1/1/nal OIC/05

Copyright in this document is reserved to the State of Western Australia. Reproduction of this document (or part thereof, in any format) except with the prior written consent of the attorney-general is prohibited. Please note that under section 43 of the Copyright Act 1968 copyright is not infringed by anything reproduced for the purposes of a judicial proceeding or of a report of a judicial proceeding. _____

INQUIRY INTO THE MANAGEMENT OF OFFENDERS IN CUSTODY

THE HON DENNIS LESLIE MAHONEY AO QC, Presiding

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS AT PERTH ON WEDNESDAY, 10 AUGUST 2005, AT 10.31 AM

Continued from 9/8/05

MR PETER QUINLAN, Counsel assisting MS NICOLA FINDSON, Instructing solicitor

10/8/05 1450 (s&c)

Spark & Cannon 1/2/nal OIC/05 MAHONEY, MR: Yes, Mr Quinlan? QUINLAN, MR: Yes, if it please you, sir, I call Steven Walters. WALTERS, STEVEN JOHN sworn: QUINLAN, MR: Mr Walters, could you just state your full name for the transcript?---Steven John Walters. You are the project manager custodial applications for the Department of Justice. Is that correct?---That's correct. In that regard I take it you have - in that role you have undertaken some inquiries in relation to certain documentation that has been produced to this inquiry and with a view to certain discrepancies that appear in that documentation. Is that correct?---Yes, I have. One of the documents that we've seen - in fact I'll show you two - was an individual management plan prepared by a Mr Glassborow - Mark Glassborow, at Casuarina Prison in 2001 - document 533. This is a copy of the individual management plan which we understand to have been printed off the TOMS system and we can see there the version, date and time being 9 October 2001 at 2 pm and the date and time report run being 3 August this year - was printed effectively last week on the day that Mr Glassborow gave his evidence. If we go down to the bottom of the first page there we can see from the file that it's been printed off a TOMS program. Going to page 10 of that document, there's a discussion in relation to the offender's comment about the individual management plan and I will just show you this. The third full paragraph there states: While guarded in his discussions with the writer Keating appears to have an expectation of achieving a minimum security rating somewhere between the 15-month and 12-month period prior to his current earliest eligibility date 1 February 2004. Mr Glassborow gave evidence that he also prepared at the time a parole review exco approval report and that's document 460, if we can have that put up. This document, you can see, has the version, date and time of 24 May 2005 and the date and time run report of 24 May 2005 and if we go to page 10 of that report we will see page 10 of 11 at the top - going to the bottom of the page, the paragraph beginning, "Whilst guarded in his discussions with the writer" - is the same first two lines as that paragraph I took you to in document 533 but it cuts off between the 15 and, if we go over to page 11 of 11, it simply doesn't continue. Mr Glassborow was asked questions in relation to how that document appears in that manner in relation to the printout and his answer was:

10/8/05 WALTERS, S.J. 1451

Spark & Cannon 1/3/nal OIC/05 I would say somebody manually sat down in front of the computer and typed the thing back in. That would be my guess. I mean, I don't know. If you're asking for an opinion - I understand that that particular issue has been drawn to your attention in terms of what appears to be missing text in that exco report. Can you tell us what the result of your inquiries in relation to that were?---Yes, I had a look - if you look in TOMS all of the text is still there that was typed in by Officer Glassborow. The reason it isn't printed on this report is because of a bug in the Microsoft Internet Explorer program that is used to display and print these reports. The text is still there and hasn't been changed at all since it was entered. You said there's a bug in the program. What is the problem that gives rise to this particular result on document 460? ---Each of these sections, which are the numbered sections - 22 for example in this case - will only print one full page of text and if you go - if you type in more than a page of text, although it will be saved in the document and you can read it, when you go to print it it stops after the first page of printing.

10/8/05 WALTERS, S.J. 1452

Spark & Cannon 2/1/mjd OIC/05 In relation to the timing of the document, if we look at the first page again the version, date and time for that document on the first page, if we can go to the first page, has the same date as the - well, has the May 2005 date as the version date and time of the document and the date and time report run. Why is it that the document doesn't identify the original date that Mr Glassborow prepared the report in October 2001?---When the document is opened, if it is opened in a view and edit mode which means that you can change the data at that time the version, date and time is updated on the screen so that if you save it with those changes it will save it with a new version, date and time. You can actually - now, no-one has actually done that but they have printed from that screen and so it has printed with the version, date and time but if you go into TOMS, bring up that document and press print without viewing and editing it first then it will print with the version, date and time of 12 October 2001. So it's the case that if there is a copy of the document on TOMS, is there, that has the original version, date and time or has that been changed as a result of it being opened in the edit mode in May 2005?---No, the original - the document on TOMS is still the original version, date and time of 12 October 2001. In the document that we have in front of us, 24 May has updated on the screen and in the printed version but has not been saved back to the database. Right. Is it possible, for example, in terms of the integrity of the data on TOMS if a person brought up Mr Glassborow's report of 12 October 2001 in that edit mode and made changes and then saved it, would that version then replace the version that was on the system from 12 October 2001?---No, it would not. It would leave Mr Glassborow's version intact as it was when he saved it and create a second version under the new author's name with the new date and details. So you would end up with two reports, one by each of those two people. And does that - is that the case every time a document is saved, that you will get a new version on the computer? ---If the person making the changes is the original author then I believe it will replace the earlier version although the old version will still be available through audit procedures. So we would be able to see what was put in at that time. MAHONEY, MR: You still have it on the hard disk would you?---Yes. But the saving of the alterations creates a new spot on the hard disk?---That's correct. With the alternations made there?---Yes. 10/8/05 WALTERS, S.J. 1453 10.37

Spark & Cannon 2/2/mjd OIC/05 QUINLAN, MR: Yes, if it please you, sir, I have no further questions for Mr Walters. MAHONEY, MR: Your - I'm joking a little bit, Mr Walters, one is entitled to do that early in the morning. You're one of the people who claims expertise in this computer technology because I want to ask you some questions?---I have some knowledge. Actual programming and so on is outsourced to another company. Let me ask you something which is outside what we have been talking about this morning. The TOMS system according to a lot of people who have talked to me doesn't work perfectly. I assume no technical system ever does but as a system for collecting total offenders information it doesn't appear to succeed in that and I am told that one of the reasons is that the people who work on the ground and therefore have to feed in daily or other information in relation to offenders don't see it as computer-operator friendly and don't therefore type in a lot of things that in theory ought to go into the TOMS system. Do you follow my point? ---I do.

10/8/05 WALTERS, S.J. 1454

Spark & Cannon 3/1/slh OIC/05 Is there some way of making the system more computer friendly so that, for example, the ordinary prison officer who has the - what to me is the very difficult job of managing a number or prisoners day after day can put into the TOMS system easily the information that at present quite often they don't put in? Do you follow me? Let me refine that a little bit further before I then say to you, "Now talk to me." Is there, for example, something in the IBM or the Dragon systems whereby you can talk into the machine or is there some method whereby you would have a person whose job it is to feed into the technology something that an officer might tell him or her or might write on a piece of paper or whatever? Do you follow my - - -?---Yes, I do. What would be a system that might in practice work to ensure that all or as much as we can hope for of the information that ought to be on TOMS got onto TOMS? With that long preamble, can you help me with some ideas on that?---Probably one - the direction that our society has been going is that every person is expected to be computer literate and do the typing themselves. Now, that's different from how I understand it was many years ago when typing was more of a specialised skill and done by a small group of people within an organisation. As we've moved away from that it's been difficult for some people who find typing and using computers difficult. Certainly we could make the system more able to have a typist putting in information on behalf of someone else and recognising that and still making sure that the proper authorities are being used to make decisions. That's all I can think of. I'm not sure about the dictation programs that you've mentioned, how reliable they are. Do you know Dragon or the IBM system?---I'm familiar with the names, I haven't used them myself, but I know that their rate of recognising words is not 100 per cent which in this business could lead to problems, I imagine. Has attention been given in the department to some method whereby more simply and more completely the information in TOMS can be made more comprehensive, more accurate?---I see that as part of my job. My area's job is to make TOMS easier to put information into. I think it has been getting easier over the years, we've been making changes to do that, and also easier to get information out of. All of these things can be done. It's a matter of having enough funds and resources to make the changes that need to be done. Let me then press you a little bit. You don't see any technological blockage in that being done, it's a matter of money and organisation. Would that be right?---That's the way I see it, yes.

10/8/05 WALTERS, S.J. 1455 10.43

Spark & Cannon 3/2/slh OIC/05 Technical people always say that - - -?---Of course. - - - they always say it can be done, but seriously, you think that could be done?---I think that there would definitely be ways to make it easier for the information to be collected, easier for the people who currently have to enter the information but whose core job is really managing offenders. I think that that should be seriously looked at, yes. I couldn't comment on any particular technical way of doing it until we'd tried some out and seen which ones work best. I know, for example, that - I have had some experience in relation to this with judges. A number of the judges now use the Dragon system for simply dictating into the machine and having the machine then record it and print it out if necessary. The degree of accuracy seems sufficient for their purposes. Has that not been tried here? I'm not criticising if you haven't but - - -?---No, that's fine. It hasn't been tried. I think it probably would be worth trying. Because if the officers could simply speak into the microphone about it, it might be all right, recognising that the software requires the officer to accustom the software to his voice and all of those problems?---Yes, and there's also more - if you're - it should be tried and seen if it's feasible, yeah. Is there any other - having excited your mind on this problem, that I have suggested either a typist to put it in or the voice recognition systems such as they are, is there any other system that occurs to you that might be useful pursuing?---Nothing comes to mind right at the moment.

10/8/05 WALTERS, S.J. 1456

Spark & Cannon 4/1/nal OIC/05 If something does, if you would like to give a bit of thought to it, I would be interested to see what you could come up with because at the moment, from what I am told by the officers on the ground and they understand what I mean by "on the ground" - from what I am told there seems to be a significant gap of information which could be put into TOMS and in fact doesn't get onto TOMS and it's a pity if that continues on. So if you do have some ideas on that in the short time that I have available I would be interested if you could pass that on?---I will give it some thought. Thank you, Mr Walters?---Thank you. Yes, Mr Quinlan? QUINLAN, MR: Yes, thank you, sir, I have nothing further and I would ask that Mr Walters be excused. (THE WITNESS WITHDREW) QUINLAN, MR: Sir, I call Jacqui Tang. TANG, JACQUELINE TERESE sworn: QUINLAN, MR: Ms Tang, could you state your full name for the transcript, please?---Jacqueline Terese Tang. You are employed by the Department of Justice and are currently in the position of executive director of community and juvenile justice. Is that correct?---That's correct. Which is a directorate which is separate from the prison services directorate and you are the head of that directorate under the director-general of the department. Is that correct?---That's correct. A previous position that you held and that you held in 2000 and 2001, I think, was the director of operational services. Is that correct?---I commenced that position in November 1999. That position at the time was a position within the prison services directorate of the ministry. Is that correct? ---Yes, reporting directly to the executive director of the prisons division. The person who held that position at the time was Mr Simpson. Is that right?---That's correct. What was the - what were the roles and responsibilities of that position at the time that you went into it in 1999 and into 2000?---It did change over the three years that I was the director but when I commenced the position I was responsible for prison industries, education and vocational 10/8/05 WALTERS, S.J. 1457 10.49 TANG, J.T.

