentially they gravitate back to their peer group support and – and back into the criminal justice system.

Perhaps even more unclear if they have been in isolation for some weeks?---Absolutely, which can have a negative – yes.

Commissioners, those are the only questions I have for the moment. As indicated, Ms Carroll will be giving further evidence to the Commission, but there are some other counsel, including her own, who wish to ask some questions now.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. Ms Rose.

<EXAMINATION BY MS ROSE [11.02 am]

MS ROSE: Thank you, Commissioners.

Ms Carroll, you stated before that you worked for the Youth Justice Advocacy Project; is that correct?---Yes. I – yes, that – yes.

And you refer to that as YJAP?---That’s correct.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 13.12.16 P-741 A. CARROLL XN©Commonwealth of Australia MS ROSE

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

You stated at paragraph 38 of your statement that YJAP has been in operation since 2007?---Yes.

Why is it that the organisation was set up?---Essentially ..... some of you might remember the mandatory sentencing campaign that took place in ’99, I think, from the Northern Territory and from there on a youth justice advocacy group, the Central Australian Youth Justice Committee, lobbied government essentially to establish a youth justice service, so that would have encompassed criminal, community education, civil matters for young people. Sadly, that never got funded. We got funded – the Youth Justice Advocacy Project, from the Law Society, it was a one off grant and we have been trying to get funding since.

So that was – once that funding, the one off funding ran out, you state CAALAS received funding to reinvigorate the funding in 2008?---That’s correct.

What is YJAP’s relationship – or how is it defined with CAALAS?---I’m employed by CAALAS, I report directly to the CEO and principle legal officer of CAALAS, and then the project is – we have a steering committee ..... CAYJ, so essentially I’m an employee of CAALAS, the Youth Justice Advocacy Project is based within CAALAS.

You mentioned CAYJ then, would you mind giving the full name of that?---Sorry. It’s the Central Australian Youth Justice committee.

Are you on that committee?---I chair that committee.

That oversees the work of YJAP?---Yes. So obviously the work of YJAP in terms of monitoring how young people are processed in the criminal justice system, I report back to CAYJ, and we do systemic advocacy work around implementing change.

At paragraph 39 you state that YJAP is currently funded until the end of 2017 by Prime Minister and Cabinet; is that - - -?---That’s correct.

What do you hope to do for funding after that runs out?---Well, I would hope that – you know, we’re in a new cycle of a new government. The – valuing young people in the Territory, Making Justice Work campaign, and the Royal Commission, I hope will bring together some staunch recommendations of help programs like YJAP should be funded, and based within Aboriginal ..... agencies

Could you outline just the services that YJAP provides?---Sure. So essentially, if a – a young person hits the court system and we – I get the court list on Monday and Friday, establish what young people on that court list will need support. So I’m based at court on those days, and some young people and families don’t need YJAP. I should be very clear: they’ve got very supportive families, but for those who need it we put in place a pre and post court plan to – and liaise with other external agencies, for example, education, alcohol and drug services, you know, counselling services, if young people are in need of assessments. And really guide their lawyers. So I work very closely with lawyers. You know, they can – they resolve the criminal


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

matters, but essentially what I do is to guide them around that post release reintegration planning and what to present to a magistrate as a sound alternative sentencing option.

And you mentioned in your statement you also organise transport for young people to get to court?---Yes, that’s really important. Obviously, public transport can be quite hard, so ensuring that young people and families have transport is a key area of what YJAP do.

And you, yourself, actually drive out to communities and bring children into the court?---Well, I’m in Alice Springs central, yes, so in Alice Springs, drive out and get people and sometimes it can be reluctance. It is really important to highlight that, you know, court can be very intimidating so young people can be often very reluctant to come to court, they’re afraid they are going to get locked up, so it takes time to talk them through, talk family through the importance of coming, because you will get a warrant, and it’s important to get in the car.

And you mentioned before some of the people don’t need the assistance of YJAP?---That’s correct.

From your observations, who are the types of people that do accept the assistance from the organisation?---I’ve obviously got very clear data, which I don’t have with me right now, but, you know, we service town camps ..... Alice Springs, and all remote communities serviced by CAALAS. You know – certainly there has been a massive increase in young people from remote communities who rely on YJAP service, so that will be some of the data that we put forward.

Just with regards to the type of clients that YJAP supports, do you know roughly how many per year – how many young people, per year, you support?---I think where my funding is, up to 100 young people is in the funding agreement per reporting cycle – 50 young people per reporting cycle.

What’s the gender distribution of your clients?---Predominantly young men, although there’s a marked increase in young women coming through the system, so probably 80 per cent young men and 20 per cent young women.

Do you have any observations why the young women are entering the criminal justice system?---Yes. I think they are very disengaged from community, and I think the lack of activities for young people in general in Alice Springs is again leading to young people choosing at risk activities to engage in. So yes, it’s a particular cohort of young women who also cross over in the care and protection system as well.

And do you know what status, or can you give the Commission some understanding of the status of your clients that you assist, where they are in the process of the criminal justice system?---In terms of the criminal justice matters or - - -


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Yes. For example, do your clients generally – is it their first appearance in court that you meet them or are they all at different stages?---Well, obviously – definitely in the first meeting is where we then establish if YJAP supports are needed, but sadly most of the clients I would work with are recidivist offenders.

You also state in your statement that you provide comprehensive case management to your clients. What does that actually mean?---That essentially means that we try to work alongside – I try to work alongside external service providers to, again, support that young person to guide them through, for example, if court imposed orders are put in place, which is corrections reporting, or community work order, to really establish who is the best fit for that young person around compliance and linking in to any other service that they might identify that they might need and trying to really stay on top of that. So that, for example, a young person comes back to court we can really highlight to the magistrate that they have been travelling really well, they have been adhering to the court imposed orders or curfews, they have been engaging in school, external activities, and thankfully haven’t – and thankfully haven’t committed any further offences.

When you say - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Can I just ask a question, because I might forget if I leave it till the end, Ms Rose. You go into the courtroom - - -?---Yes.

- - - with the young people, do you not?---Yes.

So from your observation, do the judges take considerable account of the proposals that are put forward by the composite group that appear for him, whether it’s a youth justice worker, or someone from DCF, or something of – or that range of people. How powerful is a well constructed plan for the judge in deciding how to dispose of the matters before the court?---Essentially – it’s hard to measure in some ways, that we can come before the court with the best laid plans, that are comprehensive, they are informed, they are definitely in the best interests of the child and hopefully from – deterring them from further offending. As you can see, we have got quite high rates of young people who are incarcerated, so because of the lack of a therapeutic youth specific court in Alice Springs, I would certainly suggest that there’s a sentencing disparity for young people in Central Australia in comparison to the Top End. And some magistrates are very open and very willing to hear what I would have to say, for example, about the plan that has been put forward. Others might not be.

MS ROSE: And in addition to the court work which you – court support which you offer does YJAP do more systemic advocacy on youth issues?---Yes. So YJAP really informs CAYJ. So, for example, every senate inquiry, any inquiries of the NT youth justice review, we have put comprehensive submissions into all of those processes, yes, and for the Royal Commission also.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Is there an equivalent of YJAP in the Top End?---Well, the Making Justice Work campaign, I think, would be – it’s – no, sorry. YJAP. Yes, NAAJA have a youth justice advocacy – a youth justice project.

Counsel Assisting asked you some questions about your role as an independent advocate. How do you see the role of YJAP differing to – as was put to you – the role of the child representative in care and protection matters, or in fact a criminal lawyer which represents children?---Essentially – look, and this is no disrespect to lawyers, but - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I don’t know.

THE WITNESS: It is the dialogue. You know, it’s how we build that relationship, how we have time to build that rapport. You know, losing the legal jargon is obviously really important, and to glean from that young person that meaningful respectful dialogue, I think as a youth worker and as somebody, a child advocate, we have time to do that. Obviously lawyers, in a crisis driven situation, a court, it’s – you know, it’s very pacey, and matters need to be resolved, so they’re not afforded that luxury of having the time that I would have to do that, or other youth advocates.

And who does YJAP essentially work for?---My clients, children who come before the court. So it’s very clear and we – you know, it’s important to remind children that I’m not a lawyer and essentially I’m here to listen to them. I would be guided fully by their wishes and wants. Yes.

And how does YJAP measure its success with clients?---It’s hard to. We have been trying to source funding for an independent evaluation for quite a while, and we would welcome that. I suppose the measure of success is essentially that families and young people, I think, really provide that feedback and input and – you know, contact on a regular basis. So it’s just – it’s a feeling that you have that we work well together.

Would it be essentially if you – if your clients weren’t recidivists that would be another way of suggesting that the program is working?---Yes – yes. I mean, it’s quite refreshing to see young people we previously worked with who are – you know, employed in Alice Springs. Young fathers, for example, who are doing really well in community and, you know, I might see them socially and they will – you know, give me a wave and a hug, so yes.

I would just like to ask you a few brief questions on the youth justice system in Alice Springs. A few of these points were touched on by Counsel Assisting. There’s not a separate youth court, is there, in Alice Springs?---No.

And where then are the youth matters heard?---The youth matters are heard in the Magistrates Court, in usually court 3 or court 4, which is in the main court area. So


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

again that’s occupied by, at any given time, adults, victims of crime, obviously perpetrators of crime, jury members. So it’s a very busy space.

And is there ever an occasion when youth matters are going on and the court needs to be – the matters need to be adjourned because other matters will need to be heard, urgent matters?---Well, often the hearing might take place which would then halt the youth matter going on when it should, hence then young people are often held in the court holding cells for lengthy periods of time, up to a full day in some cases.

And is that counted at all towards detention?---I don’t think it is, actually. It should be, but I don’t think it is .....

Would it – I know – I appreciate that you may be recalled to give further evidence about the systemic issues in relation to this, but as a – are you able to provide the Royal Commission the flavour of the concerns you have having the Youth Court within the greater Magistrates Court system currently?---Well, essentially, it’s – you know, the young persons coming before the court, it needs to be a meaningful experience, and again I come back to that community safety as a core principle of trying to address youth – youth – the issues that present for youth committing crime in our community. Because it’s so ad hoc, and so chaotic, young people come into that space completely frazzled, essentially, and it’s busy, there’s not a whole lot of time to take instruction. There’s a lack of therapeutic supports within the court space, so – probably – trained practitioners across the board. So I would just question how meaningful that court experience is for that young person in terms of them reflecting on their behaviours, and around committing crimes. So yes, I think that’s something that – as part of the Making Justice Work campaign – that we’re really lobbying strongly that a youth court, separate youth court is developed in Alice Springs as a key priority.

You mentioned practitioners’ training or not. Are there any practitioners, can you think of, on the bench, at the bar table or otherwise, that have particular youth justice training in Alice Springs?---No.

Do you have any observations about the prevalence of youth crime in Alice Springs in the past few years?---Yes. I’ve lived in Alice Springs for 16 years, so I’ve been able to really make key observations, I would say, in terms of the intergenerational cycle of offending, in particular for young people whose families have had long term contact with the criminal justice and care and protection system. We will – we will see that that activity continues. So, you know, I think the media regularly cover the spikes in crime in Alice Springs. So we seem to be going through a revolving cycle constantly, but what I have noted is that the crimes are becoming a lot more severe than they have been in the past, and I would have concerns for that. And I think some of the recommendations that we have previously put forward in terms of addressing and valuing young people, the needs of young people to engage in positive activities, those services need to be resourced do that. And that needs to be a whole of community response as well. I don’t think it’s necessarily just up to government just to provide that response, I think it’s a whole of community response.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Would it be fair to summarise then, from your evidence, that if therapeutic courts, or a specific Youth Justice Court was implemented in Alice Springs, you think that would reduce the level of crime that is being committed in the community?---Yes. And I can stress, obviously, the implementation of the pre-sentence conferencing. So one of the things that we would regularly do is talk to a young person. Like really – you know, show, for example, victim statements, and there might be photographs attached to that. So giving – having a young person reflect on the imagery they see is very powerful, when they see that imagery in terms of the crime they have committed. But, of course, we haven’t got the resources to really build on that, and obviously victims aren’t party from that, but other than write a statement from the young’s person – in the young person’s word – words outlining how they felt when they saw that image, which is often pretty awful.

Have you had the opportunities to do that occasionally?---Yes. I do that regularly, yes.

Just a few questions about the Alice Springs Youth Detention Centre. You visit there quite often, you said before?---Yes.

What’s your relationship like with the Youth Justice Officers that work there?---They – yes, we make formal visits and go there. It’s not – it’s just a professional – it’s a professional relationship.

And you’ve known particular staff over a long period of time?---Yes.

And how does YJAP actually assist the clients who are in detention? Is there specific services that YJAP provides to them?---Yes. Again, we will try to facilitate family to attend the detention centre visits and obviously try and work alongside the legal practitioner and to – you know, discuss the young person’s alleged offending. So we work very closely with that young person about getting their story, ensuring that that story is well informed for the legal practitioner as well. Obviously liaise with the interpreter service to ensure interpreters when needed, as well, and any other practitioners that might be relevant to that young person’s court matters.

Are there any particular initiatives in relation to educational supports and therapeutic supports that YJAP has actually initiated at the Alice Springs Youth Detention Centre?---Mostly – so at Aranda House we put a basic education program in place, because the young people have no access to education, but we do conduct – CAALAS conducts community – and the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission conduct regular community legal education sessions, so informing young people of their rights or maybe different topics at different stages.

So when you said you initiated an education program at Aranda House who actually paid for that program?---Batchelor Institute. So it wasn’t – it was a program that we devised with a friend, so she sort of put together sort of a Cert I, basic literacy and numeracy, and worked with the young men there and recorded, did résumés, recorded their stories about how they would like to engage in full time employment,


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

for example. So it wasn’t necessarily funded, it was more of a community collaboration between a friend.

And without that being there, there would have been no educational - - -?---There would have been no education, which is extremely – it is because there’s an – a flexible learning centre right next door, so there was no education supports unless that came in, yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Did the young detainees receive any education from that flexible learning centre next door?---No.

Not at all?---No, they didn’t. It was – it was something that we certainly did try to – in elaboration with Alice Outcomes, which is the flex learning service there, the teachers there are really amicable and were really keen to provide some basic education, but sadly that was never taken up, that offer.

MS ROSE: You mentioned before about coordinating services – government and non-government services for the needs of your client. Does that mean that YJAP is the lead agency when it comes to children in the criminal justice system?---I would say it probably is, yes, in terms of the facilitation, ensuring that the right agencies, right support people are involved. Yes. I think that we play a lead role in facilitating other agencies, but then other agencies take up that key case management role as well.

And do you think the position YJAP has as the lead agency is recognised and acknowledged?---Yes. I do. I think it’s very much so.

Are you aware that Mr Keith Hamburger gave evidence last week?---Yes.

Have you met him?---No.

Have you had any interaction with him?---I had a phone link up with him, yes.

Would it be possible to bring up page 150 of Mr Hamburger’s report?

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I should think so; they seem to be very skilful.

MS ROSE: We might wait for that to come up on screen and then I will ask you – if you just have a read of that to yourself?---Yes.

Could I draw your attention to the sections where the acting manager talks about the methods of de-escalating detainees. What have your clients reported to you about the de-escalating methods used by Youth Justice Officers in that centre?---We – we continue to ensure that young people have a voice for their story, so yes, they do use the de-escalation room, and have been detained or held in that behaviour management unit. But I suppose one of the things that concerns me is that what participatory input did young people in detention have into Mr Hamburger’s


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

evidence, and how many young people were spoken to and provided input into this report. And I think that’s really important, to get two sides of that story, so it’s something that we often overlook, that we’re – I don’t think we do participatory input from young people very well. So I think it’s important to glean, when a statement like that is made, to also speak to young people about their experience of that unit, how they are de-escalated or the causal effects.

So from your observations at the centre, and your conversations with your clients, would you agree with the way the acting manager described the system as it works?

MR O’MAHONEY: I object to that question, Commissioner. It’s asking the witness, with respect, to reflect on a detailed report that was some time, money, and work in the making, and as I understand it, the question just put is asking her to offer a reflection on the report based on unspecified conversations, with unspecified people, at unspecified times. It’s not probative and really not a question that should be put.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I think that there’s merit in the intervention, Mr O’Mahoney. I would prefer, Ms Rose, if you focused more been asking if Ms Carroll can offer us observations of the de-escalation unit. I think the other way is a little bit fraught. So - - -

MS ROSE: Understood. Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I don’t think, incidentally, that the cost and complexity of the report has got anything to do with this line of questioning, so that’s not the basis. I think it is that the speculation is not helpful. So perhaps a more direct answer, if you want to put that question.

MS ROSE: Does the information that seems to be relayed to Mr Hamburger in this section of his report reflect your understanding of how the de-escalation methods are used or implemented?---Look, it doesn’t, and I think that’s again that clarity around policy and procedure of the use of de-escalation. So clearly I’m not there all the time, so I’m not entirely sure at any given stage when a client has been subject to the de-escalation technique. So I suppose one thing we could look at would be looking at – coming back to what I mentioned earlier about immediacy of response, that if a young person has been placed in the de-escalation unit, that their key case workers are contacted, that we then have an opportunity to speak to that young person, and that’s done in collaboration with Youth Justice Officers as well. So it’s again that immediacy response, so it’s not five days later we are – hear that a young person might have spent up to 24 hours in a de-escalation unit. So - - -

Yes. And is that something you have heard, that detainees at the Alice Springs Detention Centre have been in the de-escalation cell for up to 24 hours?---They certainly have been in the past, I can’t comment if they have been in the near – in this time.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Within the period of the report - - -?---Yes.

- - - that Mr Hamburger made, which was his observations from July this year?---Yes – yes. I definitely think it’s a last resort Youth Justice Officers will go to, but again it’s looking at that – how we can involve different parties to assist Youth Justice Officers in doing their work, essentially, by totally avoiding the de-escalation unit.

Could I – if we just scroll up slightly to show the witness recommendation 75. What are your observations? Do you have any thoughts on that recommendation – or finding, sorry?---I think that’s – it’s evident that the Alice Springs Youth Detention Centre isn’t an appropriate centre. It’s co-located with an adult prison, in the first instance. It wasn’t purpose built, as a youth detention centre it was purpose built as a cottage facility for adults. So, yes, I agree completely. That’s an unsuitable detention centre.