Spark & Cannon 4/2/nal OIC/05 training unit, strategic development which were the new initiatives in relation to assessment and case management, prison programs, art coordination and Aboriginal services. You said that the roles changed over time. I think as time developed the sentence management branch eventually came within that directorate. Is that correct?---Yes. During that time prison industries was moved to the general manager of public prisons and then moved to a subsequent other area and then in February 2002 the position - the area of sentence management and also prison counselling was transferred out of health services to my area. The sentence management directorate from then on and to this day, I understand, has fallen under the same directorate of operational services and which became operational services and sentence management. Is that correct?---That's correct and other matters within that directorate have moved to other areas, so there's been a change from when I held the position. Certainly at the time in 2000 the position was that there would have been two different directors dealing with sentence management on the one hand and operational services on the other?---Yes, that's correct. The position of director sentence management became redundant sometime during that period. I don't recall whether it was 2000 or 2001 but that position was made redundant. I want to ask you specifically some questions in relation to the serious offenders management committee which was formed in early 2000, which would have been at the time that you were director of operational services and to that end, if I can just put document 392 on the screen. This is a letter from Mr Ross the manager of the forensic case management team to Mr Keating, which identifies the composition of that serious offenders management committee, which included both yourself as director of operational services and Mr Vaughan as director of sentence management and he, I take it, was the person in the role of sentence management at that time?---Yes.

10/8/05 TANG, J.T. 1458

Spark & Cannon 5/1/rds OIC/05 What can you tell me is your recollection of the function of that committee and why it was set up to deal with the offenders that came within its jurisdiction?---My understanding is that it was set up, I believe, in relation to an ombudsman request that we have a more strategic management of the most serious offenders within our system. That was largely due to the fact that up until that point superintendents were being held responsible for individuals within their prison. If you were the superintendent of Casuarina Prison, it meant that you held the highest risk prisoners and therefore unless you had extremely good negotiation skills either with other superintendents around the state and the other maximum security facilities and the director of sentence management, you were, in a sense, left to hold the baby in respect to those offenders. Can I just interrupt there? Is that because Casuarina Prison, having the special handling unit, was effectively the place where a seriously difficult to manage prisoner was most likely to be placed?---Yes. I would have - my view is that those superintendents of other maximum security facilities, although not holding the most highest risk, also held difficult prisoners and there was - they operated as single entities and, as I say, negotiation skills were essential. The purpose of the committee was to rise above those various superintendents. In a way it was seen to assist them in the sense that the department took responsibility and that the people around the table, as you will see - and the director of metropolitan prisons was the chair - that they would discuss the case and take ownership of those offenders and move them through the system. That was to allow movement given the basis of the information that we received and didn't rely on the individual superintendent to negotiate. What was your appreciation of the decision-making power of that committee insofar as it related to the usual rules concerning classification or sentence management which under director-general's rule 14 reposed in particular individuals? Was this committee a committee designed to take over that function or was it an information-gathering and advising body?---I should, for the context of the inquiry, inform you that I was the director of sentence management in an acting capacity for three years from 95 to 98 so I'm well aware of the rules associated with 13 and 14, and particularly the new one. As you can see - and it is a quirk when you look within the committee minutes down the track - within that first meeting there is the director of sentence management. I saw us very much as a decision-making role because who would we be recommending to other than the executive director of prisons? The principal or peak decision-maker in relation to sentence management was on that board. So therefore I'm not saying we made decisions that otherwise the board or the governor or the minister would make, but where we had the capacity 10/8/05 TANG, J.T. 1459 10.55

Spark & Cannon 5/2/rds OIC/05 within the rules that we would, in a sense, come up with a view within that meeting and because the director of sentence management was in that meeting, then the general view was that we would talk through the issues and unless there was violent opposition from the director who would then perhaps take it to the executive director, then I would see that the peak authority was on that meeting. As that position becomes redundant at a later stage, that peak person is no longer available and that's where I know through the transcripts that there has been some difficulty in communication with sentence management. That was, could I say, a flaw down the track in the sense that you didn't have a peak person as such representing that particular group. So if I understand what you are saying correctly, as it was originally formulated because the director of sentence management was on the committee and that that director had the delegated authority, if you like, in the director general's rules, necessarily a decision in which that person participated on the committee would then be able to be reflected in the powers exercised by that person?---Yes, in that there would be a discussion, a decision made and effectively when you look at the group, you could almost say that although the director of metropolitan prisons chaired the meeting, the director of sentence management was the one that needed to be convinced on the progress and therefore they had the other people to assist him. Down the track when the director sentence management was no longer a position, then the authority levels changed to, say, manager parole release and manager sentence management. So therefore those people were then not represented, so you didn't have the person who would be making those ultimate decisions because the other positions as they stand - and I stand to be corrected on this - is that they don't appear within the rules in relation to decision-making.

10/8/05 TANG, J.T. 1460

Spark & Cannon 6/1/slh OIC/05 So that - for example, we heard evidence from Ms Doyle that in late - or the second-half of 2001, she was informed that a decision had been made by the serious offenders management committee that Mr Keating was to go to Albany. Her evidence was that that was the first she had heard about this committee and had to track down the minutes to determine what the nature of that decision was?---I'm not sure of the date of that meeting because the minutes should determine who was actually in that meeting and whether in fact the director of sentence management was still a party to that meeting. I take the point that the committee was formed but perhaps the mechanisms around informing others - but if the director of sentence management is there or - the same for the director of metropolitan prisons in relation to superintendents, because my view is if I sit on a committee I represent my division and if there's information to go back then I'll take it back. To your division?---Yes. In relation to - I want to ask you about some particular meetings of the committee. In 2000 there was a meeting in November at which you raised certain issues; in fact, you were the acting chair. This is document 403. This is a meeting on 8 November 2000. There it would appear that the acting director of sentence management was an apology, but at any rate, under number 3 on General Business you expressed some concern over the lack of individual files on prisoners under the review of the serious offenders management committee and made a recommendation that files be available to nominated committee members. Could you just tell us about that concern and what the background to it was?---In recent years, probably - I've spent about four years sitting on the Parole Board; three years consecutively and then probably another 12 months making up that time. When I sat on this committee I had anticipated that it would probably run not similar to a Parole Board but I mean the same mechanisms in that when you go to the Parole Board - before you go there you have the file sent to you, you're able to consider the information that's within the file, you're able to make your own inquiries, and then you come together and you're almost discussing the exceptions or the disagreement that you may have. My concern was that - and also that we had a record of individuals on any one file, not a combination of various offenders on a file so that when you want to go and find out about one particular offender, then you could go to that source rather than having to trawl through various other people who have no connection with that offender, so I asked that we actually had individual files set up to be able to consider that prior to the time so that we could do that, because what was happening, we were having minutes that were, as I say, including just name - you know, there weren't many, there'd probably be a maximum of five at one time but you just - I suppose I was familiar with the 10/8/05 TANG, J.T. 1461 11.01

Spark & Cannon 6/2/slh OIC/05 Parole Board process and I was comfortable with that process and that's how I felt that the committee would be improved. Did that occur to your recollection?---To my recollection, yes, it did. Towards the end - because I left this position but towards the end I think largely we were looking at sort of prerelease reports that were being prepared. I don't know that we were actually given the files as such but I suppose I could make the comment that if it didn't actually occur then I would probably be making a complaint at subsequent meetings which would be minuted. As that didn't occur I - as far as I can recall we had those files. I understood those files were held within the health services area but I don't know if they're still held there. As events continued in relation to Mr Keating there was - in 2001 there were two particular meetings of significance that you chaired as the acting chairperson when it was decided that Mr Keating would be transferred to Albany Regional Prison out of Casuarina Prison. The first of those meetings was 9 May 2001. This is document 407. At that meeting we can see in the full paragraph under the heading Paul Keating there's a reference to him participating in the SOTP, that he was expected to successfully complete the program, and then there's discussion as to where he would remain and where he would be best accommodated. Towards the end of that paragraph it says: During the four-week period whilst Mr Keating is in unit 1, the necessary reports will be completed including a reassessment by Mr Harrison as to dangerousness. There being no reasons to the contrary, Mr Keating would then be available for transfer to Albany Prison.

10/8/05 TANG, J.T. 1462

Spark & Cannon 7/1/mjd OIC/05 The second meeting of relevance is an extraordinary meeting of the committee, document 535 which was held the following month on 28 June which effectively approved the transfer to Albany and then if I can just take you to the second page in the last paragraph on that screen, it being explained to Mr Keating in relation to his move and you can see in the middle him being asked to be transferred to Bunbury Regional Prison and he being advised that his security rating did not enable that to occur. With that rather lengthy preamble, can I ask you about those decisions for him to be moved to Albany and how long it was expected that he would go to Albany? What was the purpose of him going there and was there an anticipated period of time that it was expected he would be at Albany Regional Prison?---The discussion was very much - and there was a dispute about the management of him, perhaps if I go back to where he should stay whilst he was waiting the four weeks to go to Albany. Was there a dispute as to whether he should stay in the sex offender treatment unit which is a separate area or go to unit 1. It was felt that he couldn't be completely mainstreamed but it wouldn't be appropriate for him to remain within the sex offender treatment unit because that would be seen as, as they say here, special and really unit 1 from the management of Casuarina felt that that was appropriate. The reasons around moving him to Albany following the SOTP was that he had done his program. If he was to remain at Casuarina the choice would then be that if he was to progress he would need to go mainstream. It was around the fact that the sensitivities of the fact that his last offence which was some years before was within that prison and there were prison officers within that prison and prison officers who were friends of the victims and it was felt that to be fair to them and also quite bluntly to ensure that Keating could actually progress as well the decision was made for him to move to Albany which was a maximum security prison. The decision about how long he was going to spend at Albany, I don't - in looking at the minutes I can't recall what he had but I would say, look, it wasn't an extensive period of time. It certainly wasn't, "Go to Albany and we won't see you again," that wasn't the purpose. He was actually going down a path that if he finished the program he would move to the next stage. So on the same token it wasn't that he would be there for a month either. So it would - he obviously had to get down and see how he fitted in, what was the response to the - from the prison staff and those sorts of things. So it would probably be around - I'm just picking a time, like, it certainly wasn't one month, it wasn't longer than 12 and maybe roughly six probably would have been a sort of a standard way of looking at whether he would progress on. What was the expectation in terms of where he would progress on?---I think the expectation was fairly open that Bunbury was where he wanted to go. Bunbury is a - sex 10/8/05 TANG, J.T. 1463 11.07

Spark & Cannon 7/2/mjd OIC/05 offender treatment but they hold a high percentage of sex offenders and so it wasn't seen as unusual that he would go there. The other options for medium security were Greenough and to me that wouldn't be the place that he would go given that particular prison's profile, and Acacia was a new prison filling up and we had discussions around the fact that, look, this is a new prison, we had our own issues about - from my directorate's point of view about how they were settling in with programs, education and those things and that Keating, I think, would have been - it would have been inappropriate as relation to a risk to place him in that prison. So therefore when you whittle it down Bunbury was probably the only other option for him. During this time, when I say that his engagement by the serious offenders management committee, did you have contact with him and what was his approach to his progress? Was he particularly demanding?---I had one personal contact with him and then other video-links. I don't know whether - the personal contact wasn't really subject to the serious offender management committee, it was in my role as director of operational services. I attended a sex offender treatment program with the manager of the program services because from time to time that's what we would do with the intensive programs. We would go down, spend time with the men in the programs, talk to them about our roles, what the - and because of my experience on the Parole Board they usually took the opportunity and they knew I had been on the Parole Board so they took the opportunity to talk about those processes which I was happy to do.

10/8/05 TANG, J.T. 1464

Spark & Cannon 8/1/nal OIC/05 At this particular time Mr Keating was on that program. I left, we had a cup of tea and, you know, as we were nearly about to leave Mr Keating approached me and introduced himself and knew who I was obviously and he thanked me for supporting him on the serious offender management committee for his inclusion on the sex offender treatment program. I was quite taken aback by this because I was used to being on the Parole Board where you made a decision as a group, you didn't identify another person's view and that you left that meeting with a group decision, even if the chair made - quite rightly, if the chair made the decision that this was the decision in relation to an offender you left as a group decision. I felt a little vulnerable about that because I thought what information had gone about to Keating about individual matters and then after - I just said to him, "Well, this is stage 1 of your progress. We need to watch how you go on each of these stages. There's no expectation that because you complete this program you've" - you know, so we had a general discussion where I was getting a message to him about managing his expectations and, quite bluntly, I would prefer to terminate the discussion fairly quickly. The next meeting that we had with the serious offender management committee I made it quite clear that I was not happy about this. I felt that if the committee was dealing with the most serious offenders that it was putting particular people at risk if prisoners became aware of their personal views and I reiterated that the board - the Parole Board managed it differently. It was put to me that - no-one actually said that they spoke to Mr Keating and it was put to me that perhaps it was a leading question to me as to whether in fact I supported him or not and, look, I took that as well, maybe that was the case and in these situations you just need to move on otherwise you can't - you can't hold on to those sorts of things. Subsequently in serious offender management committee we - the format of the meeting was that we would meet and discuss and have our robust discussion and views about the particular case and then at the end we would involve Mr Keating in what our decision was. That interaction - he is a highly articulate man. He would talk clearly about what his views were and what he wanted and then if we were actually able to give him a decision that actually he was quite happy with he would take that and then he would ask the question about when he would move to the next stage. I have a couple of views about that; one I expressed to Mr Harrison just on the side after a meeting. I said, you know, "Les, you really need to talk to Keating about how he presents to the committee because no sooner does he get a decision and he's onto the next decision." I said, you know, it really is - it's a little unsettling, you know, in the sense that, you know, he's persistent. And it's difficult to stop his momentum?---He's on a momentum and it looks like we are always responding but, I 10/8/05 TANG, J.T. 1465 11.13

Spark & Cannon 8/2/nal OIC/05 mean, he makes a decision and then he works on the next one. Now, one is well, you know, that's highly persistent but it's not enough to say, "No, I don't think you should be progressing," or, "You shouldn't be out," but it's just a demonstration of - on the other hand I think well, if I was in Mr Keating's shoes and it took so long to make decisions and the system is so slow and if I had those people in front of me when I got my decision I'd be asking the question about the next decision. So again, you put it in context and say well, okay, it's not - it's probably an insight into his persistence and his momentum and pursuit of a goal but is it enough to say no, he shouldn't have - he shouldn't move. So they are the dilemmas that we were dealing with. I know that's a long answer but it's probably just - - - MAHONEY, MR: Does it raise a suspicion that he was working the system, if you understand what I mean by that? ---I think it was well known that Keating is a long-term prisoner who knows the system, who knows the rules, who seeks advice from external parties for his pursuit of his goal. There's other prisoners who, you know, just don't have any idea of how the process works. He did know how the process worked. He knew what the next stages were and he asked the question about the next stage. I would say that the majority of prisoners would need to sort of go away and seek advice or would feel intimidated by the process about, you know, can I ask the next question or how do I go about it? He was clearly articulate, confident, knew what he wanted and was pursuing it. Whether you hold that against him as a process that's the hard decision because there's many people in the community who follow a same process. That would enable him to know what would please those in power and assist him in knowing what to do or adhere to do in order to progress to the next stage in the system?---And it's no secret, the process - the process is complicated, but obviously if you know a process and you know the next stage to go to, then you're going to move to that next stage more quickly than someone else who has to go and find someone to talk to about it or do the homework yourself. So he had a very structured approach to how he was going to progress through the system.

10/8/05 TANG, J.T. 1466

Spark & Cannon 9/1/glj OIC/05 So that if, like the prisoner Cross, you could present yourself as being, as Mr Pierre who was assessing him said, a model prisoner, then you had in mind that that would help you to progress to minimum security or whatever?---A model prisoner is always a good description as to, you know, what does a model prisoner - what is that? Because some would say they are so model that what are they up to? But I don't tend to use the words "model prisoner"; I tend to use a prisoner who has responded positively to their imprisonment, and that is more than just behaving or having a clean cell. That is what educational, what programs, what are your community supports, what your interaction with prison is, what's your interaction with other prisoners? So it's more than, you know - often in prison officer reports in the past you would see, "No charges and a clean cell," and somehow that made you a model prisoner, but it's so much more than that as to how you - you know, observing interactions and the pursuits for you as an individual. QUINLAN, MR: In relation to Keating, I'm looking for the reference from when I spoke to you the other day in relation to him. I can't find the exact wording at the moment - - -?---That's all right. - - - but it was something along the lines of it was expected he would successfully complete the SOTP because that's the kind of person he is?---Yes. There were - I don't think that's in there - as far as my transcript? Yes, when I was speaking to you - - -?---Yes, because in the early days when we were talking about Keating and whether in fact he should be placed on the sex offender treatment program at all, there was discussion with various people and they said, well, if he goes on the sex offender treatment program of course he'll finish because that's the sort of person he is. Now, that really puts you in a bind because if you say, "You can't go on the program because, yes, you will automatically finish," as opposed to, "Well, if you go on the program and you do finish" - you know, what does that tell you? So it's almost like, well, yes, that's the type of personality; he knows what he has to do to get through, so he will do the program, but if he's saying if the program has been done and the program staff, the facilitators are satisfied that he's done the work through that - because you don't just go and sit there; you do the program - then should he not get credit for that? So that's the difficulty of the discussion around, well, we know this prisoner and this is what he will do; we're going to tell you - and of course when he gets to the end say, "Well, yes, we told you he would finish it." MAHONEY, MR: I suppose that depends upon what you mean by "get the credit for it". It's one thing to say, "Yes, he got through and therefore I can tick off the box when I'm 10/8/05 TANG, J.T. 1467 11.19

Spark & Cannon 9/2/glj OIC/05 reporting to, for example, the Parole Board." It's another thing to say, "He completed it and therefore that changed his personality - - -"?---Yes. "- - - or evidenced a change in his personality." The two, I think, are quite different, aren't they?---I absolutely agree with you. When I say "get the credit for" I say that if he's completed the program and the program facilitators write the report which says that he's addressed elements of his risk of reoffending, then why should he not receive that credit in the sense that he has done the work and that he's determined that his risk has been reduced. Not that he's done the work and just ticked it off to say, well, we're over that hurdle, go to the rest," but obviously you need to look at the way he's contributed to that group and what were the assessments of the facilitators at the end. Clearly, again, having been on the Parole Board and seen the receipts of the reports there of prisoners who clearly sit there and think that if they sit through a program and don't contribute, that they will get credit for it when in fact they won't because the detail of the report explains their contribution and the outcomes of that particular program. QUINLAN, MR: In giving those answers you gave a sense of what was the kind of debate that went on - - -?---Yes. - - - within the committee in terms of, "We know this prisoner; we know what he'll do," et cetera. Can you just tell us about the - this puts in context the committee, if you like - the differing views that you encountered in terms of Keating between different groups within the department that had to be negotiated in relation to Keating's management?---And perhaps before I start, I'm happy to explain the different views but I don't wish to make comment as to the merit or otherwise of those views. They're just the various views that - - - Sure?---And quite rightly we should have a robust discussion about these types of prisoners. There is obviously with Keating, he's a current prisoner who's been what, 27 years in the prison system and has created victims within that environment. So there are people who know him far more than I do; had worked with him daily, and also may have known their victims quite closely, so there's clearly a view about their own experience with a particular prisoner. For other views, there was a view that there are interventions that are possible to work with a prisoner to reduce their risk of reoffending and there was a significant amount of input from the psychological and program side of the division, and of course you have a departmental view in the sense that you have your professional view as a psychologist and a programs officer and as a prison administrator and a prison officer. You can't distance those either from a personal view. Like, I have a personal view about certain prisoners but that's my 10/8/05 TANG, J.T. 1468

Spark & Cannon 9/3/glj OIC/05 view and I'm not paid for my personal view; I'm paid for the decisions that I make upon the professional advice I receive and to a certain extent need to be objective otherwise it would be "release according to Jacqui Tang" which is not how it's done. With Keating, you know, you had - - -

10/8/05 TANG, J.T. 1469

Spark & Cannon 10/1/slh OIC/05 MAHONEY, MR: Why not?---Why not? Well, I don't think the department would see that as appropriate, that one - - - No, let me press that harder though. The contract that you are putting, quite rightly, is between running the system according to rules and running it according to the people who have, as you say, day-to-day experience with the prisoners. Why not according to the people who have day-to-day experience, recognising the dangers that are involved in it?---I suppose I have a view that everyone brings - and that's why we have a mixed group, is that everyone brings a certain expertise to the table. Prison officers and - I could launch into the whole view about why integrated prison regime should've worked was that integrated prison regime as it was set up as a philosophy was very much about recognising prison officers as being those people who worked with prisoners day to day, that they could watch their behaviour change, they could see the dynamics of the prison and they had that intimate knowledge that they could feed back. They need those skills to be able to do that and to be able to also connect with professional people about what the interventions were. The whole basis of assessment and case management is very much about combining the knowledge of a person - a prison officer who's working with prisoners with assessments about what interventions should occur and then those interventions occurring over time and then you're making an assessment as to whether they've made a difference. I think to either go down one track and say that only prison officers know the business and therefore know prisoners or alternatively only say that professional staff as far as social workers and psychologists know the business, you're a danger if you go either path. The trick is - and what we - I don't believe we have successfully done and we should always strive to do is how you make those interactions between those parties come together to actually say, "We have a comprehensive assessment about what this person needs. We are working as a system both daily and over time to make a difference." Pausing there, how do you do that?---How do you do that? How long have we got? I don't know if anyone's sort of gone through the integrated prison regime and what that ideal was. I don't know whether you've had any discussion around that and whether - - - I have, yes. I have looked at it in considerable detail? ---That was a vision, in a sense. I take it that it was the executive director prisons vision to be able to bring the various parties together. If you could just bear with me while I just go through the various elements. One was that you have a good comprehensive assessment; (2) that you have throughout that time case workers assigned to prisoners to ensure that the assessment that's being carried out is actually implemented over the period of 10/8/05 TANG, J.T. 1470 11.25

Spark & Cannon 10/2/slh OIC/05 time. You then have a basic core intervention program in cog skills in that instead of sort of pigeonholing people that you have a broad baseline program which you had a good critical mass across the system as to their basic thinking skills about, "If I do this, what are the consequences? How do I problem solve?" Very basic things. There was also an element that we would offer training for prison officers, interpersonal skills. Now, part of that interpersonal skills was not saying that we didn't think prison officers couldn't communicate but a lot of that program was understanding what the base of the cog skills program was about, so whereas the cog skills program was about prison officers - prisoners dealing with their problems, talking to prison officers, being more assertive that we had - we talked to the programs people and the facilitators about this is that prison officers needed to understand that you didn't have a smart alec in front of you when they came up to put their case - and also resolving basic conflict and those sorts of things and also unit management, so although you had case officers who were managing over a period of time, you had unit management which was the day-to-day management of prisoners in their units. Now, you asked me how you bring it - to me that was the blueprint of how you bring it altogether. You're bringing various parties, you're bringing prison officers but you can't do that without training. You can't say to someone, "I want you to do this," if we don't give them the suitable training to do that. It's just unfair and it will fail.