If we scroll to page 151, and then the findings at 78 and 79. Starting with 79, what are your reflections on that?---Well, again, as I mentioned earlier, that for those of you – when you come into the Alice Springs Detention Centre, there is no meeting place. So when I go as a professional visit, it’s held in the clinic space. Then often the clinic space is booked up, because a nurse might need to come up there. The clinic space also doubles up as the Youth Justice Officers’ tea room, so their fridge and food is in there, so sometimes we get interrupted in – in – in between professional visits because – yes, need to get their lunch. So clearly it’s not fit for purpose on that front.

And then finally, looking at finding 78?---I think that we need to tease out what the Alice Springs approach is. Again, I’m somewhat unclear about what that Alice Springs approach is, until such time that we are able to glean from young people, the users of the service, young people who have been detained, what that approach is as well.

To be fair on Mr Hamburger, he did provide some qualifications of that in his evidence?---Great.

Which was the fact that he was using a comparison between Don Dale and the Alice Springs Youth Detention Centre - - -?---Yes.

- - - and the amount of time people were being put in a de-escalation cell?---Okay.

Whereas the Act says up to 24 hours, his evidence was that in Alice Springs the Youth Justice Officers were only using it sometimes for as short as five minutes, and that they would – the guards would stand outside the cell when that was occurring, and continue a dialogue. Does that help you to understand the Alice Springs - - -?---Yes, that would be an approach that would be more preferable, obviously, yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Are you aware that the Northern Territory Government has allocated $7 million for either a new or improved Alice Springs Youth Detention Facility?---Yes, I am.

Have you been consulted about this at all?---Not necessarily consulted about the $7 million, the allocation of that, but I’m hopeful that we will have some input into how that $7 million will be allocated.

Did you - - -?---Distributed, should I say.

Did you see the evidence Jeanette Kerr last week?---I saw some of it, not all of it, I’m afraid.

Did you hear when she said that the facility that is proposed won’t be just a detention centre and that it will have a more integrated approach?---Yes.

Do you agree with that?---I think that would be a very positive move, yes.

Who do you think should be consulted with regards to how that $7 million is allocated?---Well, again, I think one of the key – from the Royal Commission in particular, is looking at community focused solutions, but in order to glean from community and particularly remote communities what they would see of – members of those communities would see as a solution. That takes time, it takes good community engagement to then build on good community development initiatives. So I would hope that we take time to consult with community members in terms of how to, you know, if we have – if we have a – we often have young people, cohorts of young men, for example, that might hit from a particular community. How does community want respond to their offending? What initiatives would the community like to put in place to address that? Are they best placed in community as opposed to a detention centre? But again, to glean that information, it needs good strategic community engagement skills to build on the recommendations.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Ms Rose, do you have many more questions for Ms Carroll?

MS ROSE: I only have - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: It’s just after 11.30.

MS ROSE: Yes. A few more questions on this topic, which I can probably get through just before the break, and then only two topics to complete after the break, if that’s convenient.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes, that’s quite convenient.

MS ROSE: Are there any models already in existence in Australia or elsewhere that you are aware of that the Northern Territory Government might consider as an appropriate way to allocate this $7 million or at least approach a youth justice


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

detention centre in Alice Springs?---Blueprint for – in the ACT is a very good framework, in terms of application of youth justice. Again, I think that the initiative to look at not just housing and detention centres is a very positive initiative, and because we have a – it’s – our demographic is very complex. It’s complicated. We have, you know, many things in place that need to be addressed around language, around cultural obligation commitment. So would be – I think it would be, actually, very timely for us to develop something ourselves as well, but building on maybe some other initiatives from elsewhere.

What were your thoughts on Mr Hamburger’s suggestion that an Aboriginal empowerment model be utilised to oversee detention in the Northern Territory?---Yes. That would be absolutely imperative.

And what about his suggestion that there be an inspector-general to audit the Northern Territory Government’s processes?---We would – would – we would welcome that recommendation.

Is that something that you - - -?---I would welcome that, yes, I think.

..... in the past?---Yes. We certainly – during the Making Justice Work campaign, that was one of the – a key recommendation, yes.

If that is a convenient time, Commissioners.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes, it is, thank you. We will take a break for 20 minutes. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

ADJOURNED [11.34 am]

RESUMED [12.02 pm]

MS ROSE: Thank you, Commissioners. Ms Carroll, I have two other topics to cover. The first of which is FASD or foetal alcohol spectrum disorders. Have you read Dr Fitzpatrick’s statement that he made to the Royal Commission, or if he has .....?---I’ve read some parts of it, yes.

Are you familiar with the FASD condition and its symptoms?---Yes, I am.

Have any of your clients been diagnosed with FASD?---We actually don’t have a diagnostic tool, we haven’t got the resources to do diagnosis in Central Australia. Actually, that might be in the Northern Territory, but definitely in Central Australia.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

So have any of your clients ever been diagnosed as - - -?---From memory it might have been one client that has been diagnosed – formally diagnosed. But I would need to seek clarity on that to ensure that’s the case.

And as far as you’re memory permits, in relation to that one diagnosis, was that brought to the attention of the courts?---Yes, it was. Yes.

Was the assessment ordered by the courts?---No, his lawyer independently lobbied for that assessment to be conducted.

And how was that received, and did it impact the way that he travelled through the criminal justice system?---Yes. Yes, it did. It certainly provided the court with some clarity around the nature of that young person’s disability, and the supports that would be needed for that young person as well.

Is it – sorry?---He is now an adult, I should add, that person.

You said before that there’s no diagnostic tool, but are there symptoms that you have noticed or in your own experience of understanding FASD that your clients present them.

MR O’MAHONEY: I object to the question, Commissioners. My friend has elicited enough answers to make it clear that – quite as would be expected, given the witness’s expertise and background – she’s not in a position really to comment on the condition, how it presents itself and the symptoms. And, really, that’s a question that might be better directed elsewhere.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes, thank you Mr O’Mahoney. Unless you can improve a bit on that one, because the evidence we heard suggested that the diagnosis is often confused with other conditions. It seems to require some training, although we understood that someone like school teachers can be trained but it does require training to diagnose.

MS ROSE: Yes. I was leaning to that - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: So I’m not quite sure how much further you can go with this.

MS ROSE: Have you, yourself, received any training in how to screen for FASD?---No, I have not.

And is that something that in your role in YJAP that would be something that with help the way that you support your clients if you were trained in that way?---I certainly think that initial assessment, practitioners working with young people in the criminal justice system would benefit from that type of training. And I should have actually pointed out that there is a diagnostic tool, we just don’t have that in Central Australia. So there is no practitioners to conduct that assessment.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And are you involved in any working groups in relation to FASD?---Yes, I do. I sit on a FASD working group that is a collaboration of government and non-government agencies in Central Australia, which is essentially trying to look at how we can bring similar models to the Fitzroy Crossing model to Central Australia.

Within that working group do you discuss with other practitioners the types of ways FASD presents itself in your clients?---Yes, we do.

Turning now to your relationship with Dylan Voller. You state at paragraph 52 of your statement that you were Dylan’s caseworker from 2009 to 2016?---Yes.

And that you provided him with intense case management. What does the intense aspect of that case management mean?---Look, I probably should be clear that the earlier relationship was more focused on the intense case management supports. As highlighted earlier, that he was bringing key agencies together to work towards good reintegration plans, post-release planning, I said before, and long-term care plans. Clearly because of the length of time Dylan has spent incarcerated, it’s really hard to move forward on some of those plans. And we have – since he went into the adult prison I haven’t had as much contact, however that’s – we’ve reinvigorated our contact in the last – since Four Corners was aired – and I am now trying to assist his practitioners, his lawyers, with his potential reintegration plan.

So how often would you be in contact with Dylan, for example, over this period. Although it may peak and trough?---He would ring two or three times a week, yes.

Are do you provide – are you able to provide the same level of intense case management to your other clients?---Look, we have – obviously because of his age we have redefined our relationship, and I’m not actually his case manager any more. I work with him on a – he has actually redefined that as well. Because of the long term contact I’ve had and the relationship that has been built up for such a long time, I’m a community support person. And I’m connected to him, I’m connected to his family. Obviously it’s, you know – that’s the basis of the relationship now. It wouldn’t be a case management role.

Are there other clients that you have now currently, young people, who require as much input from you that you gave to Dylan?---Yes. Yes, there would be. Yes.

You stated before that you attended court when Dylan had his various appearances in court; is that correct?---That’s correct, yes.

And you saw him down in the cells before he was brought up to court; is that correct?---Yes.

Who was he co-located with?---The majority of Dylan’s time at that time, the Alice Springs holding cells, there wasn’t a separate cell for young people. So he would be in a separate cell, however those cells are located with adult prisoners – detainees, sorry.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

What impact did that have on Dylan, being co-located with adults?---Well, often because of the lengthy time process and bringing Dylan – and other young people’s matters before the courts – young people’s behaviours can really escalate because they are in a very confined, small space. They then have to walk past the adult detainees to enter court, to exit that facility downstairs.

Now, was he left on his own for long periods whilst there were adjournments or other matters being heard?---Look, we did put a system in place there, again, where we would try to rotate with different case workers, myself included, to just try and keep him – not keep him – but trying to really, you know, keep him calm essentially.

Would there be times when he wasn’t calm?---There would be times when he wasn’t calm because with certain taunting that went on obviously, and things like that, that - - -

Taunting did you say?---Taunting, yes.

And who would taunt him?---I observed guards taunting him and made formal complaints about that accordingly.

How would he react to being taunted?---Well he would escalate – his behaviours would escalate and that could manifest in lots of different ways, you know, in terms of the cell, how his behaviour was there. So it was important then to take him to an area where we could do some critical stress debriefing; calm his behaviours. Ensure that, you know, tried to expedite his matters to get him out of that environment as soon as possible.

Was he ever shackled in that situation?---Yes, he was.

Where was he shackled?---On his feet and on his arm – his feet and arms.

How old would he have been or how young would he have been when that first started occurring?---12, 13 was when it first started occurring, yes.

Was he shackled when you were meeting with him in the cell?---Yes.

Was he shackled when he was taken to the courtroom?---The shackles would be released on entering the courtroom.

And from the cells to the courtroom, where did he – how did you have to navigate or where did .....?---Again that would depend on where the court is being held. If it was being held in court 4 he would – and still, of course, young people have to walk across the main foyer. So in view of the public, essentially.

With the shackles on?---Yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

You said before that Dylan has never been diverted or required diversion opportunities. He has been granted bail though?---Yes, he has. Yes.

And can you describe the type of conditions or suitability of the conditions he was bailed on?---Again, bail conditions are, yes, can be quite onerous for young people. So they might have – incur curfew conditions, residential conditions, compliance with education. And, sadly, we do see numerous conditional breaches of bail because of those onerous conditions. He would be one of those statistics that would fall into the recidivist breacher, for the want of a better word.

And has he ever been permitted to participate in a youth justice conference with his victims?---No, he hasn’t. I think that would have been a good thing. There’s no resourcing. We have – the provision of pre-sentence conferencing is in our Youth Justice Act. It might be section 81 from memory. That’s not resourced. There is some moves to have it resourced from the in-coming government, so hopefully that will be a new initiative that we will have.

Is that something that Dylan would have wanted to do?---Most young people I speak to would opt to engage in victim offender conferencing.

So that includes Dylan?---Yes. Including Dylan, yes.

Has the court ever ordered an assessment be undertaken of Dylan?---There’s a raft of assessments that were ordered in the early stages of Dylan’s court proceedings. Yes. Psychological reports, behavioural management plans, cognitive assessment, education reports. I myself supplied – I also provide, you know, letters of support in terms of the supports that YJAP have been offering Dylan.

What was the impact of those assessments?---I think they were quite positive in terms of really guiding the judge, again, around that sentencing disposition in some cases. But the recommendations that were made from practitioners, they were rarely implemented. So in particular around the therapeutic supports.

You mentioned at paragraph 57 of your statement that Dylan could engage in a program called Bush Mob on his release?---Yes.

What is that program?---The Bush Mob is a program, essentially it’s a 16 week program for young people – a residential program – who present with alcohol and other drug issues or are at risk of engaging in alcohol and other drug misuse. It’s a therapeutic program. It has bush adventure therapy, counselling facilities, education supports. So it’s a very good program.

And is that something that Dylan wishes to do?---That was his initiative. I should be clear. That was his. So essentially we talked about what would be a realistic post-release plan and advised – I advised him to come up with what he thought was realistic for him. That was what he put forward.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Ms Carroll, I didn’t understand from any of the evidence that we have received so far that Dylan Voller had problems in that field, with alcohol and drugs, any longer. Is that perhaps not the case, or is the Bush Mob a bit wider in what it will give young people?---His last set of offending there was alcohol – there was substance misuse in that. He was affected in terms of substance misuse. However it’s more of the at-risk. So, again, the community – so building him, providing him with the tools to avoid contact with. Yes.


MS ROSE: Has Dylan ever applied for parole for any of his sentences he has received?---Yes.

And has he ever been granted parole?---Not to my knowledge, no.

You said before that you did see some of the evidence of Jeanette Kerr; is that correct?---Yes.

Do you recall her saying that due to the small number of youth that are actually detained in the Northern Territory, and particularly in Alice Springs, it should be – they should be able to bring their therapists with them when they go into detention?---I think what’s really important is to – again, what we don’t have is rigorous data in relation to the number of young people who are availing of therapeutic supports when in a detention centre setting. So I think that would be a really good starting point to establish who these therapists are, who they are supporting. Young people get transferred to Don Dale – sorry, to Darwin – due to capacity of the Alice Springs Youth Detention Centre as well, and also some young people nominate to go to Darwin. They feel that their post-release planning or their sentence might be better served in Don Dale due to there’s more programs at hand up there than here. So, yes.

In Dylan’s case you mentioned before there is a behavioural specialist that he was seeing that he had a rapport with. Daryl Murdoch, is that correct?---That’s correct.

And did Dylan specifically request his assistance?---After, if we take it back, it was – it would have – I suppose really trying to explore who would be the best, as I said earlier, for him. And through conversations with Daryl it was gleaned that he would be the best fit. So he did embark on some work with the family and with Dylan. That was quite sporadic due to Dylan would get transferred to Don Dale or reengage in – or wasn’t present. And funding, obviously, was an issue in terms of how that was resourced.

When you say there were funding issues, is it that you applied or advocated for him to keep continuing seeing Daryl Murdoch but that was not an option that was taken up?---Yes, that’s correct. So one of the things that Daryl would do, which is really, actually, important to mention, is that he would also work alongside Youth Justice Officers around the development of a behaviour management plan for Dylan whilst


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

in detention. So essentially he would provide guidance to Youth Justice Officers, senior management, the OIC, in terms of the best way to manage that behaviour management plan. And to get – to essentially assist Dylan to come to a low classification. Clearly that then builds on his reintegration; he would follow that through on Dylan being released from detention and support that plan accordingly.

So that was the plan. Did it actually come into fruition?---No.

And why was that?---He was – well, actually he was transferred to Don Dale and then – I should stress that Mr Murdoch is a private practitioner. And so clearly he would – the cost would be the Department of Family and Children Services would have had to pay for that, that service.

And do you think that if Dylan had the chance to work with Daryl Murdoch earlier on in his life, that in effect the outcomes would have been different for him?---Well, I suppose I can only reflect on the research that’s out, in terms of trauma informed practice, that that consistency of therapeutic supports is really vital. And in Dylan’s case I think it would have been a vital support that he would availed of, or should have availed of.

COMMISSIONER GOODA: Ms Carroll, you talk about in your statement about – it wasn’t – Mr Murdoch’s program, was it, or model, wasn’t as consistent with the therapeutic services. What was that about?---I think it was - - -

It’s paragraph 104?---Sorry, I beg your pardon. So there was the child and adolescent therapeutic services, that was a service within the Department of Family and Children Services. That was essentially the therapeutic supports that Dylan was provided or referred to. He didn’t have any consistency, he never got much traction with that support service. However, what we were gleaning was that he certainly was getting some traction with Mr Murdoch. And their rapport, the relationship was one of mutual respect and understanding.

I know that back in 2015 Mr Murdoch had further contact with Mr Voller, but after that, I think in 2011, was there much contact with Mr Murdoch directly after that?---We certainly had a lot of correspondence trying to lobby for the department to take up the supports of Mr - - -

Not between Mr Murdoch and Mr Voller?---No, no.

MS ROSE: Do you recall Jeanette Kerr also saying that there has been overpolicing of youth in the criminal justice system?---I do.

And do you think that happened to Dylan?---Absolutely, yes. I think that’s – yes.

How do you think that impacted him in his offending?---I think I was very heartened to note that Ms Kerr mentioned that they were looking at the New South Wales model of – it’s a systemic issue across states, I think, that young people in Care and


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Protection are entering into the criminal justice system for offending whilst in care. I think that in terms of his early offending – his first offence from memory, actually – you know, had that have been dealt with by way of not contacting police straightaway, we could have dissolved that issue. It was a very minor offence. I’m not sure whether police needed to be involved at that point in time. So, yes. So that started the ongoing contact with the – yes – police and criminal justice system.

And you mentioned at paragraph 146, near the end of your statement, that when you first met Dylan he wasn’t a violent person?---No. No, he wasn’t.

What do you think are the reasons for – if there has been a change in that, what are the reasons for the change?---My observations that he – again, when you look at the footage that everybody has seen, it has been – you have to – you cannot take into, you know, the big men that are essentially dealing with a very small child. So I think some of that has been very learned behaviour in that environment. He has not been exposed to that at home in his home life. His sisters and mum are very nurturing, his, you know, his older brothers appear a positive role model for him as well. And that was never my experience. So I’ve worked with young people who are violent and have violence offences, but my experience with him is one of very empathetic – so it was very sad that he has gone down that road. For him as well.

And you said that it’s exposure to - - -?---I’m of the view that it is exposure to the violence that he endured in - - -

In the detention centre?---In the detention centre setting. Yes.