10/8/05 TANG, J.T. 1471

Spark & Cannon 11/1/rds OIC/05 As you said, on previous occasions that didn't happen? ---No. So what was a great blueprint and everyone was sort of, you know, committed to it is - I wouldn't say everyone. We had to - it was even a process for me. In the early days when I heard about it, when I wasn't responsible for it, I thought, "My God, what a project. This is bigger then Ben Hur." However you never say because within a few months I was responsible for it. It really was something which said, "This is how you bring the parties together." It was recognising the dynamic element of a prison in that you had your prison officers, unit management, training for them. You had assessment, good assessment for prisoners, you had the interventions, you had education and vocational training coming in and then you had the unit management on a day-to-day basis. So overall - you asked the question "bring it together." If we were to start again, I'm not sure that we would move far from that particular model. If can pre-empt your next question and ask why it failed, if I could be so presumptuous, to me we had our funding withdrawn because the new prison opened so there was a requirement to - because we were reducing the number of prisons in our public system, then obviously there was a requirement to reduce the budget to that level as well. So therefore it meant that the training money for prison officers was not possible. We couldn't - you can't pull officers off a unit for three days and not provide a replacement, you know. Someone has to be running the shop. The cog skills couldn't get the critical mass for the prisoners because there were again issues about releasing people to facilitate that program. The program - availability of program rooms, you know, those sorts of things and also perhaps a lack of understanding about what those program facilitators were required to do other than just being in front of a group of prisoners and presenting, because they had preparation. They had assessments. So there was a lot of debate about, "Well, what are they really doing, you know? Why do they need that many hours?" So there was a whole discussion around that as well. The assessment process was comprehensive at Hakea in the sense that they were trialing a new process. They were certainly under the pump to fill Acacia. For one I was responsible for ensuring that we had the number of prisoners going into Acacia, the right number, and that meant that the Hakea assessment was required to complete 40 assessments every week and was I on the phone saying, "Have you done your 40 - - -" You have to have them assessed as being medium?---Well, to go to Acacia they needed to be medium, so that some of the issues around Hakea was that when you were doing the assessment process, where you thought you might have a group of prisoners that you might get your quota to go to Acacia that week, some prisoners came up minimum. So they went off the list. Some came up maximum. Some came up as

10/8/05 TANG, J.T. 1472 11.31

Spark & Cannon 11/2/rds OIC/05 protection. So, you know, there was this loss of what you thought was your pool of people to go to Acacia because they were dropping out because, you know, you were doing the assessment in relation to the tool. QUINLAN, MR: To get your 40 you had to assess 70?---Yes. Well, at the same time, Acacia was like a sieve because people were being released from the medium security facility. So you almost needed to go and cover the sieve up because as soon as you were sending them up, they were going, so it was - look, I have a whole, you know, chart there of how we were going to achieve this and I put pressure on Hakea to do that. So they were bedding this down in an environment which was under pressure and, to my mind, you did a fantastic job under the pressure that they had to do. At the same time they were trying to run a constrained case management model whereby, you know, we would assign a prison officer to, you know, a certain number of prisoners, and three was the magic number, but then because we were filling Acacia and because there was the decision that we would go fully for the assessment for the scoring tool, it fell away because there was nothing to support it. We had no additional staff really to support the training around case management or just the whole culture of it. To be fair, to say that case management as it is is very sort of mechanised - if you look at case management, say, within the community justice services, it's a whole different way to manage cases. Were we overambitious in what we expected of prison officers in case management and they're the things that we would look at if we were to go back to the beginning, to say, "Were we overambitious? We certainly didn't train people. We certainly didn't invite a culture," because one of the other things with the 650 prisoners leaving to go to Acacia, and we lost that funding across the public prison system - I don't know whether we lost it within the department or back to government. I don't concern myself with that, but the issue was that the public system became even more constrained, because you couldn't in fact move people because you had to close units to save the money. So you had less flexibility in moving people, there was a reduction in programs, there was a reduction in education because the assumption was that we were fully funded for all the prisoners we had in the first place. So if you take 650 out, then it must be minus 650 and that was not the case because we couldn't meet the demand in the first place. I believe there was a blueprint and we couldn't do it.

10/8/05 TANG, J.T. 1473

Spark & Cannon 12/1/nal OIC/05 MAHONEY, MR: Can I ask you then one question just arising from that: you mentioned the training of the prison officers?---Yes. In an ideal world, which of course we don't live in, you would look to training the prisoners also for the purpose of case management. Is there any attempt to do that other than the cognitive skills thing insofar as that may do? ---I take your point. It's an interesting point in the sense that (1) we always talk about training prison officers or staff generally in what case management is but it's an interesting point you make about what prisoners see case management to be because we just expect that they know. I have taken the course in every prison I visited of sitting with the prisoners for an hour or more - - -? ---Yes. - - - and sometimes on more than one occasion, to get their feeling. I find it's very different from the feeling that I get, quite legitimately, from the staff in the prisons and that's why I'm asking has anybody ever taken the course of trying to acquaint the prisoners with why things have been done and particularly why the case management system is being applied?---I wonder if you could just expand on what you see the difference - how the prisoners see case - what they're expressing to you, so maybe that would help me answer the question. Well, let me take one instance; we've been talking about programs and the educated effect of programs and the effect of them in changing the personality of prisoners and so on. In more than one prison and in terms of some emphasis prisoners have said they're a waste of time, they do nothing for me, we do the programs only because we are expected to do them. Now, that is quite a different view from the view that is expressed in the hierarchy?---It all depends - like, I would - when I talk about programs I'm talking about therapeutic programs in the sense of the violent offender treatment program which runs for six months, the sex offender treatment program. I think for some of the programs are very short-term programs that we might run, which may be two, three days. Yes, they may not make a significant difference to the offender, they are more - rather than call them a program as an intervention they are more an information session. So it would be about well - I would be surprised if someone went through a six-month intensive program that they would come out at the end and say that it didn't make any difference but I would accept that if someone did a three-day, say, anger management program that they would have difficulty perhaps in seeing how it would change their view of life significantly.

10/8/05 TANG, J.T. 1474 11.37

Spark & Cannon 12/2/nal OIC/05 I'm conscious that sometimes you have to bear in mind the phrase "he would say that anyway, wouldn't he" and you've got to assess the validity of what he says but you have avoided answering my question, namely, was there some program for acquainting the prisoners with the - - -? ---No, there's not but what I - I suppose it's a very good comment in the sense that we spend, as I've just spent - scurrying around telling you how we would inform prison officers about what case management is, I don't think we ever really marketed to prisoners what case management is and I think that's a very good suggestion. What it is that you would - in talking with prisoners - prison officers that you need to talk to a prisoner about what - and perhaps that's on an individual basis with the case officer about what it is that this relationship will bring as far as assisting them in achieving their individual management plan. No, there's been no program, to be direct with you. No, there hasn't but I certainly accept that that's a good suggestion. Now, I'm going to bring a stop to this most interesting dialogue between us because I've taken you right off what Mr Quinlan was trying to get you on to and I'm going to let you then continue - his line of questioning?---Sorry. QUINLAN, MR: With your Honour's indulgence - - -?---We'll get kicked out I think. It's too interesting for me to leave it entirely and it does relate to something that has been raised in terms of this serious offenders management committee, so I would like to explore it a little more. That was what you referred to in terms of the difficulties in training and availability for prison officers and so on in relation to the integrated prison regimes project and the problems that were created around not having the funding or the availability for that training to be done. Training is obviously important for skilling people within the organisation and giving them skills to do the various things but is there another sense in which a lack of training or lack of funding for training or commitment to training, in relation to prison officers in particular, has given rise to a sense or a view amongst that operational staff that their role is not as valued for that reason?---I think that there has always been a conflict between operational and programs and I think training is not about, "I'm going to teach you this task and you will do that task," but a lot of the importance of training and skilling is about what is the philosophy of what we are trying to do. So for me it was that the reason we were training staff and looking to supporting them in the knowledge of what prisoners would be doing and unit management - well, a lot of that was, and should be about, this is why - the reason we're doing this is very much about why we want to

10/8/05 TANG, J.T. 1475

Spark & Cannon 12/3/nal OIC/05 bring it all together and that philosophy about that no single person - like, this is a group effort here. We as professional staff, if I can - without saying that prison staff are not professional, when I say "professional" I mean - - -

10/8/05 TANG, J.T. 1476

Spark & Cannon 13/1/mjd OIC/05 No, I understand what you mean by that?---Yeah, that when we go into a prison rely heavily on the prison officers for our safety and for - and the advice on day to day matters. So we can't pretend going into a prison that we know it all because we rely - it might be very subtle, it might not be overt but as soon as you forget that you're in trouble as far as what your relationship is to the prison administration and prison staff. The same as prison officers, I think it depends a lot on the experience that they have had with program staff, psychological staff about the value that they see that that particular group brings and the same with education and vocational training. So it has a lot to do with experience and interaction and you can see in some prisons where the interaction between those various groups is much more positive than in perhaps another area where in fact hurdles are put in place for - not maybe hurdles but maybe life is not made easy. So very much about not training for specific skills but IPR was very much around how you change the culture from perhaps a very operational view to how do you integrate. That was the whole point. How do you integrate all the services so at the end you have a prisoner who is actually better off than when they actually came in. That's putting it very basically. So again, I agree with you that training is more, it's about - and I know when we first went out with the integrated prison regime and it was the director general and myself we went to five prisons who were involved in that particularly pilot, we went and presented to the staff and to the administration about what was the vision for integrated prison regime. These are the practical ways we were going to do it and said, "You know, this is the way forward for prisons division." Unfortunately, that vision fell apart when the funding wasn't there but I mean it was - - - Yes and perhaps just to make this point, I might quote to you some comments that were made relatively recently by Mr Simpson in relation to prison officers and prison officer training and the like. He said this: You know, I think one of the things that really does need to come out of an inquiry of this sort is that if you want the best performance out of people they have got to feel respected and valued. The department has really got to go against the background that's occurred, get on the front foot with the custodial staff and let them see that they are valued, that they are important. Clearer career planning, investment in training and development. The funds available for training, ongoing training we have got good investment in initial training of prisoner officers but then it just drops off. Even essential stuff like the funds needed to get breathing apparatus training up, you know, so that people can do the right thing in a fire, it's just 10/8/05 TANG, J.T. 1477 11.43

Spark & Cannon 13/2/mjd OIC/05 never been there. Ongoing training in terms of just the use of force restraints but also the value added stuff like interpersonal skills and all things that a modern prison officer needs and it can't be done, staff know when things are being done on the cheap. Again, the message is - and he said quote: Look how they value us. You know, a whole bunch of public servants went off somewhere and got trained the other day but they're not putting the same investment into us. Is that - does that present a picture which you would agree with in terms of the way in which the operational, professional divide has developed within the department? ---I - I probably - yeah, I agree with his comments but can I also say that training across the board is an issue. Rather than me point the finger at prisons and sit back and say, "Well, they're not doing it properly," but community justice services, I remember when I started my training, was an officer sat down with me for a week and read me the act.