And would that include the residential care settings?---No. No.

Just the detention centre?---Just the detention centre, yes.

You said before that you would have, perhaps, thrice weekly conversations with Dylan when he was in detention. How often would you see him, physically?---Between 2009 and 2014?

When he was in Alice Springs?---In Alice Springs, that would be weekly. Yes.

And did you ever see him during his periods of isolation?---Yes. Whilst there at the house, yes I did.

So you weren’t allowed access to him then?---Yes.

Were you ever prohibited from seeing Dylan on any occasion?---Only on one occasion, and that’s because his behaviours had escalated and we had a joint case management meeting. That had to be halted.

And how quickly were you then able to re-establish a relationship with Dylan?---I think the next day, from memory. We just contacted the senior caseworker at the


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

detention centre and highlighted the importance of being able to see him as soon as possible after these heightened incidents.

What was the reason the detention centre told you you couldn’t see him?---I think it was because he was in the Behaviour Management Unit.

Do you recall Dylan’s evidence yesterday where he said that he now understands that there is a process within the youth justice system where detainees, or perhaps their advocates, can challenge a decision of centre staff in relation to classification or punishments. Is that something you are aware of, an appeal process?---Look, I must be honest and say I wasn’t aware of that. And, again, that classification system – and I think the Vita report was very clear about the need for that to be overhauled.

Is that something you will be seeking more information on when you return to .....?---Yes. Yes.

You’ve mentioned before the difference between a punitive social work approach and a conflict resolution approach. What do you think is the best approach for working with Dylan?---Well, I think for those practitioners who have had a very positive working relationship with Dylan, it’s something that we can reflect on our practice. That – coming towards a young person like that, who presents with an adversarial attitude or I suppose a controlling mechanism, it’s probably not the best way to go forward in the long term respectful relationship. So when I use that word “punitive social work model”, I do say it as a way of not coming on the preconceived notions, ideas or judgments. That, you know, I think that’s something that we have struggled with in terms of the caseworkers that he has previously about.

And what do you think is the best way to help a young person like Dylan reflect on his offending?---Well, I think having that opportunity to really engage in, you know, discussions about the offending: what led to the offending; the causal effects of the offending; the remorse. I think it’s really important to glean from young people how remorseful they are for the types of offending that have been committed, and the needs of victims in these situations as well. And to do that, again, as I say, you to do have to have time and you have to ensure that you’ve got the right set of skills to bring that to the table too.

Dylan stated yesterday that he has been in incarcerated in Darwin facilities since 2014. Has he expressed any desire to come back to Alice Springs?---Yes, he would like to come back to Alice Springs to be near his family.

And has he received any resistance with that request?---Look, I’m not entirely sure. I haven’t been party to that.

You state at paragraph 133 of your statement that Dylan was subject to a permanent care order. Does that mean that he was to stay in – remain in the care of the Minister until he was 18?---To my knowledge he was, yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And did that occur?---No. He was released from care, I think on his 16th birthday.

What reasons were provided either to you or to Dylan for that?---Look, I will be honest, it happened really quickly and I wasn’t party to those proceedings at all; the care and protection matters. And I’m not really sure why he was released from care, what his exit and care plan was. I’m not across that information.

Is that something you have seen in other of your clients, of being released before they turn 18?---Strangely, no. I mean, in some cases you would argue that they should be released before their 18th birthday; that’s their wishes and desires. But ensuring that that really strong exit and care plan is in place as well.

As far as you are aware, it wasn’t Dylan’s request to be released?---Not that I’m aware of. But that may have been the case.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Have you had much exposure to exiting care plans with the other clients of your service?---Yes, I have.

Is there room for improvement?---There certainly is room for improvement. And, again, it’s about how the young person forms that exit and care plan. I think that we have one agency, Anglicare, has funding for a support person to work alongside a young person who is exiting from care, and you really should start that exit and care plan from 15 or 16 onwards. And that’s, as you can imagine, very challenging and timely to ensure the right supports are put in place. It needs more than one person is what I’m trying to say. Yes.

When you say a person allocated to walk alongside the young person, is that for every young person exiting care?---Look, I think it’s a needs basis. Often young people hit a certain age and they are really competent capable of caring for themselves and they have reintegrated or reconnected with family, and they’re fine. And that has been my experience also as well, that they actually want to have nothing to do with the care and protection system at all. They are happy to travel solo alongside family.

MS ROSE: Do you recall Dylan’s evidence yesterday when he recounted an incident that occurred in the Alice Springs Detention Centre in April 2011, which was in relation to a Youth Justice Officer. He was on a telephone and then the Youth Justice Officer - - -?---Yes.

- - - punched it?---Yes.

Now that footage wasn’t shown yesterday, but you recall that footage from the Four Corners program?---Yes.

And do you recall when Dylan said the police were called and he did give a statement to police about that incident?---I was on leave at that time, but I do know that that was the case, yes, when he said that. Yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And from the footage that you saw on Four Corners, there were other people in the room, weren’t there, when that incident occurred?---Yes.

Did you know any of those other young people?---Yes, I knew the bulk of those young people, yes.

Were they clients of yours?---Yes.

And have you spoken to them about that incident in particular?---They’ve spoken to me about it.

And did they tell you if they were ever interviewed by police as part of that investigation?---They were never interviewed by police, is what they have – when the Four Corners program was released they saw that footage and they had never been spoken to by police as being witnesses to what took place.

Just one final topic. You state at paragraph 95 that you made a complaint to the Children’s Commissioner on Dylan’s behalf?---That’s correct.

What were the issues, in general, that you complained about?---Well, clearly before making – I should be really clear. Before making that complaint we try to resolve all issues with the Department of Family and Children Services and detention centre staff as well. It was due to the fact that these issues weren’t being resolved that we then progressed to the formal complaint to the Children’s Commissioner. And the basis being of his care and protection treatment, I suppose, whilst he was in the care and protection system, and whilst he was in detention. So there were two separate complaints.

And what were your communications like with the Office of the Children’s Commissioner once those complaints were made?---Very rigorous. I mean, from my observation the Office of the Children’s Commissioner were very responsive, acted accordingly in terms of pursuing those investigations.

And were you ever informed of the outcome of those complaints?---Look, the care and protection complaint was completed – that was, I suppose they completed that investigation quite quickly and made key recommendations to the department in terms of how Dylan should be supported whilst in care. Then the recommendations remained with the CEO of the department, they are not actually disclosed to the complainant. So in terms of doing that follow-up joint case management – transparent work, I suppose – it was very difficult to do that because we didn’t actually know what the recommendations necessarily were.

And did you ever find out about the complaints about Dylan’s time in detention?---They were ongoing due to investigations, so I’ve never actually seen that final report. I know it was a very comprehensive report but I’ve not actually sighted the final report.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And do you think that the complaints such as yourself should be informed of the outcomes of the complaints to the Children’s Commissioner?---Yes. I think it would certainly help, in particular for care and protection, that you can work collaborative with the department about the recommendations that the Commissioners have made. So it’s a joint process. It’s essentially government, and government should be supporting each other around care plans.

Is it true that the funding for YJAP only enables it to have one worker, which is yourself?---That’s correct.

And you are paid to work on a part-time basis?---Yes.

Would it be fair to say you work longer hours than that?---Yes.

Do you have a – so what happens if you are sick or away and you can’t be at court on a particular day?---Well you usually have the – the Youth Justice Court list is emailed and I will just sort of go through the names on the list and then contact the relevant lawyers and provide them with information if needed. Or look to other agencies. So, I suppose, stress that there are other agencies that support young people at court in Alice Springs as well.

And do you have a succession plan?---Ideally, I mean, to be at capacity it needs to be resourced. And it really should be, you know, the succession plan should be – it’s a built-in program that local persons heading up and, you know, local employment capacity because that’s what we should be doing, you know. There’s a very transient workforce in Central Australia, it would be really good to embed local people who are staying and have no intention of leaving.

And by local do you also mean Aboriginal people?---Aboriginal local people. Sorry, yes.

Thank you. Those are my questions.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Thank you, Ms Rose.

MR CALLAGHAN: Just before anyone else gets up, lest anyone be encouraged by the line of questioning concerning the incident of the assault following the telephone call, that everyone is aware of - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I can’t quite hear you.

MR CALLAGHAN: I’m sorry. This witness may well have been told, as she says, that police statements were not taken from others present in the room at the time when Mr Voller was assaulted after being on the telephone. That may well be the case, but this topic will be the subject of other evidence. It is, in fact, the case that others in the room were spoken to as part of the police investigation and that will be a specific focus of examination later in the Commission. So I just wanted to put that


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

straight. But in case anyone wanted to follow up on that, there’s no need, we will deal with it later on. I’m not sure who is next.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Mr Boulten.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BOULTEN [12.34 pm]

MR BOULTEN: Ms Carroll, I appear for NAAJA. In paragraphs 112 to 115, you spoke about the time when Dylan Voller was at the Alice Springs Juvenile Detention Centre in 2012?---Mmm.

And you spoke, in paragraph 114, about discussion at that time about various people seeking access to the Department of Corrections management plan for Dylan. What is a management plan, or what do you mean by the Department of Corrections management plan in that context?---So that was a behavioural management plan. So essentially the plan was – it’s – it applies to a lot of – it applies to young people in detention if their behaviours are escalating. So looking at mechanisms to de-escalate behaviour, looking at mechanisms of – I presume, looking at how young people reflect on their behaviours whilst in detention as well, and how – importantly – Youth Justice Officers will deal and cope with managing young people’s behaviours when they escalate.

In your experience, how common is it for there to be a behavioural management plan for a detainee?---Again, there’s not a whole lot of transparency in relation to them, behavioural management plans and how they’re informed, from my experience. And I think it should be broadened out more than just detention centre workers. So a young person has ownership, family members might have ownership and input into that plan as well.

Do you actually see – in your capacity as a youth justice worker and advocate for young people, do you actually see the pieces of paper that are called the behaviour management plan?---No, I don’t. I haven’t sighted them.

In this particular instance, there was some correspondence entered into, and there’s an email which is attached to your statement, AC23 is the attachment number. And in that email, that went to a number of people, it was suggested by the author that – and I will quote:

I understand that the management plan is for the behavioural management of Dylan and not per se a therapeutic plan. However, I believe that in all the approaches taken with Dylan there needs to be an understanding of trauma and its impact on his needs, triggers and behavioural responses to ensure that other actions, other’s actions assist in his de-escalating.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 13.12.16 P-764 A. CARROLL XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MR BOULTON

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And it goes on. So far as you know about behavioural management plans, and the way that they operate in juvenile detention centres, what emphasis is there to something more than whether they get locked up or not locked up?---Look, from my experience, it’s – I think the very practical behaviour plans are not particularly – very therapeutic behavioural management plans. So it’s the day to day, “How do we de-escalate, how do we work alongside,” but not – how – they certainly wouldn’t be informed by trauma informed practice.

Is there a broader management plan compiled for juvenile detainees that relates to their health, their education, their interaction with special services, psychologists, with paediatricians and the like?---We do conduct fortnightly joint case management meetings with the Department of Community Corrections and Department of Care and – Territory Families. You must bear in mind that they are very complex needs that young people present with. So no. In terms of what you say, the broader, in depth case management plans aren’t available – are not readily available, should I say. We – from lead agencies, government agencies, and in this case some case workers within the detention centre setting. And I think there has been some issues around recruitment and retention. and I think there needs to be more – I would hope that the department would be reviewing that.

Just concentrating on the plan itself, rather than discussions about the individual, does anybody actually compile a document that outlines objectives or a future for a child in detention at the moment in the Northern Territory?---Not – I can’t speak on behalf of Darwin, but definitely - - -

Sorry?---Not in Central Australia, not in Alice Spring, no. That plan - - -

Not that you know of?---Not that I know of, no.

Alright.

MR O’MAHONEY: I think that’s important question ..... it’s an important clarification. I don’t mean to cut across my friend, but the witness has given evidence, Commissioner, to the effect that she really – I think she used the word “a lack of transparency” and I certainly have gleaned the impression that she is in the dark when it comes to the document management, the case management plan, management. I would hate it to be thought that she’s answering questions from a position of information.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I think she prefaced it by saying to her knowledge, or words to that effect, there was not. So I took it that if, in fact, the department produced such plans, then she would accept that that’s the case. But she, herself, can’t give any answer about it as a person who works in the field.

MR BOULTEN: You go to regular meetings?---Yes.

That are described as case management meetings; is that right?---That’s correct.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

What are these meetings?---So essentially we will have representatives from Department of Community Corrections, case worker, representative from the Department of Family and Children’s Services, case workers, myself, legal based agencies, the lawyers representing that young person, and again if you’re – look, you’re talking about a template, I presume, that really clearly identifies the supports that are needed for that young person. These meetings, what we try to do is navigate what types of support are needed and who will be the lead agency in terms of implementing those types of supports, be it education, alcohol or other drugs, or therapeutic.

So for the purposes of record keeping, for instance, do the participants in the meeting have access to a document which records the decisions that are made about the child?---Yes. Minutes are taken for each minute and they’re distributed accordingly.

So then do those minutes, or the decisions made in the minutes, get compiled into a document that is a plan of action, as it were, that will travel with the child when the child is in detention, to your knowledge?---To my knowledge it wouldn’t be that comprehensive.

Sorry?---It wouldn’t be as comprehensive as you’re describing.

Okay. In paragraph 115 of your statement, you talked about Dylan’s therapists, from therapeutic services, being concerned about the impacts his isolation in custody were having on Dylan and the restrictions on the access that he had to his family, or the family to him, and how CAALAS requested a copy of a directions, policies and procedures manual relating to visitors. Have you actually ever seen any sort of standard operating procedures that relate to visits by therapists to detention centres?---I have sighted the standing operational procedures, because I sit on the youth detention advisory committee, so a lot of that information has been forwarded on. I think it’s really – I need to sort of set the scene. In terms of getting therapeutic supports for young people in detention it’s really, really difficult, because – you know, often some agencies are over capacity. Agencies have policies whereupon they don’t actually visit a detention centre, that’s not part of their funding, not part of their client cohort, so – and I think, you know, legal practitioners will verify this – that to bring forward a thorough assessment, a cognitive assessment or, you know, outlining therapeutic supports is very, very challenging. The supports simply aren’t there. Or it’s very lengthy to get those supports, it can take up to six weeks for example. For a young person in detention, that’s a very lengthy time.

In later parts of your statement you deal with the period when Dylan Voller was in Don Dale from 2014 onwards. You spoke about your knowledge, from a distance, about the tear gassing incident in August 2014 and how Jared Sharp from NAAJA became involved?---That’s correct, yes.

Providing legal assistance to Dylan Voller at that time. You spoke in paragraph 139 about how Mr Sharp requested, or drew to your attention, the fact that at that time, in


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

the period after the tear gassing, that Mr Voller did not seemingly have a behavioural management plan in place at that time?---Yes.

There’s an email that’s attached to your statement, AC36, or an email train?---Yes.

Where Mr Jared Sharp said to you, essentially, that he says he, that is Dylan, has:

…says that there’s no plan in place. He has insight in the type of behaviours he needs to exhibit, and also has some goals for himself, including returning to Alice Springs, but it seems corrections has not worked that – worked through a behaviour management plan with him.

Did you make any inquiries of your own to see whether or not there was a behaviour management plan in place for Dylan Voller either before or after the incident which we’ve all seen footage of in August 2014?---Mr Murdoch was brought in again, late in the piece, I think 2015 from memory. I’m sorry, I’m a bit sketchy on dates, but certainly he compiled a comprehensive behavioural management plan for Alice Springs, but Dylan was then transferred to Don Dale. So it was hard to, obviously, implement that plan at that time.

But this email is in September 2014. Mr Voller was still in Don Dale at that time?---Don Dale.

And seemingly, at least so far as the young person was concerned and his lawyer, proactive lawyer - - -?---Yes.

- - - there was - - -?---No .....

- - - nothing about how he was to be managed within that facility, even after the tear gassing incidents?---I’m not aware of any other behavioural management plan that was put in place at that time, no.

What about some broader picture beside a – as opposed to a behavioural management plan, some sort of broader, “What do we do with this fellow”, management plan, whether you call it a case management plan or whatever. Do you know if anything like that ever was crunched?---To my understanding, it hasn’t been, and I’m not sure what the barriers to that plan being implemented are. But certainly, if we would look to Dylan – how he has travelled through the correctional facilities and his access to therapeutic supports has been extremely minimal.

You spoke about Alice Springs not having a specialised youth court, and you talked about some of the physical problems, logistics problems - - -?---Yes.

- - - for young people having to appear amongst people at court, adults and the like. What about your experience of Bush Courts? What’s it like for young people who have to appear in remote Bush Courts?---Look, I have very little experience of – I have been at Bush Courts, but there haven’t been many young people on the list on


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

those days, so I have very little experience of Bush Court. I have worked in Bush Courts before, in a different capacity, but not with young people.

You spoke about there being no youth justice in conferencing – sorry, no youth justice conferencing in Alice Springs. This is lack of resources or lack of will, what is it, do you think?---Well, essentially, it is embedded into our Youth Justice Act so it’s – I would see it as a key component that should be resourced, and I suppose essentially it has been a lack of will and a lack of resourcing.

But it’s not just in Alice Springs though?---There has been some movement in the Top End to convene youth justice conferencing, and some movements – there have been some recommendations – sorry, referrals made from sitting magistrates to the Community Justice Centre to conduct pre-sentence conferencing. Not many, but some.

Classification system in juvenile detention centres. Do you have comments to make about the logic of such a system, the way it is played out?

MS BROWNHILL: I object to this line of questioning, Commissioners. This witness has provided a very lengthy statement to this Commission in which she has expressed her opinions and views about all manners of things across child protection and the youth justice systems. She is now being asked to wax even more lyrically about her views in relation to various aspects of that system. It is not apparent how her answers to questions like that can assist the Commission in any way in reaching its conclusions, and we have had no notice of what she might say or what she intends to address. It’s unnecessary, in my submission, and unfair.