10/8/05 TANG, J.T. 1478

Spark & Cannon 14/1/slh OIC/05 Now, thankfully we're a long way from that because that was significantly painful but we got to the - we've got a point within community justice that we run quite a professional training service and I'm pleased with it but, I mean, what happens is that we obviously want to provide much greater training because the community corrections officer and a juvenile justice officer and the other staff that we have across my division, you know, require a variety of training. We're dealing with mental health issues, substance abuse issues, domestic violence, you know, conflict and we're dealing in a community environment where people aren't locked down, they have free access to drugs and alcohol and, you know, so in a much more volatile environment. However, my problem with training is not providing the training, it's being able to release the staff from their centres, to leave their caseloads to go and do decent training, so whilst it looks nice, we've got a training unit and we've got a calendar and it looks good, when I go and see staff at the centres they say, "But I can't leave my caseload of 45 offenders of which 10 are high risk for three or four days because who's going to manage my caseload when I'm not here for them?" so that's - it's not only an issue - I can see that it would perhaps create a divide because for a start professional staff are deemed to be professional because they have university degrees and all that so they have a lot of theoretical training and the officers don't come in with that, but even from my staff and community justice, who are not all deemed to be tertiary qualified, I have the same problems in that it's backfill, it's that ability to release people to go and learn something to come back and do the job better, so it's an issue across the department. The reason that I bring that up in the context of the serious offenders management committee is for this reason. Mr Hide, for example, gave evidence that in his view there was a - that committee became over time unbalanced in terms of the relative influence of operational persons as opposed to - we will use the expression professional persons if we - we can do that. I understand from having spoken to you before that numerically when one looks at the minutes it may not be possible to see that there is a lack of balance in that respect. Would that be a - - -?---Well, I suppose there's two things to look at. One is I made the comment that they might be thin around the table, as physically sitting around the table talking and looking at each other, but operational people on the end of video-links. Also, the other aspect is as someone moves through the system then the intensity of the people involved should by rights lessen in the sense that - if we take Keating, for example, we used to meet at Casuarina Prison, we used to meet in their boardroom, so therefore the accessibility of the people within that prison to attend that meeting was freely available to them. You know, like, we drove to Casuarina so that's highly acceptable and should happen more often. 10/8/05 TANG, J.T. 1479 11.49

Spark & Cannon 14/2/slh OIC/05 Now, in the case of Mr Hide, he was the - I think the deputy superintendent or the superintendent deputy in charge of operations or the special handling unit. Quite specifically he should be in that meeting because from my understanding he was directly responsible for Mr Keating so why would you not include him? However, once he moves to Albany then the operational people involved would be the people at Albany Prison, the same as the people when you go to Bunbury. At points there where we were looking at transfers it was more likely to be - say, for example, when the decision was made for him to move to Albany, even when the decision was talked about and a conclusion come to you will note in the minutes there was a phone call to the director of regional prisons, because it was moving from the chair who was the general manager metropolitan prisons at that time that the call was made to the regional director to say, "This is the decision that's been made. This is a prisoner going from metro to region." The other thing is that as far as when the subsequent reviews - you will see in the committee minutes - and I've seen the subsequent ones which I'm not party to because I left the position - was that it involves operational staff and always through those minutes that the chair - the substantive chair was the general manager public prisons. It started off as metro and then it changed. I chaired from time to time that that person wasn't available merely by default as far as hierarchy, that I was the next senior person who would do that, but, I mean, substantively who held the power as far as the chair and the direction was the general manager. If there was a view that there wasn't significant operational staff, it doesn't appear to be in the minutes that this was raised as an issue. There was no specific exclusion so therefore I find it interesting at this point that that point would be made.

10/8/05 TANG, J.T. 1480

Spark & Cannon 15/1/nal OIC/05 In that context - you have usefully set out the numbers of personnel involved and how they would be integrated but I wonder whether there is a more subtle question of balance? ---You need to be direct. Yes. A more subtle question of balance concerning not so much the numerical weighting - - -?---Yes, okay. - - - of the persons involved and the reason I'm suggesting this is this may be what lies behind Mr Hide's perception of the issue but that in the same way as I have described operational custodial officers, because of no training opportunities of clear career planning opportunities, may not feel as valued that there is a cultural difficulty in terms of the operational person with day-to-day experience of a particular prisoner being able to second guess the professional report with the charts and the graphs and so on that say, "This prisoner is a low risk," or, "This prisoner is a medium risk," that in that environment, without investment in the operational person, they aren't feeling as equipped to be able to say, "Well, you say that but my view - - -"?---Well, let's put it this way: on that particular committee there are senior staff on that committee - I would suggest that knowing each of those people around the table, whether they are operationally based or non-operationally, they were all very assertive people who have a view and express that view. I would be surprised if any one of the members felt intimidated that they couldn't raise their view and that would be the case because if that was not the case we would not have the discussions that we had during that period of time. The issue about the professional balance or the emphasis on, say, let's put it bluntly, Les Harrison's reports is that as we were moving through time obviously those people who had expressed a view operationally they're expressing it from a view - say the people at Casuarina - a historical view of their day-to-day involvement. Now, as we were moving through and Les and others had that more detailed involvement, quite intensive involvement, and the recency of that involvement, then credit needs - weighting needs to be given to that advice and weighting was given to that advice as opposed to perhaps someone else saying, "Well, 10 years ago he did this." Now, that's the personal dilemma that you struggle with because you have operational people who remind you - no, not necessarily operational people - you have people who remind you that this is the history of this man; then you have others who say, through time - and including operational people - that he's achieved his goals, "We set these goals and he achieved them." So therefore, the committee is working on the basis of the information that it receives, so if we are looking at the minutes we will see from the minutes - I think it's in March 2002 - we were advised that the Albany superintendent says that Keating has achieved all his goals. Now, I don't know what operationally that 10/8/05 TANG, J.T. 1481 11.55

Spark & Cannon 15/2/nal OIC/05 superintendent did to gather the information to present it to the committee, so I can't recall whether there was a specific report written by a prison officer but you will see that every Parole Board meeting and every consideration always has a prison officer report in it, which is read and considered. The same for the SOMC meeting; if there's advice on there that the superintendent is saying, "Yes, he's achieved all his goals," I'm taking an operational advice that that's what's happened - so they are the people on the ground. It might be the superintendent saying it but he's obviously taken it from his operational staff. When you then go to the minutes that talk about with Bunbury you have the superintendent, you have the case manager and you will note in the minutes that Bunbury were actually commended for their report in relation to prerelease - report that they wrote. So if we weren't taking operational advice into account what was that about? Obviously the report's done by Les Harrison, extremely detailed and he worked closely with them. We often - like, there was the dilemma in the sense that okay, he has this serious history but this advice shows us that he's moving forward, not only in a psychological sense but in an operational sense in that he is achieving his goals. So I don't know where else we are supposed to get the information which is going to give us a contrary view other than someone's perhaps opinion about yes, he will do it again. In the end, yes, they can say they were right and we don't draw any pleasure from the fact that those offences were committed given we were party to the decisions that moved him through but at the same time what were we supposed to work with other than someone's probably historical opinion? Can I just go on and say also having read - you know, looked over, say, the report done by Mr Glassborow and Mr Henderson and the discussion - lengthy discussion about whether in fact it should have been taken into account in relation to whether those two incidents in relation to the psychologist should have been counted? Can I be presumptuous to say perhaps the emphasis shouldn't be on whether they should be taken into account but whether in fact why wasn't he charged, which is the operational involvement of them in the sense that if he committed such a serious offence within the custodial environment, and we were taking the advice of the operations, why did they not charge him and proceed with that? Because if that was the case, then his propensity for violence would have been highlighted in a more recent time, but the emphasis seems to be on why Mr Henderson didn't take note - more weight in relation to those incidents when in fact it appears that the prison administration chose not to. So I suppose - I just needed to comment on that because when you say operations wasn't taken - perhaps wasn't valued or taken into account.

10/8/05 TANG, J.T. 1482

Spark & Cannon 16/1/glj OIC/05 MAHONEY, MR: But if what happened was what she said happened, then why wasn't he charged?---That's my question. It was an error not to charge him, do you say?---I don't know the reasons why he wasn't charged, but if you are managing someone and a serious incident has come to light through a report, to be asked down the pathway, "Why didn't you respond to that and give it significant weight when you were assessing it" - some years down the track in relation to this offender - "when at the time obviously it was quite an incident in the prison because other prison officers seem to know about it even though they weren't party to it? Why wasn't the charge put on him then?" I can't fathom - - - Is that another mistake in relation to the management of Keating?---I would say that - I question why there wasn't a charge. He may not have been found guilty of it, but there appears not to be a charge. So therefore it wasn't set in as an evidence to deal with this person. It was something that happened, but normally what would happen is that a matter occurs; a charge occurs, and then because a charge occurs and in fact if he went on to be convicted, that would be quite weighty in relation to a recent event which would have to be sort of within the whole context of how he's managed. I think one of the problems that arises is the suspicion that some people who were looking back on that particular episode seemed to doubt that what she was saying was true; that is, that what he did was not merely to recount his dreams but something more than that?---Well, it was interesting - - - That I think developed some kind of resentment, didn't it, among some people?---It was interesting in reading the transcript about that because I was aware there was some incident that had occurred prior to Keating being removed from that program some time ago, but it was interesting it really only crystallised that they were actually two separate events: one was within sort of the group and then one was this quite direct personal threat to her down the track. So from her account of it - she was actually interviewed and a statement taken - I suppose, yeah, I don't know the answer to that and maybe you need different people sitting here to answer the question as to why a charge didn't proceed, but, I mean, it's very difficult to weight it - what I'm trying to say is weight it against other information that you're receiving, if in fact operations felt that it wasn't the way to go. QUINLAN, MR: There are two problems with that difficulty of weighting it that you have described as well, aren't there? Not only not being a charge, do you not get the sheer weighting of having a charge per se, but - - -?---And 10/8/05 TANG, J.T. 1483 12.01

Spark & Cannon 16/2/glj OIC/05 subsequent conviction if that was to occur. Yes, if that was to occur, but you also don't have anything in terms of material to work with so in fact the process of having a charge may in fact get to the bottom of the detail of material which appears to have become more ambiguous as time went on. Is that a - - -?---Yeah, I think the two incidents - the first one was I think deemed to be more serious than the second. The second there was some dispute about interpretation and whether it actually occurred. As you say, if you have a charge - and can I say that probably if Keating was charged he would probably challenge it and therefore would even get more detailed because there would be further information around it, but I suppose if you're talking about the operational versus professional again, I think the psychologist view that, you know, they didn't charge it; I wasn't really sure in the scheme of things how that worked, but it appeared that nurses seem to be able to write charges, so it was also about perhaps the value or the integration of the professional staff at that time in a prison system. Now, since then program staff are actually now based in prisons; they're not based at head office and travel to, and I think that was another important move because what it said was professional staff aren't visitors to a prison. They're not people who fly in and fly out; they are integral to the community of a prison, so therefore they would become more aware of how a prison ran and their rights as far as that if a prisoner approaches them in such a manner that they can raise it with administration and get a charge.