MR BOULTEN: We don’t have the same advantages of the Government of the Northern Territory, in that we don’t have access to her long statement. We only have access to the statement that relates to Mr Voller and so far as its interacts with other matters. Now, if it’s the case that all this is covered in another statement, well, I will withdraw the question and we will wait and see.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Mr Boulten, I think Mr Callaghan was speaking of another statement which was relating to the systemic issues in which Ms Carroll is to give further evidence. Perhaps he could clarify that in which case perhaps you could keep your powder dry.

MR BOULTEN: I’m happy to do that.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: If that be the case. Perhaps we can just see what the position is.

MR BOULTEN: That’s fine, I’m quite content.



5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR BOULTEN: I – but may I say this: I don’t see for the – I don’t see that a person in this witness’ position, offering her opinions about matters of relevance without any great notice to the Northern Territory Government, is either unjustified or unfair to anybody.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I agree with you about that, Mr Boulten. I wasn’t going to move – uphold that argument at all, but if it’s going to be dealt with in a separate - - -

MR BOULTEN: I’m happy. That’s fine.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: - - - tranche of evidence, I think perhaps it’s convenient too for us. I think if we – I mean, it has strayed all over the place, I know.

MR BOULTEN: I’m happy and I will finish it there.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thanks, Mr Boulten. Do we have any other counsel who wish to ask some questions of Ms Carroll?

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS GOODHAND [12.52 pm]

MS GOODHAND: Yes, Commissioner. Goodhand, I appear as counsel for Mr Voller. May I just have one moment, Commissioner. Thank you.

Ms Carroll, you have given some evidence earlier about Bush Mob?---Correct.

Earlier today. Are you able to say whether Bush Mob are – to your knowledge is a detoxification centre, or a residential rehabilitation program, or both?---Both.

And so it’s not just for people that have immediate needs in relation to substance use issues?---Correct.

Are you aware of any other alternative options from youth detention in terms of residential rehab programs in the Northern Territory?---There is, yes. There’s CAAPS, I’m sorry, I can’t remember what the acronym is for CAAPS. It’s an alcohol and drug service based in Darwin, and then there’s BRADAAG in Tennant Creek, which is another – predominantly related to volatile substances misuse.

And in terms of pathways from detention, for example on parole to residential rehab programs, are you aware of any other programs apart from the ones you have just mentioned and the Bush Mob?---Are we talking youth specific or - - -

.ROYAL COMMISSION 13.12.16 P-769 A. CARROLL XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MS GOODHAND

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Yes?---No, they would be the main three. There’s the Alice Springs Youth Accommodation and Support Service. It’s not necessarily a rehabilitation service but it’s a medium term refuge that young people can access on release from detention.

And do they provide, to your knowledge, any therapeutic services?---Yes, they do. They link in with all therapeutic services that the young person wants to avail of.

And in terms of those places for youth coming from detention, are you aware if there’s any limit on the number of youths that can be taken from detention?---Yes. There’s a capping. So, for example ..... only has capacity for seven young people. I think Bush Mob have 20 beds. I think eight beds for CAAPS, and five for BRADAAG, from memory.

And to your knowledge do you know if there is a long – are you able to comment on the type of waiting list for each of those places?---Bush Mob permanently have a waiting list, so often what we will do is try to – if a young person nominates to go to Bush Mob, we will liaise with them prior – prior to the young person’s release, or potential release, and ask – request that they – we secure a bed for that time.

And then you’ve given some evidence about dealing with Dylan Voller and parole?---Yes.

Do you have any observations to make in terms of whether parole for young detainees should be dealt with separately to parole for adults?---It should be dealt – it should be separate. We don’t currently have a separate youth Department of Community Corrections, and I think clearly we should certainly look at – young people’s needs are different to adults, is essentially what I’m saying, and I think, yes, we should have a separate system.

Would you be supportive of a system where the Youth Justice Court oversaw parole for young people?---Yes, I think – yes.

And in your statement at paragraph 117, you refer to a time in April 2012 when you provided a letter of support to the magistrate in support of Dylan Voller?---Yes.

And, in particular, you state that at that time you made reference to his period of time in detention being exacerbated – or exacerbating the situation rather than calming his offending behaviours; are you able to expand on that?---Essentially that due to that lack of – I keep on referring back to lack of therapeutic supports to address his challenging behaviours, and the way in which he was managed by Youth Justice Officers I think just really – again, I suppose, exacerbated his behaviours in terms of his – I think there’s a lot of lack of understanding of why this was happening. There was essentially there was no light at the end of the tunnel. I don’t think he could see a way of how he was ever going to get out of this, and I think that was very disempowering for him because he’s quite articulate and was trying to really put forward some good – from my observation – strategies around post release planning in particular, and it – he wasn’t getting much traction.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 13.12.16 P-770 A. CARROLL XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MS GOODHAND

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Thank you. Those are my questions.

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

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LEE [12.58 pm]

MS LEE: Thank you, Commissioners.

Ms Carroll, I represent three young people, AA, AB, AC. AA has spent time in and around Alice Springs and the criminal justice system there. I just wanted to ask you some questions briefly to build on something that my learned friend, Ms Rose, asked. You spoke about the best way to help young people like Dylan Voller to reflect on their offending, and you answered that it – that you thought it was important that they had the opportunity to discuss the offending, including the causal effects of the offending, it was important to understand how remorseful they were. To follow on from that, I would like to ask whether, in your view, understanding the experience that you’ve had in a number of court settings, particularly in the Alice Springs Youth Justice Court, whether court attendance and involvement in the court process achieves that?---From where I’m - - -

From what you’ve observed?---Sorry, I’m not sure I understand that. So from the YJAP’s perspective?

Does the court process – going – getting a summons to court, or being arrested, fronting up in front of a magistrate, does that achieve some of those things that you said were important for young people to reflect on their offending?---Again, I don’t think it is, and I think the data really clearly indicates that in relation to the recidivist offending that we see. So as it currently stands, it’s not a meaningful experience because of the chaotic nature in which youth court is – operates in Central Australia.

What you say the “chaotic nature”, what is it that you are referring to?---Well, because there are – we don’t have separate – we have Monday and Friday for Youth Court day, but that’s also – a Magistrates Court list is operating at the time. It’s not a separate space. The practitioners – obviously we need an overseeing of having relevant practitioners who are properly trained to preside in that space also. The actual physical space itself to conduct, you know, as I say, family care meetings, to be able to inform a magistrate about potential reintegration plans and issues that have been identified, because often the causal effect can be family, you know, so it’s really important to be able to glean from family how their behaviours have impacted on their child’s offending and it takes, again, time to do that work. And have an interpreter present as well, when needed.

So in your view, some of those things that you said were useful for a young person to do, to reflect on their offending, could that be achieved in an appropriately resourced and appropriately spaced court?---Yes. I really believe it would. I think it would

.ROYAL COMMISSION 13.12.16 P-771 A. CARROLL XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MS LEE

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

give ownership back to families and the young person that – you know, the impact their offending has had on victims in the community.

Thank you. Nothing further, Commissioners.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Alright Thank you. I do note the time. Is there anyone else who has got some questions? Are you going to ask any questions, Mr O’Mahoney?

MR O’MAHONEY: I will be, Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I think we might do that after lunch, then.

MR O’MAHONEY: Certainly.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: That seems to be sensible. Thank you. We will rise.

ADJOURNED [1.01 pm]

RESUMED [2.02 pm]

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS GRAHAM [2.02 pm]

MS GRAHAM: Commissioners, I understand I’m next in line to ask Ms Carroll some questions.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes, thanks Ms Graham.

MS GRAHAM: Ms Carroll, I appear for the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service. Ms Carroll, you’ve talked about some of the concerns that you had in Dylan’s case whereby he fell into that cohort of children that crossed over between the criminal justice system and the child protection system?---Yes.

And some of those concerns related to the role of – or the way that DCF played a role in his case being a barrier to successful outcomes in his criminal cases?---Yes.

And you talk particularly in relation to post-release planning, educational supports, therapeutic programs and those kinds of things. I’m just wondering, taking it to a broader context, if you could comment on how common, in your experience, that problem is in Central Australia where that cohort, where there’s the cross-over, are unable to achieve successful outcomes in their criminal cases because of the interplay between the child protection and the criminal justice systems?---In my case, I think I’ve been quite fortunate because I’ve been essentially in the same role

.ROYAL COMMISSION 13.12.16 P-772 A. CARROLL XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MS GRAHAM

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

across and over for 16 years. So I’ve been able to really glean in my own data some evidence in terms of the cross-over children that enter the care and protection system and the youth justice system, but importantly for those who then transition into the adult criminal justice system as well. So that cohort often transcend into the adult system as well. So that’s – I think some – I think it would be really beneficial for some rigorous data to be collated in particular about that particular cohort as mentioned. There seems to be certainly, I think, the department are really open about this, that this is a very difficult client, cohort age group to manage. So young people start asserting their independence, in particular the sort of that 11-12 upwards, disengaging from – they might have been in good family care placements or out-of-home care placements, but want to reconnect with family, essentially. And often that leads to negative peer group settings and hence the contact with the criminal justice system. I think there’s a lot more to be done in relation to working with that cohort of young people, and particularly young women that we’ve talked about before, and I would hope between the Making Justice Work campaign and the – in particular the Northern Territory Government’s Valuing Young People in the Northern Territory policy would really be able to support some of the best practice initiatives that we have previously put forward.

You talked about the rigorous data that you would like to see collected. What exactly do you mean by that. What types of data do you think would be good to collect?---Well, I think – look, I’ve got some data myself which I call the Where Are They Now Data. So it’s young people that I’ve met essentially when they were 11, and in some cases I was the care worker on their parents – when their parents – so they were babies. And I’ve now watched those young people go from the care and protection system into the criminal youth justice system and they are likelihood – high potential of entering into the adult system if some appropriate interventions aren’t put in place.

You’ve been asked a number of questions about the notion of a specialist youth court in Central Australia, and I would just like to tease some of the details out with you. In your view, is it necessary for such a court to have a specialist trained magistrate who sits exclusively in that role as being the specialist youth magistrate?---Yes, it would be.

And, similarly, ought the prosecutor or prosecutors that work in that court be specially trained to prosecute youth offenders?---Yes. It would be in line with best practice standards.

And of course the defence lawyers representing the young people ought to be trained to be specialist youth lawyers?---Yes.

Indeed, is it necessary for there to be training for across-the-board stakeholders so that that specialist youth focused approach can be given full effect?---Yes. I think it’s, like any – if you are working in the area of disability, for example, you would ensure that practitioners in that space are appropriately trained to work with clients of disability, and I think the youth justice space should be afforded that same luxury of


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

having properly trained practitioners. We have the Australasian Juvenile Justice Standards, Convention on the Rights of the Child. We have many standards that clearly outline how young people should be processed in the criminal justice system. It’s about how we adhere to that. And currently I would suggest that we are not adhering to their practices.

Is it your experience that there has been an expectation on lawyers and other practitioners in the court system to effectively learn on the job in the youth space?---It has. And I think that is sort of, again, no reflection on individual practitioners, it’s just that they go from wearing the adult court hat into the youth court space. I think the barriers to – funding for ALS is to really hone in on appropriate training; professional development for staff who work in the youth justice space has been lacking. So I think there needs to be sort of a really good focus policy across agencies of how we do youth justice and how we do it well with the proper practitioners.

Your answer has just picked up my next question. To have this training you need more money. There needs to - - -?---Yes.

- - - be funds to be able to provide this kind of training to have specialist practitioners working in this space?---Yes. There needs to be, I think, rigorous – I will probably say monitoring in terms of – it sometimes is not just about money, it’s about how the organisation then ensures that the money flows through to, as I said, ensure that appropriate practitioners are trained appropriately and given that proper supervision. It’s a very stressful environment, as you can imagine. It has its wear and tear on all the practitioners in that space and it’s a very adversarial space as well.

You talked a bit about the crisis driven environment in the current Magistrates Court in Central Australia and the high pace. Is a specialist youth court one way of slowing down the pace so that lawyers interacting with their clients can have an opportunity to give effect to a child-focused response?---Yes. And, again, I think that system is certainly in place here in Darwin. I think that, you know, there’s good flow on effects for young people coming before the court, and again, as I stated before, for victims of crime. And I think essentially we would like to see children in Central Australia being afforded access and equity to justice as are people in the Top End of Australia.

It’s important for any specialist youth court to apply a therapeutic approach - - -?---Yes.

- - - to young offenders. Would you agree with that?---I think in our case, in our jurisdiction, a therapeutic and culturally appropriate response to people coming before the court.

And one of the critical components of a therapeutic approach is an ability for a court to receive assessments about a child relating to – you have spoken about foetal alcohol spectrum disorder - - -?---Yes


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

- - - or psychological issues, or from trauma experts or others who can comment on the underlying causes of a child’s offending. Is it your view that resources need to be applied so that those kind of assessments can be done where the funding comes from the apparatus of the court itself rather than having to rely on financially strained legal aid organisations?---Yes, that can be a barrier. So in terms of ordering a psychological assessment for a young person before the court, often due to funding restrictions it can be a barrier for that assessment being conducted.

And one of the issues you talked about particularly with assessments that were done on Dylan Voller is that whilst the court was able to receive a number of assessments to assist it in its decision-making, there was a lack of follow-up in terms of implementation of recommendations that were made by the various experts. Is it your view that part of the specialist youth court apparatus would need to be to have the resources to follow through with the experts’ recommendations, and that that be part of the court apparatus?---To have in-house practitioners based in the court or - - -

Well, to have resources that mean - - -?---On hand.

- - - that there can be implementation of the recommendations that are made by the various experts?---I think all resources would be extremely beneficial in terms of having practitioners based in the court to do alcohol and drug assessments, for example. Hearing assessments is a massive one that we don’t have also and – you know, at least the first contact for cognitive or psychological assessment to be conducted.

You have spoken a little bit about the importance of how the physical environment works. Could you tell the Commission in your experience what children find particularly intimidating or not user friendly about the current Central Australian courts?---I suppose if you can visualise that, as I said earlier, it would be a space like this, for example: a lot of people, no specific child space. If a young person coming in for a remote community, English as a second language, the way the court operates is very formal. We continue to use very legalistic dialogue in the court. We continue to call young people by the master term, which is very un-user friendly for young people. And the – then the dialogue between judges and criminal lawyers also is very jargonistic for want of a better word, and prosecution. So often the young person is really alienated from the court process, as are their family. You know, ensuring that we have appropriate interpreters on hand for that young person can also be challenging due to the nature of how the court runs because they might be sitting in another court. So overall, you know, young people – I would always ask afterwards, “Did you understand what happened”. Most times they will say, “No I didn’t understand what happened”. So then it is really important that I sit down with family and if an interpreter is needed I make sure that we talk through in simple terms what just happened.

I want to ask you some questions about the funding context, particularly for CAALAS and YJAP. It’s fair to say, isn’t it, that CAALAS and YJAP in particular, that the


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

broader legal position that CAALAS undertakes, that is in a context of funding uncertainty for many years?---Correct.

And short funding cycles. The organisation has been under significant financial stress and has undergone a number of funding crises. Often time is spent writing funding applications or lobbying government for funds, and that takes time out of providing the services to clients. Is that right?---A significant amount of time is spent trying to source funding for YJAP.

And for CAALAS generally?---Yes. The general operations. That’s – I don’t have a whole lot to do with the general operations, yes.

The work of an Aboriginal legal service and a project like YJAP, that work can be extremely difficult because it’s in the context of working with people where there is entrenched social and economic disadvantage, pervasive inequality across a whole range of factors like health and education and the justice sector. How are those challenges compounded by having short-term funding cycles and being under-resourced?---I think essentially if we had an embedded practice, a youth justice practice/unit within our organisation, in order to attract qualified, you know, experienced staffing, for example, can be challenging because there are – you only offer one-year contracts as it currently stands. So if we really want to build on that practice, I think having some funding certainty would certainly, I think, inspire possibly more experienced practitioners to apply for positions there. And then being able to really – I come back to that professional development. To ensure that there’s a proper personnel in place to oversee a youth justice unit within CAALAS that are guided by a human rights framework, social justice framework in terms of working in that youth justice space. I think it’s like – not everybody wants to work with young people. It’s very challenging and to attract the right staffing for that can also be also quite challenging.

You’ve made a number of applications to have a specific through-care person in your YJAP - - -?---That’s correct.

- - - project. In addition to such a position as a through-care coordinator, ideally what other positions would the YJAP project have to be its most effective?---Well, I think sort of ensuring that young people – coming back to an earlier question – it should be across the Territory. I absolutely wouldn’t have capacity to travel to remote Bush Courts, for example. Tennant Creek is hugely under-resourced in terms of supports for young people in the criminal justice system there. So it would be wonderful for YJAP to have the capacity to serve the regions that CAALAS service at Bush Court, and then really build on the – having a really strong Indigenous employment strategy also I think is really important within the organisation. To build that capacity. Employing, for example, in remote communities, looking at local community members who can be skilled up and act as court support people on that day. I should reference that YJAP is built on the Children’s Court Support Scheme from New South Wales. So I think that would be really important for it to


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

filter through. And that would be, I think, a good way forward for CAALAS in terms of hosting the YJAP program.

And is it your view that when government bodies receive funding applications that it’s important for them to be put in the context of alternatives to custody being a cost saving for government?---Absolutely. So one of the things that’s really important to highlight that, every time we present an alternative detention for a judge it’s a cost saving. So we pride ourselves on putting forward really comprehensive bail proposals and alternatives to detention. And they are massive cost savings. And, again, leading into, you know, supporting young people, having an appropriate bail support program as well is something that we have been lobbying for too. Again much more cost effective than incarceration.

I want to ask you now a few questions about the importance of self-reflection and across government and non-government agencies. What’s your view about the importance of agencies being open to feedback and undertaking the task of assessing and reviewing and reflecting on its practices as then a mechanism for improvement?---Obviously we live in a very small place; sometimes things are very personality driven. It’s absolutely critical that we have the opportunity to reflect across government and non-government agencies around our practice, and in particular coming from a child-focused practice. Often we find ourselves in a space that it is – again, because it’s crisis driven people can, you know, become embroiled in conflict and it’s not helpful. It’s not helpful for practitioners, it’s not helpful for the children before the court, it’s not helpful for their families. So essentially we should be in a space where we can reflect on our practice, do it honestly and transparently, but moving forward with good solutions that can bring collaboration – the child back to the forefront of that collaboration.