10/8/05 TANG, J.T. 1484

Spark & Cannon 17/1/rds OIC/05 Yes?---So I think with Keating there's no single point of failure in the sense that, well, if we'd had a charge, as Mr Henderson said, would that have changed the fact that he was medium? He says no, so maybe it didn't change the fact that he would've come out as a medium. Would it have changed how, sort of, we would look at it as far as recency in relation to his behaviour and those sorts of things? So there's no single point of failure and that's the problem. There's various things that have happened. So I wouldn't like to say, "Well, because they didn't charge, this is why this happened," or, "Because - - -" No, I don't - - -?---Yes, but I mean, it adds to - again, you're only as good as the information you get in front of you. Yes?---The same for this inquiry; if you don't get open information and get it as it is, then how are you to make a determination in the future about how things should be? The same for us; if we don't get the information that's relevant and appropriate about an offender, we can't pull it out of the air as to how we manage someone. Dealing with one particular matter I wanted to ask you about, after Mr Glassborow had done his individual management plan, the matter came before the serious offenders management committee in November and views were expressed as to adequacy of that document in terms of the information contained in it. I take it that - - -?---Was it the adequacy or in relation to specific issues that Mr Harrison had in relation to some of the comments - - - It says that Mr Harrison raised concerns over - I will find the minutes themselves. It's document 417. It has at the bottom of that first page: The IMP for Mr Keating was discussed with Mr Harrison raising objections to the inclusion of selected quotations from an earlier report of his. Ms Tang undertook to arrange a meeting with Mr Denis Bandy, manager assessment centre, and the author of the report to further discuss this matter. It's in that context, if you like, that I raise the question of the adequacy of the management plan that Mr Harrison raised objections about and there was to be, and there ultimately was, a new individual management plan prepared by Mr Henderson the following month?---Yes. Can I ask for your recollection as to what, if you can recall, was seen to be the purpose or the need to send Mr Henderson down to Albany so soon after Mr Keating had arrived in Albany and after Mr Glassborow had done his management plan in October?---When you read it like this, it looks like a conspiracy in the sense that you are 10/8/05 TANG, J.T. 1485 12.07

Spark & Cannon 17/2/rds OIC/05 sending down someone to get the answer that you want and that certainly wasn't the case. In relation to the comments made, you gave me a copy of Mr Glassborow's report and I had a quick look through it, so that's why I questioned the adequacy because it was quite lengthy report, but I think it makes reference to those particular two items - I can't speak for Mr Harrison, you would have to ask him, but I took it that there was probably some exception to the inclusion of those comments given as the discussion we've just had. The other thing was that Keating had been in the system for a long time and it was all caught up in whether prisoners who had been a long time - at what point would they transfer over to the new system, a bit like the discussion around Cross, that he wasn't - he was lost under the old system and when was he going to feature in the new system basically? So the timing of it, I think for one it was probably a discussion around, "Well, he's not under the new system. If he wants to be medium, do we really know if he's medium because he hasn't had a scoring system put against him under the new system." Look, it was value for money to send Mr Henderson because value for money was a significant thing at that time. We didn't have much. He is an experienced prison officer, he is experienced in assessment even under the old system, and at the time he was working at Hakea doing program assessment within that role. So it was a bit value for money in that if we sent one person, we didn't have to send two. So yes, he was sent down and then the assessment was done against the new system which actually gave us a score in relation to medium. The discussion about Bunbury - because I spoke to Mr Henderson because he went, it was very much saying, "Look, value for a dollar. You're going down" - you know, was he available? I had to get him off Mr Bandy first because Mr Bandy didn't have the capacity to free up staff either. So again it was another negotiation to be able to let him go down and it was about just getting on track. So the discussion about whether in fact he was told whether SOMC wanted him to go to Bunbury, Bunbury was no secret. Bunbury was probably the only option we had. It wasn't a secret discussion about, "We'll set this up so he can go to Bunbury." The options were limited. If he came up medium, it was either stay at Albany or go to Bunbury. There was no particular specific science to the fact. It was that's how it fell out. So he went off and did it and that's how he came up and, okay, when you look back on it and you think, "Well, he'd only been down there a month" - but if it was to say, "What really is his security rating?" and, "Did he really need to be on high security escort?" and those sorts of things, well, yes, they were tidied up.

10/8/05 TANG, J.T. 1486

Spark & Cannon 18/1/slh OIC/05 Is it fair to say though that when Mr Henderson was sent down, in terms of your discussion with him, that the context was that there was an expectation he would be going to Bunbury in the relatively near future, that the assessment was about, "Is he suitable for Bunbury rather than should he stay in Albany"?---Is he medium? That's the question. As one of the authors of the objective scoring system, I certainly wouldn't want the system fudged to suit Keating. That was the system: go down, look at Keating in relation to the scoring system and see what security rating comes up. I have no vested interest to whether Mr Keating is maximum, medium, Albany or Bunbury and I don't - you know, I think that's the thing, "Go down and let's establish where he's at." The view that he goes to Bunbury - well, let's face it, if Mr Henderson was going to Albany to do an assessment and Bunbury was 12 months away, well, you know, is it really honest to say that we weren't considering Bunbury as an option? We were, so he was to take that account in when he was looking at the reports. I would say - I can't recall the actual detail but, I mean, we're sending an officer down who's experienced in assessment, who's experienced in programs to look at what security rating he falls out at then we know what we're dealing with. If it falls out as medium it's more than likely he's going to Bunbury. If you're looking at him probably it wouldn't be that far away before he was going to move, taking into account that the SOMC meetings were almost sort of quarterly, so how soon after we would consider that plan wasn't - I don't believe there was an actual date set but it wasn't next week, "Go down and we'll talk to you next week about what you found," but, "Go down and do your assessment and see what comes up." The meeting that did consider the plan was - or there were two, as we have said, 20 February 2002, which is document 419 - - -?---That was my birthday so I should remember that one, shouldn't I? Was it? Hopefully a memorable one too. Then there was another meeting on 13 March 2002, which is document 420. To be fair, I think it's the second of these documents, 420, that you referred to earlier in your evidence that - under the heading Progress at Albany you refer to the minutes recording and as far as your recollection was, the advice that you were given that Keating had achieved all the goals set for him at Albany and didn't see why he couldn't continue to progress?---And if you look under General Information above reference was made to a letter received from Paul Keating in which he outlined his reasons for requesting a transfer to Bunbury. Consequently the superintendent at Bunbury had been contacted to ascertain his view - I'm not sure by whom - regarding the possibility of Paul transferring there and the ability of Bunbury to provide appropriate care for Paul. The superintendent of Bunbury could not see any impediment to his transfer - to 10/8/05 TANG, J.T. 1487 12.13

Spark & Cannon 18/2/slh OIC/05 the transfer, so there we have the two prisons who - one is saying, "Achieved all the goals. Best perhaps he should move on," and we have the receiving prison saying - I'm not saying they were happy about receiving him, I need to be really clear about that. They said there was no impediment to his transfer so they weren't saying, "Well, come with open arms. We've got a cell for you," "Yes, we'll take him because really we don't have a reason not to take him." Nevertheless, with hindsight it does appear to have been a quite rapid progression to a medium security prison from having moved out of restrictive regimes in October of 2001?---As I said to you the other day, when you look back and you think, "Well, he's just moved out of the sex offender treatment program so with that unit" - which wasn't like the SHU but it was restricted in the sense of your movement within the prison, and then you look back and you think, "Well, he moved to Albany and within four months he's at Bunbury" - I would probably say that when we were talking about him going to Albany, if that was put together as a plan for us I'm not sure that we would've approved it outright up-front, but as things progressed and he progressed then that moved. With hindsight, should we have said when he moved to Albany, "We'll review you in six months," which was generally the review time? Perhaps we should've.

10/8/05 TANG, J.T. 1488

Spark & Cannon 19/1/nal OIC/05 The next step in relation to his progress was the preparation of the prerelease program for him and I think ultimately once that came to the Parole Board and the matter then - it was finally sent to the Parole Board - this is document 548 - would have been - am I correct in thinking the last occasion on which you sat on that committee?---Yes, because I moved to community justice services in December 2002. So you weren't involved in the difficult question of what's to be done with him once the attorney-general has knocked back the prerelease program and he's gone as far as he can go in terms of progress within the system?---No, I wasn't but can I comment on that? Sure?---The difficulty we have as a department is that we have no capacity - either the Parole Board or the courts - well, as it is we don't have anyone in prison who will never be released, if I recall correctly, and the Parole Board is not in a position to say, "Do not send this case back for review because we don't want to see it again because you're not getting out." Therefore, there is a handful of prisoners that perhaps they should never be released or their risk is so high that we shouldn't even be going there. Whilst there is no legislation which allows us to say to people, "You are not getting out. It's been clear from the Parole Board or from the courts you are not getting out therefore, we are not offering you rehabilitation. We are offering you management back into the system and managing you in relation to how you will reside in our prisons." Whilst it is the way it is that each - if every 12 months the Parole Board is calling for a review or in fact the decision is review when risk of reoffending is reduced, if you look at it clearly as a process issue if that prisoner is told they have to reduce their risk of reoffending to move to the next stage how are they to do that? So the dilemma that Bunbury had was he's in medium security, he appears to be responding to education and otherwise within the unit and they put up that - you know, because although I'm not managing that particular area I'm still aware of, you know, these particular cases - they put up for minimum because that was the next stage. Now, it was outside the prerelease process and highly unusual that you would do that outside the prerelease - it's not saying you can't do it but because the authority to change security rating rests with the department not the Parole Board that - the thing is that you have to manage what the - what was put on him as far as, "Well, reduce your risk of reoffending and demonstrate it before you move," as opposed to what expectation you would give him should you put him at minimum because once you're at minimum you're on the train out. Therefore, it doesn't guarantee you're going to get to the station but, I mean, you're on your way. So if in this case he was put at minimum - well, it was difficult to put him at minimum 10/8/05 TANG, J.T. 1489 12.19

Spark & Cannon 19/2/nal OIC/05 because the view was he wasn't going anywhere, so it would be a somewhat brave decision to put him at minimum and the decision was, "No, don't put him at minimum," but I can see the struggle that the operational people would have had with, I presume, the people in sentence management, though I make an assumption there. What is it that you need to do to get this magic, you know, risk of reoffending, if you are not on home leave, if you are not on section 94, if you are not in minimum security; you are basically in a medium security facility doing what you're doing? But on the same time to progress it to that next stage was the expectation and would have been contrary to other decisions made in other areas, so, no, I wasn't a part of those discussions but I am well aware of the dilemmas that presented both professional and operational staff about how you do that. Keating's not the only one that's going to present that difficulty for us. There are prisoners now who, you know - it's the conflict and struggle between what the department does and then ultimately is there going to be a release - largely because you don't have that legislative base which says, you know, "You're not going out." In my view it would be so much easier for the department if they said, "Mr Smith, you're not going anywhere and we will just manage you back into the system." The struggle would fall away.

10/8/05 TANG, J.T. 1490

Spark & Cannon 20/1/mjd OIC/05 Even if it was not - for example, as you said there aren't any prisoners for whom there has been a sentence imposed by a court which is a never to be released, never to be considered for parole, but even if there were a prospect, for example, that the Parole Board or whoever is considering the decisions says, "This person is unlikely to be released in the foreseeable future" and set the review dates accordingly so that you're not coming back every year. Is that one way of dealing with it - - -?---Well, if I recall rightly and I will have to go right back into the archives but there are certain review dates sent by the act which says you will need to come back every 12 months given the nature - - - Yes. I'm giving you a free reign and imagine that the act didn't say that for a moment but in terms of management of expectations of prisoners - - -?---"Well, I'll see you in five years." Yes?---"Great, okay, we know we have got you for five years, you're not going anywhere." The other thing is that, you know, the indeterminent and life sentence nature means that the Parole Board can't deny but with the other parole sentences they can deny and they can give reasons why, you know, you can't deny but so the most serious offences the board in effect doesn't have the capacity to deny whereas in the lesser sentences they do and the person eventually walks, you know, without any supervision but I mean - so that's the problem. There is no law which says you can say, "Don't be released." In terms of the difficulty with expectation, there's an additional problem with indeterminent and life sentence prisoners in that the Parole Board may well at great length recommend a pre-release program but it only takes one tick or cross for the attorney-general or the minister for justice to refuse that that occur?---Yes, they have the decision-making power and can exercise that decision making. Yes. If it please you, sir, I have no further questions for Ms Tang. MAHONEY, MR: We have talked about a number of things before and thank you very much for what you have said. Just a couple of matters. Ms Doyle spoke in the public hearings a few days ago and you and she were credited, if that's the correct word - - -?---Perhaps partners in crime, I'm not sure. - - - with the preparation of the classification system that we now use?---Yes. I said to her, look, if you were given a free hand what improvements would you attempt to make to it. In effect 10/8/05 TANG, J.T. 1491 12.25

Spark & Cannon 20/2/mjd OIC/05 she said none, that she didn't think there could be an improvements to it. Is that your view?---My view is, and I've argued this right from the point that the classification assessment tool has come in, is that that is one aspect of a very comprehensive assessment within a dynamic environment. So, yes, I think you could look at the tool and say, not in - you can't just look at the tool and say, "Well, we need to do an evaluation," and that was another thing with the integrated prison regime, that the money that we had to do the evaluation if it was introduced was also no longer available. So you need people who can go and look at and the impact and make suggestions and I think there would always be a capacity to improve, you know, the weightings, whether in fact you add some additional ones like at the time - and she probably talked to you about this - is that we wanted age to be a factor because we find that the older prisoners were, in a sense, more settled than that very young group which were impulsive and may have got shorter sentences but their impulsivity meant that they're reactive and tended to escape. So we almost wanted to provide an incentive for the older prisoners to move to minimum so we wanted a more stable population. So that was something that we wanted but we weren't permitted to put that in because apparently equal opportunity and because the attorney at the time said that we weren't permitted to. He felt it was discriminatory against certain groups. The other aspects is, well, you know, you just need to look at the tool and maybe the issue around convictions and institutional violence but I said, "But, again, if looking at Keating's case was it the fault of the tool, was that in error or was it the practice of the prison which actually didn't raise it as a charge or a conviction?" So I would probably say, "Look, I'm open to the fact that, yes, we did an assessment tool, we did it some years ago and I think that you can look at it and say, "Well, okay, let's look at the escapes we have had, you know, what are the nature - were they overrides, did they - were they actually eights and they had ran away?" The other thing is that I have a - I've always had a morbid fear that people only look at the number. So you come up a six or you come up an eight, what you've got to look at is the factors that determine that scoring system, not just that you're a particular level and then you've got to look at beyond that. We used to say that it's one thing to make a security rating classification and send someone, for example, to Wooroloo but it doesn't mean that that person just sits there. That's when the operational and the dynamic environment of how a prison is run will impact on that person and whether they are still considered to be minimum. I can send someone to minimum who might score a five but then for whatever reason that they're within the prison, they may have had, you know, news from home or had an argument with one of their mates or, you know, they got onto drugs and therefore, you know, their decision making ability was limited that that's the role of operation. Like, I - I 10/8/05 TANG, J.T. 1492

Spark & Cannon 20/3/mjd OIC/05 can't emphasise the value of operational staff in saying that, "Joe Bloggs is going along, he's really good," but all of a sudden he's introverted or alternatively he's aggressive or he's not turning up for work on time. The role of the prison officer is to show and feed back those behavioural differences, so to improve - as we talked about previously about, "How do you improve the escape rate?" you can't do it by a tool. A single tool is not going to do that, it's about the skill of your staff, their observation skills, the interventions that you have, the visits arrangements that many people have. It's just such a dynamic environment that you can press something here and three things pop up here. Unless you have some idea of what it creates then you will have problems because you just can't look at it singly.

10/8/05 TANG, J.T. 1493

Spark & Cannon 21/1/slh OIC/05 But if you are going to apply the questionnaire - - -? ---Yes. - - - which seems to involve identifying factors then giving weight to them in numbers and then saying, "The final number puts you here, here or here in the - - -"? ---Yes. "- - - prison system," if you are going to apply it according to that, then how do you feed into the reassessment of it the kind of reaction of the prison officer on the ground that you have been talking to? ---Because the prison officer - - - You have got to do it on the override, haven't you?---Well, the prison officer writes the report so you have a tool. Let's say one of the perhaps negatives of the initial scoring system is it tends to rate people higher than they would've under the old system. It's not necessarily a bad thing but it does hold them perhaps at a higher level for six months because we're saying, "Let's look at the static factors." When you look at the subsequent classification review it's used as a tool for the prison officer to prepare the report, it's not - the sentence management or prison operations is not just handed the questionnaire, it's used as an assessment tool to write the report, so if in fact - when you're looking at the factors in relation to the classification review, then there needs to be some - if there's an issue with any one of the factors - say, for example, visits. He might get regular visits from his wife and you might score that as really positive because his wife turns up every week with her four kids. The fact that he's highly abusive to her and aggressive to his children needs to be commentated on because you can't just say, "Well, his wife visits. He has family contact," it's what's the nature of the family contact, so those sorts of things need to be in the report. I don't favour that override, it should be an exception and you should argue the point on that, but, I mean, it is the capacity to have override but if you consider that the assessment tool is something that feeds into the report and then there's commentary and then take into account that the prison officer presents that to case conference and then there's a further discussion and then if something needs to go in that report further before a decision is made then it can be. But it means, doesn't it, that the fact that you have answered question 3 or 4 or whatever it may be by saying, "Yes, there have been some escapes but the escapes were the result of a family crisis at home and they have got to be weighed accordingly," that can only get into the numbers by the override, can't it?---Well, see, the number - the override is saying - the number determines the first cut as to whether you go minimum, medium or maximum. The override 10/8/05 TANG, J.T. 1494 12.31

Spark & Cannon 21/2/slh OIC/05 doesn't change the number, it just says that you - instead of being minimum - for example - okay, if you are - - - I'm not quite sure that you are biting on the point that I'm making?---Okay. What I'm suggesting to you is that if you apply the system according to its terms you can't take into account those more ephemeral factors to which - - -?---Yes. - - - we have both been referred to and that the only way in the end they can be taken into account, as they should, is by overriding the figure that the test throws up? ---Overriding the outcome, so if - - - I'm not suggesting that's a bad thing, I'm trying to get it right what happens?---Yeah, you don't actually change the score, so the score might be, for example, an eight, however, the circumstances of the factors - you might say, "Well, given this he actually is suitable for minimum," so you actually don't override the number, the number sits there as a number 8 and then you move from medium down to minimum. When you ask the question of, "How can you improve it?" - like, I don't know whether anyone has had any time to say, "Let's look at the number of overrides that are in the system of people who are at minimum and let's have a double-check of how they got there and is the override appropriate for, you know, moving from 9." I give - one example is that there was a case where we were moving prisoners into Nyandi, the women prisoners. We couldn't get enough people - enough women from Bandyup to go into Nyandi, we just didn't have the minimum security numbers. That was largely because they were short-term so they were held at a high level because of that initial scoring. It may've been drug use and all those sorts of things. The comment was put to me, "Well, we'll just have to throw out the security rating scoring tool for women. We'll just put them through under the old system," and I sat there and explained that the whole purpose of this security rating system was that if you didn't have enough people at minimum whose cut-off was six as the score, then the department could make a strategic decision and say, "We are now raising the level and anyone who is at seven can now go to minimum." Understanding that when you raise it to seven you raise the risk, but you're not going and reassessing everyone. You're just lining up all the sevens now and saying have a - - -

10/8/05 TANG, J.T. 1495

Spark & Cannon 22/1/glj OIC/05 You made that point to me in our previous discussions? ---Yeah, but, I mean, what that demonstrated was that you can look at the numbers and say, "Well, can we raise the risk?" or if in fact that we're having a high number of escapes, saying, "Whoops, what are we doing? Perhaps we should lower it to a four or to a five and let's take some time to look at why people are leaving." So it's a bit of a regulator. It's not the answer to everything. Certainly not, and you have the capacity to override in your comments by discussing with your senior officer, with your ASPM, with your case conference, and ultimately with sentence management. So there is the capacity to have that input and when I go back to the scoring system, you know, often people will say, "Well, we managed okay under 2B. We knew our gut feeling was right," and when we sat down with those assistant superintendents and said, "Well, okay, tell me when someone comes in what are the things that go through your guts and through your head as to what you think about?" "Well, we look at the nature of the offending; we look at whether they've got any escapes; we look at whether they have family" - so it was really a combination of all their gut feelings and putting it on a system in front of them. So, you know, there's no absolute answer to this, but, I mean, if you get it right most of the time then you have to accept there's an occupational hazard to putting people at minimum. Let me move to a related matter. Analysing what we are about in the classification system generally, one thing that occurs to me as perhaps being right is that the function of the classification system is essentially to make sure that only the right people get into minimum security. Do you follow what I'm - - -?---Yes. In other words, if you classify somebody as maximum or medium it doesn't matter much, there are not many consequences, except to the individual of course which I take account of but nothing much can go wrong if you put them there, but what can go wrong is if you put the wrong people into minimum because you will have escapes and you will have perhaps Keating sort of attack in minimum and so on. So, boiled down, the main function of classification system is to make sure that only the right people get into minimum. Now, is that more or less right?---The tool was no more or no less a determination as to the likelihood of whether someone would escape. It wasn't about their risk of reoffending, whether they were in the community or when they were subject to escape; it was just narrowing down that if someone responded positively within the system, either at maximum or medium that they went to, because they had demonstrated that positive response over a period of time, the likelihood when they got to minimum was that they would comply also.