And so that is a process for CAALAS and for other non-government organisations?---It should be across the board for everybody. I think it’s really important.

And ultimately that’s about then working towards achieving better outcomes for young people in the Northern Territory?---Yes. If we get stuck in that cycle of just, you know, being somewhat adversarial, there’s no really benefit for anybody. And it certainly is not coming from a child focused position.

They’re the questions I wish to ask, Commissioners.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Mr O’Mahoney.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR O’MAHONEY [2.20 pm]

MR O’MAHONEY: Thank you, Commissioner. Ms Carroll, you first met Mr Voller just over seven years ago?---That’s correct.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 13.12.16 P-777 A. CARROLL XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MR O’MAHONEY

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And is it fair to say, madam, I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but that encounter made an impact on you?---It did, yes.

And it has continued to make an impact on you in the intervening seven or so years?---Yes. Dylan presented very – my previous history is working in New South Wales and Redfern and I, you know, I always sort of – yes.

And, again, no need for you to be bashful, but you have become a big part of his life in the last seven years?---Yes.

And you would say, would you, that he has become a big part of yours?---Yes, he has. Yes.

And can I ask you, madam, in your statement you indicate that during that seven year period that the nature of your interaction with Dylan has really had two focal points or two specific roles. One of independent advocate and one of caseworker?---Yes.

Could I just get you to tell us in your own words the way you perceive each of those roles. Both generally but in specifically what they have facilitated you doing in relation to Dylan?---So in terms of independent advocacy, obviously that was certainly working alongside other key stakeholders facilitating joint case management meetings, but ensuring that he had a voice in that space. So obviously inclusion, ensuring that he had a participatory role as an independent – as a young person that possibly often feels would be silenced in many of these quite high level meetings. You know, there’s a lot of practitioners around the table; we were talking about care plans, for example. And then to ensure that the goals that are set out in those care plans are put in place, and there needs to be a mechanism of monitoring that. So part of my role would have been to monitor how some of these care and protection plans, for example, would be implemented, education plans.

Pulling that together, would a fair summary be to say that your role has in part involved being in his corner when he has needed assistance of various types?---Yes, and for other young people also.

And – of course, I will come to that in a minute. But another part of that role has involved, has it not, helping him put his best foot forward - - -?---Yes.

- - - when he has needed to in relation to the government, the court system, different agencies within the Northern Territory. Is that a fair summary?---That would be. Yes.

And you mentioned earlier in response to a question that that relationship has changed of late - - -?---Correct.

- - - and of course it has had to courtesy of him no longer being the age that he once was. Could you just describe for us now the current status of the relationship?---That’s – it’s hard to define and we have spoken about this. He rang


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

me the other day. Like, we – I mean he was joking and saying, “Shall I call you Aunty?”. And I said no. And obviously in terms of my professional standards we are obviously not particularly – it’s a closeness because we’ve travelled this journey together, really. And it would be – I continue to find him incredibly inspirational, and that’s really how I would define our relationship. That he’s a young man now and he will make his decision of how he wants to interact with me. He is 18, he’s, you know – and I will follow his lead essentially on that.

I understand. And you might not be comfortable with him calling you Aunty?---No.

But you feel that you forged a bond - - -?---Yes.

- - - that there’s a closeness and a connection between the two of you and there must be something of a friendship, I would imagine, at the end of such a sustained and intensive involvement with someone in his position?---Yes.

Is that a fair assessment?---Again, as I said, Dylan will – we will navigate that path as it comes towards us. But, yes, it would be a fair assessment.

And over the years, can I ask you, when you have played this dual role of advocating and assisting – being in his corner when he has needed you – has he been – can I put to you he would have been an important source of information about what was happening to him. Is that a fair call?---That would be correct, yes.

And we have seen one example today, you would have heard Counsel Assisting before indicate that – effectively correct the record about the question of whether or not there were police interviews conducted after that phone incident that we spoke about. I only raise that as a contextual matter to say this: have you noticed from time to time the information you have received from Dylan hasn’t been accurate.

MR O’BRIEN: I object to that.

THE WITNESS: I would be happy to provide some information about it.

MR O’MAHONEY: I withdraw the question.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: There’s an embarrassment of riches in objections here. Mr O’Mahoney - - -

MR O’MAHONEY: I will keep it simple.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Are you just going to cry dead - - -

MR O’MAHONEY: Yes, the question is withdrawn long ago, Commissioner.

Ms Carroll, the question is really this: a lot of the information you have got has been from Mr Voller over the years; correct?---And other practitioners.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And has it been the case from time to time – and he wouldn’t be the first person to do this – that you have received information that was coloured or not quite accurate.

MR BOULTEN: I object.

THE WITNESS: I will be honest with you, I haven’t. Sorry.

MR BOULTEN: I object to the ..... being so broad and - - -

MR O’MAHONEY: I withdraw the question. I certainly don’t - - -

MR BOULTEN: ..... force or value .....

MR O’MAHONEY: I’m grateful to my friend for the feedback. I will reframe the question.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: You should not be flattered, Mr O’Mahoney.

MR O’MAHONEY: No, I’m certainly not, Commissioner. I will reframe the question. It’s a really straightforward question, madam. You are helping a young man in need. You have gone through today in quite some detail the need that he was in, and you’ve indicated he was an important source of information to you. Was it the case that from time to time the information you received wasn’t accurate.

MR CALLAGHAN: My turn. The Northern Territory Government has complained long and hard, and with some reason, about not having had the opportunity to deal with the specifics in Mr Voller’s statement. If they want to take the opportunity to do that they can have it. They have the opportunity to submit as to those parts of it which should or shouldn’t be accepted. That should be done, and then if there’s some reason to follow up with evidence as to general reputation for veracity – I can’t imagine there would be but if there is – they can pursue that then. But it’s being done in the wrong order after an insistence that things be done in a certain order.

MR O’MAHONEY: Commissioner, could I respond to that. There’s obviously a real sensitivity about this question, firstly.

MR CALLAGHAN: Well, it’s sensitivity about the way in which it should be done, not about the question. It’s about the procedure which in large part follows from the procedure which has been insisted upon in the first place. Not unreasonably.

MR O’MAHONEY: Commissioner, the second point I was going to make before my friend re-rose was that the question isn’t about Mr Voller’s credibility or the details of his statement, it’s a question about – of this witness about her experience with him. And, really, she is in the witness box today and we have heard lengthy accounts of the assistance she gave, and in my submission it’s a straightforward question and capable of a fairly straightforward answer.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I’m not so sure that that isn’t a fairly disingenuous response, with respect Mr O’Mahoney.

MR O’MAHONEY: Well, Commissioner, it certainly wasn’t intended to be - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I’m sure it was not. That’s how it might seem. It’s too broad a question to be of any value at all to us. If you want to deal with a – put a specific proposition to her, you can do that. You can ask the question perhaps in a different way. I’m not going to suggest how it might be a useful sort of question. But couched in this way, I don’t think it’s a fair question. So I would disallow it. But you can – if you want to think about it doing it in a different way you can, and, of course, as Mr Callaghan said, there’s another way you can – on another occasion it is expected that you will be able to put particular matters to this witness.

MR O’MAHONEY: I might embrace that invitation from my friend. But can I just be clear, Commissioner, I certainly did not intend to appear to be disingenuous at all, and it was an indication on my part that we were not seeking to explore with this witness the credit of another witness and we understand the reasons why that hasn’t occurred today. It was simply wanting to understand the instructions she got from time to time. So I just wanted to clear that up. But I will move on, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER WHITE: Perhaps it might be less untidy if it’s done in the way in which it was thought it was going to be done. Thanks, Mr O’Mahoney.

MR O’MAHONEY: Certainly. Ms Carroll, can I take you to one paragraph of your statement. We will leave that issue altogether for good reason. If I could take you to paragraph 48 of your statement. There’s a number of things, Ms Carroll, I would like to raise with you about this paragraph. You will see that – I think what is outlined there is a number of different problems and I think I want to come at them one by one. Perhaps firstly, and most significantly, could I take you to the words in the third line:

…as a result some of my clients have been detained beyond their full sentence.

Do you see that?---Yes, indeed.

And that’s an observation that you make immediately after saying that there’s a problem with DCF’s repeated failure to present the courts with appropriate accommodation and support plans. Do you see that?---Yes.

Now, I don’t think you need me to tell you this, Ms Carroll. That is a very serious suggestion, isn’t it?---Yes.

That people have been detained for longer than they would lawfully be able to be detained, you would agree with that?---I would.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And, putting aside the Northern Territory and the youth justice base, that would be a very, very serious thing to occur in any jurisdiction that upheld the rule of law; you would accept that?---I would.

And I am sure you would understand that if there has been any such unlawful imprisonment, which it might be called, the Northern Territory Government would want to know all about it. Could you just indicate – and you would accept that the observation you make here in paragraph 48, you indicate that this has come to your – that this sort of thing has come to your knowledge, it seems, on multiple indications. Do you see that? You say, “Some of my clients have been detained beyond their full sentence”?---Yes.

Do you see that?---Yes.

Well, could I get you to indicate, Ms Carroll, when was the first time you became aware of this and who was the client that made you aware of it?---So, firstly, I’m not – the term here “detained beyond their full sentence”, that clearly wouldn’t be the case. It would be the case where young people’s matters, for example, have been adjourned or, in Dylan’s case for example after spending 18 months, the court didn’t – the DCF requested – this is on transcripts obviously – requested that the magistrate further detain the young person for two weeks to allow them time to present a post-release plan.

So just to be clear, you are saying that the words there, “some of my clients have been detained beyond their full sentence”, you are saying that they are not accurate?---That would be – that would be – to say they have been detained beyond their full sentence would not be accurate.

Okay?---What would be accurate would be to say that young people have been either remanded in custody for longer periods due to lack of a care plan in place. And, in fact, comments from judges have often been – and again these are on the record, “The department cannot use a detention centre facility as an alternative placement.”

So – well, that’s a different thing?---Yes.

But, so just so that the record is clear, you are no longer pressing that observation or suggestion, that there’s any such detaining of individuals in this Territory beyond their full sentence?---That’s correct.

And - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Just to tidy this up, because it might slip through. In paragraph 105, relating specifically to Mr Voller, it’s not clear to me whether that relates to a similar sort of problem or not. He was on remand then, is that the case, rather than when he was sentenced. There was no question of - - -?---No, I think from memory, I do apologise, but that was when he was sentenced so he was due for release and the department made an application to have him further remanded for a


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

period of two weeks in order for them to put together an out-of-home care place, to source an out-of-home care placement. That was made by the department’s representation – legal reps.

I think, in order to be able to actually test these, if it were necessary to test them, Mr O’Mahoney, we really need to have the Corrections calendar for – because they often have days that, to an outsider, don’t look as if they are part of the sentence but they are, or things of that kind. So you are really just dealing with the broader proposition here.

MR O’MAHONEY: Yes. And just wanting to clarify what I think you would understand, Commissioner, was that what we interpret is a very serious suggestion, and I think it has been clarified.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes.

MR O’MAHONEY: If I could ask, Ms Carroll, that’s followed up in the same sentence with a reference to people being detained for longer than the offence warranted?---Yes.

Now, is that an observation based on your own views about appropriate sentencing and how long or not long a particular individual should be sentenced?---No, no. That wouldn’t be based on my, because that would be their legal representation’s views also, that because a particular, as I say placement, an out-of-home care placement, a family kinship – in particular, actually, a kinship placement I will focus on for this purpose, hasn’t been assessed. The young person can then be held for further remand period. So, for example, it’s quite difficult to finalise their matters if we have got nothing to present to the court as a potential post release plan, and the kinship placement assessments can often take up to two or to three months. There can be huge difficulties with their placements being finalised to the young person’s court matters, which then means the matter is adjourned, the young person is further remanded in custody.

No. But just to be clear, that’s an expression really – and no criticism of you for this, but that’s your opinion about whether or not a sentence is too long or not too long?---The young person hasn’t been sentenced. They’re on remand. That’s the – it’s at the point of providing a magistrate with an opportunity to finalise the matters, or the court I should say, to finalise the matters to then, you know, impose a court disposition, be it a community work order or court imposed supervision order.

And then in the next sentence, you’ve gone a little Tom Jones on us, and you’ve said that it would be not rare for a young offender to never meet their DCF appointed child representative. There were some questions asked about that earlier today. Can I just be clear on one thing: when you refer in that sentence to a DCF appointed child representative, are you talking about a legal representative?---Yes.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And that is a legal representative appointed by the then Department of Families to, what, assist the child through the court process and dealing with the youth justice system?---No. Through the system through their care plan, to assist them through navigating their supports within DCF.

Alright. And then the reason I asked that question was because in the final sentence of this paragraph you say, “When this occurs the young person goes to court without anyone independent advocating on their behalf.” Now, you would appreciate that solicitors appointed to a client owe that client a duty. You have to answer?---Yes.

And you appreciate that is a fiduciary duty, it’s a very, very high duty indeed, and you would appreciate that people in the position in the Northern Territory who have been appointed to a young child to work as their solicitor will take very seriously the suggestion that they are not even attending on court days. You would understand that?---Yes.

And madam, can I ask you, you are not suggesting are you that it is the case that young solicitors in the Northern Territory working with children in this space are, sort of regularly, not attending court with those children, are you?---I’m completely suggesting that.

You are?---And we have the data to again completely highlight that. So young people who cross over from the care and protection system into the criminal justice system, in the time that I’ve been doing this work, I’ve rarely ever seen a child legal rep in that space. In fact, I can give two times when I’ve seen them.

Can I then understand this: when you say child legal rep is that someone different to the person representing that child in court?---No, that’s – again, it’s the rep that the department has assigned to work alongside that young person whilst they’re in care. So essentially they should be their independent advocate, or they’re their advocate in that space.

If I told you, madam, that the Northern Territory Government intends to put before the Commissioners information indicating that every young child that is in the care of the Territory, that there is a policy and has been for some time, that every – that results in every young child that’s in the care of the Territory being appointed, for any court outing or any court occasion a solicitor, be it from an agency, be it a government-appointed solicitor or from the private sector, if need be. What would you say to that?---I would welcome that information. I think it would be really important – I think it would really highlight – it would give us an opportunity to respond, obviously, because clearly we would have information, I collate data in terms of who is present for young people for court, in the government, non-government sector, family members. So I would really welcome that information.

And the issue is - - -


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Can I just ask you this – I’m just wondering if there’s a little mismatch here between those personnel to whom you are referring and those to whom Ms Carroll is referring.

MR O’MAHONEY: I was wondering the same thing. I might explore that now, if it’s convenient.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes, I think so. Not forgetting that although Ms Carroll has enormous experience in the courts, she is not a lawyer, and she is seeing it from a slightly different prism.

MR O’MAHONEY: I appreciate that. I’ve just asked you a question based on our instructions as to the government’s policy of ensuring that every child is represented throughout court processes, to the extent that they are in the care of the Territory. Do you recall I asked you that moments ago?---Mmm.

I want to understand this: are you suggesting that there’s another role played by a legal representative for young children other than the legal representative appearing, standing up before a decision-maker, or a court a little bit like I am today?---When you talk about the child legal rep are you talking about care and protection matters that a young person is assigned?

Yes. I’m - - -?---Alright.

I’m talking about legal representation in court?---Are you talking about - - -

In child and protection matters as well as criminal matters?---Yes.

Both?---No. So in care and protection matters – obviously I don’t sit in the care and protection jurisdiction, that’s a closed environment, a closed court. But in the youth justice court, are you suggesting there are lawyers that are present on behalf of the department to represent that young person?

To ensure that every young person is represented when they go before a court if they are under the care of the Territory?---They are represented by CAALAS or the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission lawyer.

That’s right?---Yes.

And that was really my point; that that representation?---Yes. Of course they have to be – yes.

Either it’s from an agency like CAALAS that supports people in that space, or it might be people from the private sector if need be?---Yes. So all your – they’re clearly represented by a lawyer, as I say, from the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission or CAALAS.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: But your point is not by somebody from the department - - -?---No.

- - - who has had - - -?---Not by - - -

- - - charge of their file - - -?---Which is ..... – yes.

- - - or the case worker or something of that .....?---Yes, which is a specific child rep assigned by the department.

MR O’MAHONEY: Ms Carroll, in your statement and in the evidence today, you’ve touched on the issue of spitting, and I just want to ask you some questions about that. Can we take it that you would agree that that is, and has been for some time, that this issue of spitting – a serious issue for Youth Justice Officers and other people working in the youth justice child protection space – are you aware of that?---I’m only aware of one in particular spitting, that was for Dylan. That’s the only young person I’m aware of that had an issue with spitting.

Are you aware of it being a form of conduct or behaviour that can have very serious effects on both staff morale but also the – guess psychological wellbeing of the staff dealing with .....?---Absolutely, yes.

You would agree with that?---Yes, I would.

Also there’s a health repercussion too from spitting and, with that in mind, can I take you to paragraph 71 of your statement. And it’s really sentence 3 in that paragraph, madam, that I will just take you to. You say there this is when he started spitting at the staff.

Dylan has since explained to me that he spits at older men who are aggressive towards him, or stand over him, as a means of protection.

Do you see that reference there?---Yes.

Now, is that information that you’ve received from Dylan?---I’ve received from Dylan and I think it has been highlighted in numerous psychological reports that have been conducted for Dylan as well.

And the suggestion there is really that the spitting is targeted at older men who are aggressive as well as those who stand over him as a form of protection; do you see that?---Yes.

If I said to you, madam, that the government intends to put before the Commission information that indicates that there have been some hundreds of incidents of spitting involving Mr Voller, would that accord with your memory or your understanding?---I wouldn’t be able to comment on that.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

If I told you that that information will include details of spitting incidents involving female Youth Justice Officers, is that something you are aware of?---No. I’m not aware of that.

If I told you it involved female nurses, is that something you are aware of?---No. I’m not aware of that.

If I told you it involved other medical officers and case workers, you’re - - -

MR O’BRIEN: Why don’t we cut to the chase - - -

THE WITNESS: I’m not aware of that.

MR O’BRIEN: - - - your Honour – Commissioner, and suggest if there’s some – a suggestion hundreds of people, and there’s no awareness of it, and the witness has said after numerous propositions as to different people and different occupations, and she is not aware of it. Why don’t we just cut to the chase and say, “Are you aware of this number of instances”, and move on? Otherwise we are just doing the devil’s work through this witness who has no idea of what has happened.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well, the answer has, of course, been quite plain, Mr O’Mahoney, that Ms Carroll has no understanding of other incidences than those to which she has made reference.

MR O’MAHONEY: If I could just finalise with one question then, Commissioner. So if I were to say to you, Ms Carroll, that that information will show that women and younger men have been widely targeted with such spitting, would you say that’s news to you, that’s a surprise?---I’m just aware of the incidents that Dylan came before the court for, in terms of the alleged spitting incidents. So just to be clear on that.

Well, I’m not sure what you are referring to, but if I indicated to you that apart from spitting at individuals - - -

MR O’BRIEN: Again, I object.

MR O’MAHONEY: I withdraw the question.

MR O’BRIEN: I object.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well, it has been withdrawn, Mr O’Brien.

MR O’MAHONEY: Ms Carroll, you were in court yesterday when Mr Voller gave evidence?---That’s correct.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And you heard him talk about his educational aspirations and, indeed, you spoke today about – I think you gave some evidence, I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but about his interest at various times in education?---Yes.

Is that right?---Yes.

Is it fair to say that, like many young people, Mr Voller had what might be described as a love-hate relationship over time with education?---Again, I wouldn’t really be able to comment on that, but what I will say is that his early school records from primary school education were very clear in the schools that attempted to put in, or didn’t, behavioural management or some supports around his behaviours. So that was very evident when he hit the criminal justice system. What is really clear is those supports didn’t carry on when he hit the criminal justice system.

You gave some evidence earlier about Alice Outcomes. I have to confess I wasn’t paying the careful attention I should have. Were you indicating that Mr Voller wanted to stay with on Alice Outcomes?---I indicated that Alice Outcomes is located right next door to the Aranda House facility, detention facility, and that the teachers there who were very familiar with Dylan were more than happy to provide legal supports to Dylan whilst he was at Aranda House.

I’ve got to raise with this you, madam: if I told you the government intends to put information before the Commission indicating that after a serious incident of violence at Alice Outcomes.

MR O’BRIEN: I object to this. You see, Commissioners, I - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I think it would be easier for the transcribers, if it’s of any length, that you go to the lectern.

MR O’BRIEN: There was a process put in place in relation to the cross-examination of Mr Voller. It allowed, quite fairly, any questions that can be raised in relation to the challenge of Mr Voller’s evidence, or indeed to others, or through others to be put through Counsel Assisting. Now, what has been put to this witness obviously wasn’t put to Mr Voller. Yet they had the chance to do it: they had the chance to say that, “Senior Counsel Assisting the Royal Commission, would you ask these series much questions. This is about spitting. This is about his educational opportunities. This is about X, Y and Z.” And they chose not to do it. Instead now they stand up and cross-examine, through this witness, challenges to Mr Voller’s witness. How unfair, how unreasonable, is that?

And I only heard before, only moments ago, they were complaining about the fairness of this – these procedures. But that’s the most unfair of method of impugning a witness’ credit, which is what they’re doing. I mean, one must really wonder about their instructions in this regard, to do – to take on the matters with such unfairness and I really utterly and totally protest, and I must object to the questions


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

and any other further questions that weren’t put on notice to Mr Voller yesterday when they had the opportunity and didn’t take it up.

MR CALLAGHAN: I would add the observation of some interest that these questions are ready to be put to this witness today, but we were told that it was impossible to have such questions ready to be put to Mr Voller yesterday. In any case, as the Commission has determined, matters raised by Mr Voller can be addressed on a case-by-case basis. There will be a method for getting his response to them, to be determined, depending upon the issues and the extent to which they are of interest to the Commission. That process should be undertaken before the process of putting them to other witnesses is undertaken, especially if this is so in circumstances where it is known that this witness is going to be recalled.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thanks, Mr Callaghan.

MR O’MAHONEY: Commissioner, can I just indicate where this questioning is heading, so that in making a ruling you are both aware of where it is headed. It is not a case of attacking or questioning Mr Voller’s credit through the back door or any unfair pathway. It is a question of taking this witness to task about statements made in her statement about whether or not Mr Voller was violent at different periods of time, and indeed we have had the statement today that when she first met him he wasn’t a violent person, which is consistent with various sentences and statements in her statement, and that is a matter I have instructions to explore with this witness and was intending to explore with this witness.

If the Commission would prefer this to occur after those matters are explored with Mr Voller, so be it, but I certainly can indicate that I only intend to question this witness about statements she made in the witness box today and about statements she has made in her written statement.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: It does seem to be a little more extensive than that, Mr O’Mahoney. There is a flavour to the questioning which allows those not on your side of the bar table to think it’s doing exactly what the complaints are about, particularly if one might look at the last line of questioning where Ms Carroll said that she had no understanding of hundreds of – there’s somebody’s very loud messaging – then persisted in really, I think, allowing what looks like evidence to be coming out of the mouth of counsel. In light of the failure to put any of those questions to Mr Voller yesterday, when clearly the Northern Territory is equipped to do so should it wish, I think I have to disallow this line of questioning of this witness. She is coming back. Save it for another day.

MR O’MAHONEY: Certainly. I’m grateful for that, Commissioner. All we would ask is that those statements made in her written statement and the evidence today be not accepted until the subject of challenge or testing in cross-examination.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: We don’t accept anything until we come to write the reports on these things.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR O’MAHONEY: Grateful for that.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: We have got the open mind.

MR O’MAHONEY: I’m grateful for that, Commissioner.

And can I ask, coming back to the topic of education – no, in fact, I will withdraw that line of question as well. That might be another topic for another day. Ms Carroll, you are going to have another busy day. You sat one point in time on the Youth Justice Advisory Committee; correct?---That’s correct.

In fact, you chaired it I think from 2007 to 2011?---Yes.

I won’t – to save time, I won’t take you to the paragraphs dealing with this topic in your report, but could you just briefly tell us about your functions as chair of that committee? What sort of role and remit did you have?---So essentially the task, the Youth Justice Advisory Committee oversees and advises the then government in relation to youth justice and how it’s applied in the Northern Territory, monitoring of the Youth Justice Court system. The – ensuring that young people are provided with responsible adults when taken in for police interviews and that’s a key component. And just bringing forward to government, you know, best practice initiatives in relation to how young people should be processed in the criminal justice system. So looking at national and international approaches as well.

And one of the things you say, and this is what I really would like to focus on just briefly in your statement is this: that you felt that this youth justice advisory committee was dominated by Ministerial appointees. Do you remember writing that?---That’s correct, yes.

If you told you that, well, it’s not the Minister who makes appointments but the government that indicates who might be suitable candidates, is that really what you meant by “Minister appointees”? People who were appointed to the role by the government or government agency?---Well, when I was involved with Youth Justice Advisory Committee it was Ministers who appointed. So the application went directly to the Minister, and the Minister selected who the representation – what the make-up of the committee would be.

In terms, madam, or - - -?---It may have changed.

The complaint that it was dominated by Ministerial appointees or government appointees, if I told you that in 2008/2009, that that committee had five government appointees and seven non-government appointees, does that accord with your memory?---I would need to check that.

And in the following year, ’09/10 if I told you it had 3 government appointees and 4 non-government appointees, does that jog - - -?---Obviously, I would like to


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

reflect on the minutes from the meeting to see was attending and also who the appointees were. So

And - - -?---Yes.

I was going to say that the - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I think Ms Carroll hasn’t quite finished?---I just ..... that, again, I don’t know what information you have in terms of who was appointed to sit on the Youth Justice Advisory Committee. The issue would be who actually attended the meetings. So there may well have been four or five non-government representatives there, but they might not have been in in attendance at that meeting, or at particularly meetings that were held. They were only quarterly.

MR O’MAHONEY: Alright. And I should say that that information that I put to you is taken from the reports?---The annual report, yes.

Which I think you might have drafted?---Yes – yes

Is that correct?---Yes.

Okay?---I just don’t have it in front of me.

And you then refer to the Youth Detention Reform Advocacy Group in your statement?---Yes.

You’ve worked with that group?---I’ve attended, from memory, three meetings.

Sorry. Before we get to that group, just finally on this Youth Justice Advisory Committee, I think you used the words “it’s not as progressive” as it could be, or - - -?---Yes.

Or you weren’t satisfied with its state of progressiveness. You haven’t been on that committee since 2011, have you?---I haven’t, no, but - - -

So really should we view that as a historical comment rather than a reflection on the status quo?---Well, I suppose what we could look at is that the Central Australia Youth Justice Committee have an issues ..... they feed into YJAC agenda. What we could safely say, that we have had no traction on the issues we have put forward to the Youth Justice Advisory Committee in relation to youth justice. So, for example, if we look at – from 2007 when the committee was established, a therapeutic court for young people in Central Australia, here we are in 2016, we still don’t have that court. That was a key recommendation.

And then, moving on the Youth Detention Reform Advocacy Group, you – that is a group that you sat on for how long?---That was – that was established after the Vita report was tabled.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And how long have you been involved with it for?---I was on that – it was a year, the committee was only established for a year, and we had three meetings that I was present for.

And you say, I think, in your statement, that one of the issues you have with the make-up or structure of that group is that it’s – that the Commissioner of Corrections is involved in it. Do you remember saying - - -?---The Commissioner of Corrections is the chair.

I was going to say, actually chairs it. Now, can I put to you that that is one way to directly have views expressed to a person capable of making a difference, having someone with that seniority and station actually at the meetings and chairing them. Is that – is that benefit to his presence at those meetings that you can cut out the red tape and actually directly put to him views and ideas you might have?---And what I will follow on from that is that we made – there were formal complaints made from Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid and NAAJA in relation to how we could put our views forward without intimidation and response, and that was a very clear complaint that was made to the department because that forum did not, in any way, promote openness, transparency. It was a very intimidating forum to speak out on some of these issues that were presented.

Alright. And can I ask you in terms of your involvement in other forums in the Northern Territory have there been committees that you have worked on that you have had a different experience of, and are there things that the government could learn or that committees could learn, in terms of their make-up or structure from those experiences?---Well, clearly, we – it’s documented in my statement, the committees that I’ve sat on. Obviously, the Department of Children’s Services and NGO protocol meeting, which was an initiative of NGO services working alongside the Department around care and protection issues. There are a lot of committees that happen in the Territory. It’s just how effective are these committees for all of us, across the government and non-government sector, I think we could all reflect on the effectiveness of advisory boards, for example, and this would be a really good time to do that.

Certainly. And shifting gears to another topic, that of therapy and therapeutic supports and services. You say in the statement that Mr Voller never received, and I quote, “genuine therapeutic supports”. By “genuine” do you – can you tell us what you mean by genuine?---I was going to ask you, do you mean effective and appropriate therapeutic supports, but you tell us?---I think that would be – it would ..... to say effective or, you know, the appropriateness of the practitioner. You know, sometimes it’s really important to establish what works, and this is very applicable for anybody who is sourcing counselling supports or therapeutic supports ..... practitioner ..... on your first meeting you might not, you know, gel or engage. So, therefore – you know, it’s really good to explore other practitioners. In Dylan’s case, from my observation, he was given a practitioner and it was like, “You work with that practitioner,” even if it wasn’t to his – not so much his liking but even if that – he was of the view he wasn’t benefiting from that particular support.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

So you’re not suggesting there was no therapeutic support?---No. There was therapeutic supports provided by the child and adolescent family unit within DCF. What I’m suggesting is that the practitioners who were assigned to Dylan during that time might have been somewhat unqualified to deal with a young person with such behaviours.

But that’s where I was headed, because it’s certainly not your suggestion, as I understand it that – well, if I put to you that a large number of medical practitioners have been made available to Mr Voller in the time that you’ve been working with him. Does that accord with your - - -?---No, that wouldn’t accord. A large – did you say “large volume”? No.

A large number of was the words that I used?---No.

Is it the case that you - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Perhaps we had better unpick the answers, because I think they’ve been running on the questions. Can we just go back a step about – you’ve put to Ms Carroll that there were a large number of practitioners assigned, and I think she had an answer for that and we ought to get that.

MR O’MAHONEY: I’m grateful, Commissioner. You answered that you wouldn’t accept that. Can you tell us in your experience, what – how many and what types of medical practitioners has Mr Voller had made available to him?---Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Medical practitioners or just generally therapists. I don’t - - -

MR O’MAHONEY: Therapists. I guess I shouldn’t narrow it, Commissioner. So people working in, I guess, a therapy or medical space?---From my recollection there might have been between three and four, and they came from the child and adolescent service. Again there was – as I said before, recruitment, retention, some people left. That would mean that he would have to build another relationship and as you would well know, you know, a young person having to go through retelling their story is often quite traumatic as well, which is why we constantly plug the fact that Mr Murdoch would have been the most appropriate practitioner to work with him because of the consistent service that he could provide.

And again, no disrespect to you at all, but you don’t come from a medical background at all, do you?---No.

And your views as to appropriate medical/therapy are really your views as an interested observer and supporter of his; correct?---It would be more along the lines of looking at – again, coming back to that child focused approach, what is benefiting your client? And my observations were that this child was not benefiting in terms of addressing his challenging behaviours, particularly in the spitting incident, by the therapeutic supports that were being afforded him by the department.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And are you aware of – and I think you’ve touched on this, so tell me if you already have – are you aware of the difficulty that the Northern Territory has had attracting specialist forensic mental health practitioners and other people working in that space, not just to Alice Springs, but also to some extent Darwin?---I’m aware that recruitment and retention is quite difficult in the Northern Territory.

And one issue you touch upon in your statement, but also in your oral evidence today, is I think you refer to a lack of consistency in terms of engaging with Mr Voller, and I took that to mean too many changes when it came to Youth Justice Officers, too many changes when it came to those workers allocated to him when he was not in the system. Is that what you were getting at?---Again, I think I might have mentioned earlier that he did have – there was a lot of care – he went through a succession of care and protection workers, some of those people who still work in the department. Again, it’s trying to find that best fit for a young person like Dylan.

Is a particular challenge, madam, with finding that best fit just how hard it is in this space to attract the right people and then, once they’re in it, to retain them?---Well, yes, that’s a – that’s a good point. But I think essentially what I’m saying is that often the observation will be that an inexperienced practitioner will be assigned – today can be assigned to a young person or to support them with their case management. What would be – what we would asking is that the department take into context that a senior practitioner may be needed, as opposed to a junior. And that can apply to a lot of other agencies as well, not just to the department.

And one of the problems, of course, is when you find that right fit whether it’s a senior or junior person, when there’s a gelling of the relationship and a building of a mutual relationship of trust, for whatever reason that person can find the environment too stressful; correct?---Yes. Correct.

That person might decide to move overseas or interstate; correct?---Correct.

And that’s – that is a challenge of the space that you would appreciate the Northern Territory has to deal with in week in, week out?---It is.

And – just one moment, Commissioners, I think that might be – all of my other topics, Commissioner, will be – have to be dealt with on the next occasion.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: In the new year. Alright. Thanks, Mr O’Mahoney.

MR O’MAHONEY: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Ms Rose.

<RE-EXAMINATION BY MS ROSE [3.05 pm]

.ROYAL COMMISSION 13.12.16 P-794 A. CARROLL RXN©Commonwealth of Australia MS ROSE

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MS ROSE: Thank you, Commissioners.

Ms Carroll, are you aware that during Mr Hamburger’s evidence, it came out that in other jurisdictions, to avoid Youth Justice Officers being spat on, that the Youth Justice Officers wear the spit masks themselves, as opposed to putting it on the children in their care?---I’ve heard in New South Wales that might be a procedure that takes place, yes.

Are you also – do you also agree with the proposition that the Northern Territory - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Are you going to take that anywhere?

MS ROSE: Do you think that’s good practice?

COMMISSIONER WHITE: No, I don’t need that – I don’t want that question. It’s really not for Ms Carroll to say whether it’s good, bad or indifferent, but is it going to relate to any part of her evidence?

MS ROSE: Yes. The next question should tie in ..... if that’s – that was your - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Alright. Thank you. Alright.

MS ROSE: - - - meaning.

Do you agree that the Northern Territory Government owes youth who are in detention a duty of care?---Yes.

And the same would be – Minister would owe that duty of care to - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I don’t think it matters.

MR O’MAHONEY: I don’t think it does either.

MS ROSE: - - - to children in their care and protection .....?---Yes, of course.

And we were – the question of reflection was raised, and reflecting on practices. Would you agree that for youth, with your background in youth work obviously, if a child – a young person is presenting with challenging behaviours, say in a detention space, do you believe it’s inherent on the adults that oversee those children to reflect on their practices to see ways in which they can improve how they operate to avoid exacerbating a particular challenging behaviour?---Yes. Well, if we can take it even one step further, the majority of young people who present to the courts in Alice Springs have had – presented to early child with challenging behaviours. So it’s across the board. A systemic failure – not failure, but an observation that we need to be able to look at what supports are put in at the early childhood stage to prevent that young person entering into the criminal – or to – you know, place some – you know, meaningful supports in place to avoid the criminal justice system. However, when


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

they do enter, it should be an absolute matter of priority that appropriate assessments are conducted, that the appropriate practitioners are there in place to support that young person, and – and gaining on them early – as I said, the earlier childhood experiences that child has had, be it earlier child trauma, disconnection from education, from family, from kindship placements. So absolutely the practitioners – because we’re so crisis driven, we don’t often have time to reflect on how we do our work, really, in a culturally appropriate best practice manner and I think it would be good to have the opportunity to do that.

My friend was pointing out before also about the problems associated with finding therapists or forensic psychologists, any sort of therapists to assist a child in finding the right fit. Do you recall that line of questioning?---Yes.

Was it the case that for Dylan in your opinion that you and other practitioners had in fact found a right fit for Dylan in Darryl Murdoch?---That would be – that would be my observation, but again it’s about the user, it was Dylan’s observation. He made the Darryl Murdoch, he felt – and his family felt – they were benefiting from the supports that Darryl was providing.

On numerous occasions you, and Dylan, and others presented that plan to the Northern Territory Government?---That was recommended not only just by us but by – from a – an extensive psychologist’s report that was presented to the court on Dylan’s behalf, by the psychologist who wrote that report, and from the judges presiding in that court as well.

And for many years that was not taken up?---That’s correct.

One final question. My friend also pointed out how well you know Dylan Voller, a series of basically his whole teenage years. Do you think that Dylan’s criminal history, or his incident reports from detention, reflect the boy that he was?---No, I don’t. I think that is essentially a child went into that system. A child that was – you know, clearly, as I said from his early education supports, which is – his mother in particular tried to source many supports whilst he was in primary school education to address his behaviours. So I think the fact that he went into a detention centre setting so young, that exacerbated his challenging behaviours that were already identified way earlier in the piece. And so, coming back to that, I think that it has been detrimental to his social and emotional wellbeing. His – you know, you saw what presented here yesterday. He is a very confident young man, but that hasn’t always been the case, it has taken him a long time to get there.

And do you believe that his criminal history or incident reports any way reflect the man he can be?---I think if we look at his criminal history prior to this last recent offending which was of the more – very serious end of his offending, I am strongly of the view that with the proper supports in place that Dylan can rehabilitate and be an extremely valued member of our community.

Nothing further.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thanks, Ms Rose. Are you going to ask any further questions?

<RE-EXAMINATION BY MR CALLAGHAN [3.11 pm]

MR CALLAGHAN: Just one question to clarify one topic, to clarify the effect of the cross-examination on paragraph 48. Correct me if I am wrong, but was the effect of where we ended up if the word “detained” was removed and in its place were inserted the words “remained in custody”, would that give effect to the meaning you intended?---That would be correct.

Thank you. That’s all I had, Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Thanks, Mr Callaghan.

MR CALLAGHAN: May Ms Carroll be stood down.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Ms - - -

MR O’MAHONEY: Commissioner, can I just – I’m sorry to raise this, and I’m grateful for my friend trying to clarify that evidence, but if that is the only change then the allegation is still one that I think I certainly understood the witness to resile from, which is the allegation that in this Territory there are people, youths, being detained or kept in custody beyond their lawful sentence.

MR CALLAGHAN: Remained in, not kept in.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I didn’t understand Ms Carol to be, in the end, giving that evidence. It may be that it does require some further clarification, but it might be preferable if it’s done outside this context.

MR O’MAHONEY: Please the Commission.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Some of it is, I think, not using the language of lawyers, which may give rise to perceived problems. I certainly highlighted that when I was reading the statement, because I’ve got, obviously, “imprisonment” written down pretty regularly with exclamation marks and I think that’s the flavour that it gave. I would suggest, however, that there is an attempt to clarify that in a way that better reflects the intention of Ms Carroll, but without this toing-and-froing. Are you content with that?

MR O’MAHONEY: I am, Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: If it needs to be taken up again, it can on the next occasion when she comes.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 13.12.16 P-797 A. CARROLL RXN©Commonwealth of Australia MR CALLAGHAN

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR CALLAGHAN: Commissioner, we will arrange for a supplementary statement on that specific issue.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you, Mr Callaghan. Which – and you will have the best of the transcript from today to read.

MR CALLAGHAN: Yes. And Ms Carroll can refer to other documents as required. We will address that specifically in a separate document.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. Thank you. So in view of the fact you’re going ..... to return to the Commission to give us further assistance, Ms Carroll, we will just stand you down from the need to attend at the Commission, and the Commission staff will notify you at the next appropriate hearing date that will concern you?---Thank you Commissioner.

Thank you for your assistance today?---Thank you.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [3.14 pm]

MR CALLAGHAN: Mr Goodwin, will take the next witness.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes, thank you.

MR GOODWIN: Thank you, Commissioners. I call Russell Goldflam.


<RUSSELL ROMAN GOLDFLAM, AFFIRMED [3.14 pm]

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. Would you kindly be seated. In faithful answer to the notice to appear, I note that you have been waiting for a very long time, so I hope you found it a little interesting?---Very interesting.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR GOODWIN [3.15 pm]

MR GOODWIN: Could you tell the Commissioners your full name, please?---Russell Roman Goldflam.

And what is your current position?---I’m the principle legal officer of the Alice Springs office of the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission.

.ROYAL COMMISSION 13.12.16 P-798 R.R. GOLDFLAM XXN©Commonwealth of Australia MR GOODWIN

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And what is your professional address?---77 Hartley street, Alice Springs.

You have prepared a witness statement for this Royal Commission; that’s correct?---Yes.

If that could be brought up on the screen, please. That’s your signature at the bottom of the first page on the screen?---Yes, it is.

And that statement runs to some 11 pages?---Yes, it does.

And that’s your signature on the last page?---Yes.

And there were eight annexures to that statement; that’s correct?---I think so.

Yes. Your curriculum vitae is A?---Yes.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: I don’t think you need to count them all.

MR GOODWIN: No. I don’t think so.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: It’s just .....

MR GOODWIN: I tender that statement and annexures, Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Mr Goldflam’s statement, together with the annexures, is exhibit 52.

EXHIBIT #52 MR GOLDFLAM’S STATEMENT WITH ANNEXURES

MR GOODWIN: You’ve set out your experience and expertise from paragraph 4 of your statement. It’s correct that you’ve been a lawyer for the Northern – with the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission for 19 years?---Yes.

And you’ve been the principal legal officer of the Alice Springs office for 15 of those years?---Correct.

What type of areas of practice has your practice involved over that period?---Predominantly crime, and predominantly adult crime, but up until about eight years ago I also had a significant practice in child protection matters and family law, and from time to time I’ve acted for youth in the youth justice court, and done appellate work on behalf of adults and youth as well as appellate work in relation to child protection matters.

But a majority of your practice today is not in youth justice or child protection?---That’s correct, although I do supervise the youth justice lawyer in our


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

office, and so I’m involved on an almost a daily basis, I would say, with matters involving youths.

And do you also supervise the lawyers who work directly on care and protection matters?---No. Those – the care and appreciation lawyer in our office is now supervised by our family law section in our Darwin office, but we have a close collegiate relationship. We frequently discuss those matters, and if she is away for some reason, then I might appear in that court as well, from time to time, on a relief basis.

Further, you’ve been president of the Criminal Lawyers Association of the Northern Territory since 2011; is that correct?---Yes.

What does that organisation do, and your role involve?---Well, our – one – an important function that we play is that we conduct – have a biannual conference, that’s every two years we have a conference, which we present papers from a variety of lawyers and judges and other experts. In recent times that has included several papers on issues that are relevant to the work of this Commission, but in between organising the conference, we play a very active role in contributing to policy debate, policy discussion, and policy development in the area of the administration of criminal justice. We also conduct some activities for the purpose of professional development of our – amongst our – within the profession.

And it’s true that that organisation has put forward submissions on issues relating to youth justice in the past?---Yes. We’ve made numerous submissions to all sorts of inquiries and bodies over the last – over the period that I’ve been president at least, and before then, I would think.

And I won’t take you to it, but annexure F is an example of one of those submissions to the National Children’s Commissioner regarding the ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture?---That’s correct.

You have also been involved in Central Australia Youth Justice, or CAYJ. Could you explain to the Commissioners what that organisation is?---Yes. Ms Carroll was – gave some evidence about the work she has done with CAYJ. Before she came to Alice Springs I was actively involved in CAYJ from about 1998 to approximately 2001, when I took up the position as principal legal officer in my office, and back then CAYJ was a lovely group. It was very strongly involved in the campaign to you try and persuade government to end the mandatory sentencing laws which then applied to youths charged with property offences. Ultimately, that campaign was successful.

And it’s right to say that you’ve – well, your entire legal career has been practiced in Alice Springs?---Apart from the very first 12 months of my career. After I was admitted, I did a year up here in Darwin, with the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission as a baby criminal lawyer.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

And – but after – following that 12 months, your work has been in Alice Springs?---Yes. I’ve worked there ever since.

If I can take you to paragraph 19 of your statement, and you’ve mentioned that remoteness from Darwin, which is known colloquially as the Berrimah line, has long been an impediment to strengthening relationships with government as well as Commissioners of Corrections, connected to paragraph 18. Could you expand and describe what type of impediments, for you as a practitioner in Alice Springs, particularly exist because of what’s called the Berrimah line?---Well, firstly, there’s the problem that as a provincial outpost of the metropolis of Darwin, the availability of infrastructure, the availability of services, the availability of programs and the seat of decision-making is a long – is attenuated. So we in Alice Springs, and perhaps other remote centres in the Northern Territory, sometimes feel left out when big decisions are made in Darwin. We seem to sometimes get the impression that we have been forgotten. But, as far as communicating with executives in agencies which are involved in administration of the justice system, that’s also more difficult. I mean, I can’t just drop in and have a chat over a cup of coffee or, after work, go down and have a drink with the Commissioner for Corrections, because he is in Darwin and I’m in Alice Springs. So we only really get to have face to face meetings, and we don’t have the sort of informal relationship building that can occur in a place like Darwin, when – we’re just still a relatively small city, but we can develop those personal relationships on a face to face basis.

So that would impact on your ability to influence policy change, particularly when a majority of those decisions might be made in Darwin; is that correct?---I believe so, yes.

And you’ve been quite heavily involved in pursuing policy change and law reform through your work at both the Legal Aid Commission and particularly as president of the Criminal Lawyers Association; is that right?---Certainly.

And you’ve listed a number of organisations and forums that you’ve been involved with as well in your statement, that also attempt to achieve such purposes?---Yes.

You’ve said in paragraph 9 of your statement that despite – or perhaps because of – your membership of so many bodies, your experience of contributing to policy and practice has often been frustrating and dispiriting. Can you generally describe what you mean by that comment?---I think the meaning of the comment is pretty clear, frankly. But it – over such a lengthy period, of almost two decades now, of on a constant basis being involved in advocating for improved laws, and lobbying for better services, the fact that I’m now participating as a witness in a Royal Commission into these problems is – is profoundly upsetting. It’s as though – you know, I’ve been doing this for decades, and while we’ve been doing it things are getting no better, possibly things are getting much worse, things are going on in front of our own noses which we haven’t been able to call a halt to, and that has a very – it’s – it’s deeply disconcerting to be part of a system, and to occupy a role of


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

leadership in that system, when you can see that the system is not working the way we purport to make it work.

You’ve provided an example, after that comment, about one of your recent memberships of a body called the Youth Detention Provisions Legislative Review Working Group. Who was that established by?---Well, I received an email from the director of the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission, Susan Cox QC, advising that the Attorney-General had established, or was in the process of establishing, this working group, and had requested that the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission provide a nominee to go on the group. So I immediately volunteered myself and Ms Cox, the same day, wrote back to the secretary of the group saying that I was to be the nominee. As I understand it, the group was established by the Attorney-General.

And what was your understanding of the purpose of the group?---Well, there’s an annexure to my statement which sets out the terms of reference that I was sent for the group.

Perhaps if we can go directly to that. That’s attachment C to your statement.?---The terms of reference were sent to me, and I was invited by the secretariat to provide comment on the terms of reference, and my comment was that I had no suggestions to be made to improve the terms of reference. The – it was quite clear that the group was to advise the government on the reform of specifically those parts of Youth Justice Act dealing with the application of force, the use of restraints, the role of the superintendent in managing a youth detention facility, and there was – t here seemed to be scope for it to have a broader role in relation to more generally the reform of the Youth Justice Act as well.

And in paragraph – under the heading Purpose – sorry, still in that document, under the heading Purpose in the fourth paragraph, it states:

The working group was initially established for a period of 12 months from the date of endorsement of the terms of reference.

Were the terms of reference ever endorsed?---Not as far as I’m aware.

Did that body ever meet?---No.

You state in your statement – well, first, before I go to that. On the next page there states the membership or the proposed membership of the working group involving a number of government officials as well as persons from the legal aid bodies in the Northern Territory. Did you ever discuss, with any of those other proposed members, the working group?---Yes. I had a discussion with the chair, the Commissioner of Corrections, during another meeting that we were both part of, the Criminal Justice Forum, and I also wrote to the principal legal officers of CAALAS and NAAJA asking them who they were going to have on this committee because it seemed it would be a good idea to – for me to find out who was on the committee, so


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

I could communicate, and I also spoke to the secretariat on occasions. I don’t think I spoke to anybody else – well, I never found out who else was on the committee.

And you mentioned you spoke to NAAJA and CAALAS. Did they inform you who their representatives were to be to the body?---No. It was all by email, as I recall, and the officers concerned were Mark O’Reilly and Jonathon Hunyor, who both occupied those positions at the time and I – from memory their responses were, “We don’t – we’re not sure about what that committee is,” or, “We haven’t – we don’t know much about it.” So it appeared to me that – I wasn’t even sure what they had even received an invitation to be on the committee.

And you mention in your statement at paragraph 12 that, shortly after you were nominated to the working group, a Bill amending the Youth Justice Act regarding the use of restraint devices was introduced. Can you remember what the effect of that Bill was?---Not in complete detail, but one positive thing about the Bill was that it introduced into the statute a requirement that there be a register kept of the use of any restraints, any restraint devices, in a youth detention facility and that register had to include information about things such as what sort of restraint was used, and why, and for how long, and so on. There was also, from memory, some strengthening of the provisions which limited the circumstances in which force could be used, or at least regulated the use of force. Previously, the Act had been very vague indeed about that, and there was also provision for the Commissioner to specify what particular restraints could be used and, as I understood it, up until then the Act was silent as to what types of restraints could or couldn’t be used.

And, so in your opinion, those were benefits of the Bill?---I thought that the Bill was a significant improvement on the pre-existing law, although I didn’t think it was as clear as it should have been, and I wrote to the secretariat with some comments I had on the Bill, asking the secretariat to distribute my comments to the rest of the working group, so that the working group could group and work.

And what were your recommendations for change to the Bill? Or what did you see as part of, well, the problems with the Bill that you wanted rectified?---Essentially, what I wanted to see in the Bill, and would still like to see in the Youth Justice Act, is a clear provision that says force can only be used if it’s reasonably necessary to do for a lawful purpose. That’s very similar to the sort restrictions on the use of force that police officers are subject to and that prison officers are subject to.

And were your comments circulated to the working group, to your knowledge?---No.

And - - -?---When I say no, I mean I don’t know if they were circulated.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Do you in fact, Mr Goldflam, know whether the working group was ever actually established? I had understood your earlier answers to be that it probably was not formally established?---I don’t know, Commissioner.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Since you were a nominated party to – or member of it, you might have expected to be told?---I – I certainly did expect to be told, and particularly as I had been at a meeting with the purported chairman of the committee and discussed this very issue with him, and had email correspondence with him. I found the whole experience quite troubling that what appeared to be a high level committee, set up to advise the government on this pressing issue, because this is – earlier this year, we all knew that there was terrible things going on in the youth detention facilities. Although Four Corners hadn’t been aired, it wasn’t a secret that spit hoods and chairs and all the rest of it were being used. I had written about this myself publicly, over a year before – or just on a year before Four Corners was aired. So it was an issue of the most pressing concern, and I was excited that I had the opportunity to be part of what I thought was going to be an important law reform body. And then nothing. That was – that was troubling. And I have no idea what – whether the body was ever established, and – or why it sort of evaporated before it even condensed.

MR GOODWIN: But you were never invited to a meeting of the working group, were you?---No.

And there has not been – and you have not been informed about the outcome of that working group?---No. When I asked the secretariat to circulate my comments, either the same day or the day after, I got a call from the secretariat and had a telephone conversation with – to – I think they were legal policy officers with the Northern Territory Government who pointed out that there were some things I had raised which they didn’t think I had quite got right. And they weren’t members of the committee or the working group, as far as I understand it. And so we had an interesting discussion about what would be the best way of addressing the issues that I – the concerns that I had raised, but as far as I know it never went beyond that.

And is that the – is that the conversation you mention in paragraph 13 in which you were invited, after the Bill was enacted, to revise your comments that you asked to be circulated - - -?---Yes.

- - - to the working group?---Yes.

And so you revised those comments to be essentially suggestions of amendment to the Act, rather than amendments to the Bill?---Well, in addition I thought, “Well, here’s an opportunity to raise some broader issues.” So I increased the ambit of the comments that I had made in the first place. I mean, it looked like the Bill was now a fait accompli. So I didn’t confine myself to saying – to just talking about that Bill. I also took the opportunity to suggest to the working group, for example, that there should be provisions – I think, if my memory serves me correctly, to have an independent custodial inspector of youth detention facilities, something that the Criminal Lawyers Association had been pressing for, for over a year at that stage.

And that’s something that you welcome – in paragraph 16 you welcome the indication that an independent custodial inspectorate will be established?---Very much so.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

In terms of further amendments to the Youth Justice Act, you also noted that there were further changes in October 2016, and those changes address some of the issues you raised, but in one way fell short. Could you explain what still remains to be done to the Youth Justice Act, in your opinion, regarding the use of restraints?---Well there still isn’t a clear statement in the Act that I can find which says that force can only be used when it’s reasonably necessary for a lawful purpose. For me, that’s a pretty straightforward, fundamental legal proposition, very orthodox and conventional, but it should be in the Act. Now, I have now last night, I think I read the direction, I think it’s called, made by Janet Kerr, the deputy CEO, which has been exhibited in these proceedings. I hadn’t seen it in its final form until last night, when I obtained it from the Commission’s website. And if I may say so, with respect, that’s an excellent document. I mean, it very clearly sets limits that – for some – restraints can only be used as a last resort, and it’s terrific. But it’s still only at the direction of the delegate of the Commissioner. I would prefer to see this principle enshrined in the statute itself.

So you would recommend a change to the Youth Justice Act to incorporate the types of matters set out in the direction attached to Janet Kerr’s - - -?---Well, it wouldn’t have to go into as much detail in the direction, which is an operational document for the use by staff on the ground, but the – those principles I have referred to, in my view, should be part of the Act.

And do you feel as though, then - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Perhaps I could just interrupt you there.

MR GOODWIN: Of course, Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: One good reason for that, of course, is that change can only then be made by the legislature, rather than by the executive?---Yes.

Which is open to scrutiny?---Yes.

MR GOODWIN: You mention in paragraph 21 of your statement that the – what is a “well established consultation process in relation to forthcoming legislation”. What, in your opinion and experience, is a well established consultation process?---The Department of Attorney-General and Justice – when it has carriage of a particular law reform project, its practice is to circulate a discussion paper to stakeholders, the legal aid services where – places like where I work, as well as the Bar Association, the Law Society, the Criminal Lawyers Association, and so on. Provide a reasonable time for consultation and – and invite submissions, and then everybody puts in whatever submissions they want to put in. And then the department drafts a bill, circulates the bill as an exposure draft, again there’s an opportunity to make submissions, and then after all of that has occurred a bill will be presented in the legislative assembly. As well as that, the department has a regular program of briefing the legal profession, as well as the community, on all of the current – on the front, medium, and backburner law reform issues that are in the


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

pipeline, and they – they have a PowerPoint show and anybody who wants to, can come along. So we – we know what’s in the works, and that’s highly commendable in my – in my view.

But you make a complaint that that was not the type of consultation process that occurred for the May 2016 amendments to the Youth Justice Act; that’s correct?---That’s correct.

And is – in your experience, you’ve mentioned that, regrettably, sometimes legislation is hurriedly introduced. In your experience, how often does that happen? Is it some – is it regular or otherwise?---Well - - -

MS BROWNHILL: I object to that question.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: It’s much too - - -

MS BROWNHILL: It’s so open ended that it can’t possibly be - - -

MR GOODWIN: I withdraw it.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes, I don’t.

MR GOODWIN: I withdraw it, Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thanks, Mr Goodwin.

MR GOODWIN: Well, you’ve used the example of one of those pieces of legislation, being the Bail Amendment Bill, which wasn’t enacted. Could you explain the circumstances in which that was introduced?---Certainly. The first – as far as I’m aware, the first public statement about – which led to the Bail Amendment Bill was a post by Chief Minister Giles on his Facebook, I think, under the heading Enough is Enough, something along those lines, followed with what can fairly be described as a rant against child offenders. And within a couple of hours – because I went and had a look at this. It was – immediately came on the ABC. So I don’t go to Facebook very often, but I had a look, and within a couple of hours after it was posted there was something like 200 comments, about 95 per cent highly supportive of the Chief Minister’s rant, and it was pure Facebook communication. Just the sort of thing you see on Facebook. And that was the way in which the government introduced the idea that it was going to amend the Bail Act and remove a presumption – or create a presumption against bail for people charged with property offences, including children, who had previously been convicted of property offences. That was the consultation.

Inevitably, that Bill was not passed by the Northern Territory Government?---No, it wasn’t.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

If I can move on to paragraph 22 of your statement. You mention some of the changes in laws and policies and practices since 2005 that have impacted on youth detention outcomes. You particularly mention that under the Youth Justice Act the provisions for periodic detention, alternative detention orders, and family responsibility orders, have been rarely used or rarely made. In your experience, do you have an opinion as to why that does not occur more often?---I don’t – I don’t really – I don’t know, but one possibility is that to effectively administer a – if what is really home detention by another name would be suitable only for a small – a relatively small number of children, particularly if they’re of school age, because if you are going to school it’s pretty hard to administer a home detention regime. And I’m not being critical of anybody, it’s just that I would think there would not be many children who would fit the home detention model very easily. Similarly, with periodic detention, I have had at least one youth client I recall, some years ago, and I discussed with him, “What about going in on weekends, because you are going to have to go into detention,” because of whatever it was that he had done, and for a – for a child, the thought of spreading out their period of incarceration over months rather than getting it all over and done with in two or three weeks or whatever, is perhaps a relatively unappealing prospect. So, again, I don’t know that there would be that many children that would – that it would really be a good fit for. But as well as that, I wonder if the administrative machinery and the programs that would be – need to set up to effectively support the maintenance of those sorts of more exotic sentencing dispositions has ever really been established by the Community Corrections section of the Department of Correctional Services. I – and I – in relation to family responsibility orders, I don’t know why they’re there in the statute, but they are not used. I don’t know why that is.

In terms of periodic detention and alternative detention orders, would – are you in favour of those as an alternative to general detention?---Look, the broader – the – the longer the menu, the better the meal.

In terms of the child protection system, if I can turn to paragraph 32 of your statement in which you set out a number of changes in laws and policies and practices since 2005 that have impacted on child protection outcomes, and then over the page where you list a number of those changes, in particular, can I focus on (c). You state in recent years that Territory Families appears to have ceased or at least restricted its previous practice of arranging to bring remotely located parents of children the subject of protection applications to court. First of all, why was that practice important?---Well, it was important because the parents of children who are the subject of – in need of care applications potentially are going to end up not having the care of their children any more. They might be replaced as the guardian of their children by the state. That’s pretty important, self-evidently.

And, in particular, is it particularly important when you are talking about a population which has spread remotely in Central Australia?---Well, it’s not necessarily any more important for a person who lives remotely, but clearly the - - -

In terms of the practice of - - -?---Okay.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

- - - parents being able to attend?---Well, the – the burden of getting to court for somebody who lives on a remote community, where there’s no public transport services, and who may or not have access to a private vehicle, may or may not have a drivers licence, but the court is in Alice Springs, the burden on them to get to court is obviously much more significant than somebody who lives around the corner from the court in Alice Springs.

And do you know if this policy was a – was it a written policy, or was it just your understanding of the practice?---I don’t know. When I practised in that area, between roughly 1998 and about 2006, it was – it seemed to be standard practice that if there were parents of a child who lived remotely whose matter was being brought before the Family Matters Court, the parents would be brought in by the child protection officers and then they could – if they wanted to, they could get representation from our office or from CAALAS, or perhaps from another office if we were all conflicted, but there was an opportunity for them to get advice, give instructions, appear in the court and have their views presented to the magistrate.

And when did you notice that change occur?---After I had handed over doing that work in – about eight years ago, roughly, to a specialist family law – child protection lawyer that we – when we established that position in our office, she reported to me probably in the first or second year of her work in our office, that it seemed that these parents weren’t coming in any more, weren’t being brought in any more, or not much anyway.

And what impact did that have on that work for the Legal Aid Commission?---Well, it saved us work. We had less files. We had less clients in that area. And it was – but at the same time, it was of concern to us because we – the impression we had was that there were applications being made which were just going through without the parents really being involved as much as had previously been the case.

And, as you highlight in your statement, the result of that – of those essentially undefended application was that they would be routinely granted by the court in those circumstances?---My observations of the court in Alice Springs these days is that it’s not unusual at all for service – or for the parents to be excused, often for – or sometimes, at least, for service to be substituted and, in effect, the application is an undefended one, and if the application is made, it is frequently granted. Now, I say that with some tentativeness, because it’s a closed court and I don’t get to go in and sit in there when there are matters that I’m not personally appearing in, and I don’t appear in there very often, but that’s the impression from talking to colleagues as well as what I’ve seen what I happen to have been in the court on occasion.

You also note in subparagraph (f) that over the past 10 years there has been an increase in care and protection matters generally in Darwin, Katherine and Alice Springs. Where did those figures come from?---The chief executive officer of the Office of Courts Administration, if – I’m not sure if I got the name right, but he sits on the – a group called the Criminal Justice Forum, which I also attend, as does the Commissioner for Corrections and various other executives, and we meet about once


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

every month or two. And he presents statistics on court matters, and one of his reports deals with the care and protection matters and he has reported to us in – over the last two or three months that there has been this increase of care and protection in the Darwin Local Court of over 10 fold over the last 10 years. Over the last three years in Alice Springs and Katherine the numbers have actually gone down a bit. Now, I’ve asked him and the other members of that group for an explanation. I brought it to the attention and had it distributed amongst the participants in the legal forum convened by the Department of Territory Families, because it’s a startling thing to me. So far, nobody seems to have provided an explanation. It’s possible – it’s possible that the figures represent not the number of applications that are made, but the number of listings. In other words it may be that in Darwin – for some reason, care and protection matters are listed far more frequently. In other words, there’s a serious of adjournments, rather than an application is made and after only one or two adjournments an order is made and the matter finished. I don’t know.

So you don’t know the direct reasons for that – that level of increase?---No. But I’ve certainly asked as many people as I can think of, because it strikes me as being anomalous and serious.

Commissioners, I do note the time. I have a bit to get through. Not a whole lot. There are a number of my learned friends that have indicated they would like to cross-examine Mr Goldflam as well. He is available tomorrow morning to continue, but I note – there are no further witnesses to appear before the Commission, but I do believe there is some argument to be had.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: There’s an interlocutory argument which only involves the Northern Territory.

MR GOODWIN: Yes, that’s right.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: And counsel.

MR GOODWIN: So I suppose I’m in the Commission’s hands whether to press on, but I have noted that I appear to be the Counsel Assisting that consistently does that. I - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: You shouldn’t feel sensitive about it, Mr Goodwin.

MR GOODWIN: No. But in light of Mr Goldflam’s availability, either – well, I presume to push on, I haven’t asked Mr Goldflam or – to return tomorrow morning.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well, we won’t finish this afternoon. That’s clear from the way the questions have gone with Ms Carroll. I don’t expect they are as extensive for Mr Goldflam, but they may be, and often there’s not a lot of point in pushing on if you have got to come back tomorrow. You would virtually only do that.


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MR GOODWIN: That’s what I felt, Commissioners. I have about – I can indicate I have about 20 to 30 minutes, and some of my learned friends have stated they will be no more than 10, so I’m – I would be hopeful that we would finish quickly tomorrow. But as I say, you are correct, we probably wouldn’t finish today.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: No. Alright then. Thanks, Mr Goodwin, for that indication.

MR GOODWIN: I’m happy to finish today, or - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: What about if we sit until 4.30, a time that is not foreign to most lawyers anyway for sitting in court. Is that convenient for you - - -

MS BROWNHILL: Sorry, I missed the - - -

COMMISSIONER WHITE: 4.30.

MS BROWNHILL: Happy to continue today. Absolutely.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: We will go to 4.30, then, I think. For probably – two and a half hours is probably sufficient. Is that alright for those who wish to ask Mr Goldflam some questions? Thank you. Alright. Thanks. So if you keep pushing on until then.

MR GOODWIN: Grateful for that, Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: And we will rise at 4.30. Thank you.

I haven’t asked you, Mr Goldflam, but are you comfortable staying there for another half an hour?---If it please the Commission.

Thank you.

MR GOODWIN: In paragraph – if I can take you to paragraph 23 of your statement, and just – and shifting to discussing youth detention now, you note that there are a number of demographic factors that have, to a significant extent – or could explain the increase from 12 per 100,000 to 18 persons per 100,000 in youth detention, children in youth detention, and you’ve attached attachment G that shows that demographic spread. So is it correct to say that part of – in your opinion, part of the reason for the increase in numbers of children in detention is because of the increase of children as a proportion of the population of the Northern Territory?---Well, specifically Indigenous children. Indigenous children are – it’s hard to see that – perhaps, hard to see that graph in detail, and I should say that I borrowed or perhaps, to be more honest, stole the graph from the master’s thesis published by Jeanette Kerr who has already given evidence in this proceedings. And – so I’m grateful to her for extracting this. But it shows that there’s a striking disparity between the age distribution of the non-Indigenous population and the


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Indigenous population and, in particular, that there is – that the Aboriginal population in the Northern Territory is very young. The biggest single cohort of Aboriginal people is in the age group zero to four, whereas in the general population it’s in the age group 25 to 29. And the effect of that is that we know that over the next 15 years there will be a very large number of Aboriginal people attaining the age at which they have the capacity to commit criminal offences. And we also know, tragically, that a very high proportion of those children grow up in families, households, communities with criminogenic circumstances. So it’s obvious that we’re going to see – whatever else we do, we’re going to see an increase in youth offending. We are going to see an increase in adult offending, and that demographic fact is a driver which we must not ignore. And – and it’s important for a number of reasons, but one of the reasons it’s important is we mustn’t set ourselves aspirational targets which are impossible to achieve and set ourselves up to fail yet again. We have to recognise that, to an extent, the problems of offending, of violence, of property damage, of stealing and of incarceration and punishment are problems which are beyond the reach of governments or criminal lawyers, or any of us, and we have to cut our cloth accordingly. So I’m not trying to say that we should all just give up in despair and go away, I’m just trying to emphasise the point that there are these demographic facts which, to some extent, to a significant extent, drive the future of our society.

And so essentially, in planning any interventions or measures, a number of which you have outlined in your opinion need to be – need to occur in both spaces, that it’s important to be mindful of particular demographic factors when planning those – well, when planning for further action, or planning targets for – for intervention in terms of child protection and youth detention?---Well, certainly and a few months ago some justice targets were announced by the Northern Territory Government – this is the previous government. And they included, if I remember correctly, to halve the incarceration rate in the Northern Territory by 2030. Now, that’s not just heroic, it’s frankly completely unrealistic, and there was – and it’s embarrassing, because it seems to not take account of something which is notorious: everybody knows about the fact that we have a young expanding population. So I’m all in favour of setting targets. I – one of my recommendations in my statement is that Closing the Gap, the national program for alleviating Indigenous disadvantage, should include justice targets. I’ve long believed that, and supported the bodies that have been calling for that, but they’ve got to be realistic targets.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Mr Goldflam, interestingly, the recently released Neave report into domestic violence in Victoria shows the same demographic trend as these figures that are in your exhibit G?---Yes.

Which is quite a – that’s Indigenous birth rates will be the highest in Victoria?---Yes.

Much the same kind of trending figures that you have extracted here?---But I just make the observation that in Victoria the Indigenous population is, I suppose, about 2 per cent of the population and here - - -


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Yes. Otherwise it’s quite different, I’m not suggesting it has got other parallels, but it was sufficiently significant for that Commission to actually identify that as something that needed to be kept in mind?---Yes.

MR GOODWIN: But it’s right to say that demographic figure – demographic changes over the past five years would not be – you would not say that is the only reason there has been an increase in the youth detention population in the Northern Territory; that’s right?---No, it’s not.

And you’ve mentioned a number of other matters that you believe have impacted on that increase. That’s correct? And one of those is about changes to bail laws. In paragraph 24 of your statement, you mention that in 2011 the Bail Act was amended to establish the offence of breaching bail, and so that was also an offence that children could commit as well - - -?---Yes.

- - - under those amendments. And what do you believe the impact has been of that change?---In itself, I don’t believe that it has led to a dramatic increase in the number of children in detention. But it’s – it just ratchets up the way in which children are dragged into the criminal justice meat grinder. So instead of three files that a child might have for – because they’ve been caught, for example, breaking into a house and stealing some stuff on three separate occasions, they might have eight files because, in addition to the break-ins, they’ve also been caught breaching their bail five times. So they’ve got eight files listed in the court, and – the it’s hard to assess the effect of that on the child and on their future. It’s unusual for a court to send a child to incarceration for a significantly longer period as a result of their bail breaches. But I use the word “ratchet” deliberately because it creates a sort of momentum to up the penalties. So when they’re first brought in, breach bail as an offence, it was very rare indeed for children – or, for that matter, adults – to be punished by being sentenced to a period of imprisonment or detention for breaching bail. Now, in my anecdotal belief, it’s more common for periods of detention to be imposed for the offence of breaching bail. And I’ve given an example in paragraph 24 of a very recent decision of the Supreme Court confirming a sentence of two days detention which was imposed on a 14 year old boy, and his breach of bail was not to commit offences other than breaching bail: his offence was going to a shopping centre which he wasn’t allowed to go to, but it wasn’t suggested he did anything on that occasion other than be there.

And you mention in the next paragraph that 75 per cent of youth detainees in the Northern Territory are on remand. Does that at all link with the changes to the Bail Act that you mention in the previous paragraph?---To some extent, but it links – it links more to changes that have been made to the Bail Act earlier, just outside the 10 year period of this Commission’s purview. In – I think it was 2005 there were some very significant changes made to the Bail Act which created presumptions against bail for a much broader range of offences than had hitherto been the case. As a result of those changes both adults and children have been faced with bigger challenges in getting bail if they’re charged with offences, and they’ve got some sort of previous


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

record, particularly with respect to offenders with a record of – involving any sort of violence.

And in paragraph 28 you mention that pursuant to the Northern Territory Emergency Response, otherwise known as the Intervention, that 18 new police stations - - -

EQUIPMENT MALFUNCTION DUE TO POWER OUTAGE

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Ladies and gentlemen, we are told that it will take up to 15 minutes to reboot. It seems, in that circumstance, that it’s not really much point in just hanging around here waiting. So we might be forced to – I think we might be forced to call it a day, despite our best endeavours to work overtime. So thank you. We will resume then tomorrow at 10 o’clock.

MATTER ADJOURNED at 4.08 pm UNTIL WEDNESDAY, 14 DECEMBER 2016


5

10

15

Index of Witness Events

ANTOINETTE CARROLL, AFFIRMED P-725EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR CALLAGHAN P-725EXAMINATION BY MS ROSE P-741CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BOULTEN P-764CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS GOODHAND P-769CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LEE P-771CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS GRAHAM P-772CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR O’MAHONEY P-777RE-EXAMINATION BY MS ROSE P-794RE-EXAMINATION BY MR CALLAGHAN P-797

THE WITNESS WITHDREW P-798

RUSSELL ROMAN GOLDFLAM, AFFIRMED P-798CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR GOODWIN P-798

Index of Exhibits and MFIs

EXHIBIT #51 REDACTED VERSION OF MR VOLLER’S STATEMENT

P-724

EXHIBIT #52 MR GOLDFLAM’S STATEMENT WITH ANNEXURES

P-799

.ROYAL COMMISSION 13.12.16 P-814©Commonwealth of Australia

5

Documents

Transcript 13 December 2016 · Web view.ROYAL COMMISSION 13.12.16P-737A. CARROLL XN ©Commonwealth of AustraliaMR CALLAGHAN.ROYAL COMMISSION 13.12.16P-750A. CARROLL XN ©Commonwealth