10/8/05 TANG, J.T. 1496 12.37

Spark & Cannon 22/2/glj OIC/05 But isn't it necessary if you are going to put somebody into minimum that you not merely test your prediction as to whether he's apt to escape, but also whether with the freedom being in minimum he's likely to hit somebody on the head?---I would probably beg to differ in a certain extent. You made the comment that we would have a Keating case in minimum. I think probably I would say that rather than hitting someone, they would quietly leave the facility. There's probably more propensity for violence within medium and maximum and on an escort in relation to a medium and maximum because of the need to physically get out. If you're in a minimum security facility without a fence, there's no need for a violence to occur for you to escape: you walk out the door at night. So, again, you need an operational person to give you a view on that. But in minimum you are subject to much less supervision - - -?---Yes. - - - than you are in maximum or medium?---Yes. And therefore you are much more able, if the impulse strikes you, to hit somebody on the head. Isn't that something that before you put somebody into a minimum security prison you ought to attempt to assess, and I have in mind Keating there because Keating's aptitude to do what he did - if you were putting him in a minimum security you're giving him a free go?---Yes, but the tool wasn't set up to do that. However, the psychological - - - Exactly, so it's not - - -?---No, it's not.

10/8/05 TANG, J.T. 1497

Spark & Cannon 23/1/rds OIC/05 Should it not be?---Well, you then ask the question, "What are the purposes of Mr Harrison's report or other reports about the risk of reoffending in the community?" So we're saying that if someone such as Keating - and he didn't get to minimum but I mean, if you were looking at him going to - when you're looking at a prerelease program, you're ultimately looking at how that person would respond in the community and to get to the community, they have to almost go through the hurdle of the minimum security community. So the risk of reoffending is taken into account in the sense that you wouldn't be placing someone who is an indeterminate or a lifer at minimum unless you'd already determined that the likelihood of them succeeding in the community was high, so you wouldn't put them on that track. The irony of indeterminate and life sentences bring, placed at minimum, they actually posed, up until recently, the lowest problems for us. They get through their sentence, they rarely escape and we've had these two incidents - some would argue you could connect them in a way of the anxiety that one offence has created for another but, you know, that such an assessment - to get on prerelease program, it's not just one tool which says, "You're now minimum security." There's extensive assessments as far as program intervention, risk of reoffending in relation to community corrections reports about suitability for home leave. It's just - you're assessed to the hilt as to whether you're suitable because of the nature of your offence and your sentence. Let me move to something else which I hope I can draw from your experience. The minimum security prisons - and I'm looking at Karnet and Wooroloo - have a fairly small number of prisoners, taking into account the fact that you have 3 and a half thousand prisoners all told, about 2,900 if you exclude the remand prisoners?---Yes. Who are the people in minimum security? Am I right in thinking that they consist of essentially two groups - and I will be glad of your correction in this - namely the prerelease people who are coming through the system and people who are not in a prerelease program because they are not lifers or indeterminate sentenced prisoner but people with substantial sentences but who have been brought forward, as appropriate, through the ordinary parole system? Are they the two groups or is there a third group of people who are not going to go through parole or prerelease but just happen to be in minimum security because they are good people or it's a reward or whatever be the reason? With that preamble, have I got it right as to the composition of the minimum security prison?---Yes, you have because there's all sorts of sentences that people have. You might have fine defaulters who are just serving fines, so they might be in minimum. However, they might also be in medium. They're unlikely to be in maximum if

10/8/05 TANG, J.T. 1498 12.43

Spark & Cannon 23/2/rds OIC/05 they're fine defaulters only. There you've got, as you say, the prerelease, you've got the parole releases, so there's all sorts there as far as the nature of their sentence. What we're looking at as far as their scoring instrument is the nature of their offending, current, past and within prison plus other factors. So we've determined that these people are suitable for minimum because they fit the criteria that we've set. So, you know, there's even minimum security people in the higher security prisons which might be - they are minimum as an individual but require high protection, so they are in Casuarina. So there's a mixture. It's across the board as to where they are. Some of them aren't in Karnet because there's not room for them?---They may be on a waitlist waiting to go there. That's quite right. So that Karnet and Wooroloo would consist of prerelease, people on parole - - -?---Waiting for parole. Waiting for parole who have been deemed appropriate for that and then a miscellaneous group of people, fine defaulters or people who are - - -?---A finite sentence, yes. - - - white-collar crime or whatever who are never going to escape anyway, so you put them into minimum security? ---Yes, or they're serving a finite term, so they don't have a parole option on their sentence. They have just been told they will serve seven months, there's no parole option. So, you know, they might be making their way out towards the end. There's the others - yes; so that's basically who they are. It's a mixture. Let me take it further. Is there any dissection possible of the number of each of these groups who have escaped; for example, we have the prerelease people, we have had Edwards who has escaped - - -?---They're the smallest number. They are a small number. Only about five or six at a time, I think, aren't there?---Yes; probably up to 10, maybe, maximum.

10/8/05 TANG, J.T. 1499

Spark & Cannon 24/1/nal OIC/05 We have had Cross, who was in the parole area group, has escaped. Have there been any escapes in the miscellaneous group?---Look, probably. Absolutely. You put people at minimum - put a group of people at minimum, depending on their circumstances they could go but I suppose what - - - So that you can't say because he's in this category of minimum security people he's not going to escape. There have been escapes in each group?---Perhaps I can assist you by other discussions that I have had around fine default. Some say to me - it's been put to me that if you were a fine default person you are only purely in on not being able to pay your fines, so it's an affluence issue, then you should go straight to minimum. Now, that to me is not how you make those decisions because being a fine defaulter is a point of time perhaps in your criminal history. So in fact you might have been an armed robber eight years ago or you might have just finished on parole and you're just cleaning up some fines, or you may have in fact escaped before last time you were in. So the fact that you are deemed to be under the criteria of a fine defaulter this time tells me nothing, so therefore you should still need to assess - because the last thing the department wants is to say, "Well, all those" - I think there's about just under 50 fine defaulters, purely on fine default - to say, "Okay, all fine defaulters who are currently in medium" - where they would generally be if they're not in minimum - "are now going to minimum." We don't know - we haven't done an assessment, we haven't said anything about them. Now, if four of those ran away tonight would the media or anyone else be focusing on the fact that they were in there for a $400 fine? They wouldn't be. They would be commenting on the fact that they were an armed robber eight years ago and what are they doing at minimum. So you can't - - - You're not suggesting, surely, that we should run the prison system according to the media would do?---Absolutely not but we can't run it in - - - God forbid?---No. Is irony allowed in circumstances like this?---No, we don't and that's why we need an objective system, so that we are not responding to the media reaction that we shouldn't have certain people at minimum. We are saying these people by our criteria fit the minimum security. If we start getting into debate about well, these certain people - because there's a community outrage - we need to stand by what we think is appropriate. If we are challenged on that and found to be wrong then that's fair enough but if we try to manage by media you're all over the place because it all depends on what the comment is on the day and those things. You can't run a system constantly reacting to that. We do react to it in some circumstances because, for one, we are 10/8/05 TANG, J.T. 1500 12.49

Spark & Cannon 24/2/nal OIC/05 obliged in the sense that if there's a community outrage then we can't be seen to be indifferent to the community. Seriously, it's something that I've got to look at and which I will look at it?---Yes. Let me take it a step further. Focusing, as I do, upon this minimum security classification, because that's where the escapes occur, you have people who - to use the phrase we've used before - work the system to get themselves into minimum security and I suspect Cross may well have been one of those. How do you deal with the problem when you're coming to classification of the prisoner who is working the system? Is the only answer, "Well, that's a matter for the judgment of the case officer." Can you do any better than that?---Can I do any better than that? Let me try. From what I know of Cross - - - I don't mean whether you do any better but can one do any better?---Cross was a case where - and someone needs to correct me if I'm wrong but I think he scored about an eight on the security classification system, so the question is then if the comment is "he worked the system" for a start he wasn't in the system. He had to be brought into the system because he was in under the old system. Basically, maybe if he was actually in the system he would have come up earlier but, I mean, he would still come up as an eight, which is medium. So, okay, what is it when you say he works the system? If he's an eight that needs to be an override to go to minimum. So he's asked the question, "Can I go to minimum? I want to work in the abattoir" - so if in fact - I don't know the question and whether Karnet agreed, "Yes, we knew it was an override and was prepared to take him," and then the officers - the fact that they had known him for a long time and considered him to be, you know, a good prisoner as such - like, the officers still had to put it through case conference and still had to go up the system to get that approval. But in his case, if I may oversimplify, he came up for assessment by Mr Pierre who was his case officer, and Pierre says he was a model prisoner - I think that was the phrase he used - and that went through the system up to the case conference and up to, I think, Ms Doyle or whoever was making the decision but it was, one may suspect, because he had been a model prisoner with what that involved that he got himself classified for minimum security. If that meant that he worked the system by having a clean cell and all the things that are involved, then how does one deal with that other than saying, "Well, it was Mr Pierre's judgment. He had to make up his mind whether that meant he had changed his character or whether he was merely putting on a front." Do you follow my - - -?---Yes, and I suppose it comes back to the initial discussion we had about the weight we give to operational staff. In this instance significant weight was given to the operational staff view, 10/8/05 TANG, J.T. 1501

Spark & Cannon 24/3/nal OIC/05 not, you know, saying, "You work with this person on a day-to-day basis and therefore you've made this determination that an override is appropriate." The other complication with Cross as I see it is that because he was never in the system he was never assessed for a program until such time later - quite late, so there may have also been - and I'm not privy to the discussions but there might have also been a discussion about, "Well, if we had actually provided the service as required to him earlier he would have got to a program earlier and then would have actually been reduced to minimum because in fact he's undertaken a program." Whether that was an error of judgment saying, "We should have reviewed him earlier, we didn't, we've actually disadvantaged the prisoner in their ability to go to minimum so therefore because he's done everything else right within the system and he's been in the system a long time" - and to, you know, beat the system or, you know, play the system, you know, that person would have to have demonstrated over a long period of time their response to that system so therefore, okay, the decision was made and, okay, with hindsight you can say, "Well, it was the wrong decision," but decisions are made every day about - - -

10/8/05 TANG, J.T. 1502

Spark & Cannon 25/1/slh OIC/05 If I were to summarise your answer to my question it would be, yes, it really depends upon the sense of the case officer to deal with prisoners who were working the system?---Well, I suppose rather than just say yes, on one hand operational staff are saying, "We want to be involved." I believe it's the department's view that they are involved and should more be involved by giving them greater skills to do that. Therefore, in this case sentence management perhaps did agree to the override on the basis of the information which was received from Bunbury and I presume received from Karnet as well, I don't know that side of it, but, I mean, yes, if that's the information coming up to the person who's making the decision then that's what the decision was made on. If there was some working of the system, well then the person who was conveying the information was the prison officer. Do we need any more of Ms Tang at the moment, Mr - - - QUINLAN, MR: No, sir, I think we can let her go. MAHONEY, MR: You can go off and perhaps - - -?---I have parole, do I? - - - have some lunch. You will no doubt be back for other things, Ms Tang, but - - -?---Will I? Okay, thank you. Thank you very much for what you have done. We will adjourn then until 2 o'clock. (Luncheon adjournment)

10/8/05 TANG, J.T. 1503 12.55

Spark & Cannon 26/1/rds OIC/05 MAHONEY, MR: Yes, Mr Quinlan? QUINLAN, MR: Yes. May it please you, sir, I call Terence William Simpson. SIMPSON, TERENCE WILLIAM sworn: MAHONEY, MR: Yes, Mr Quinlan? QUINLAN, MR: Mr Simpson, your full name is Terence William Simpson. Is that correct?---That's correct. You were previously the executive director of prisons within the Department of Justice. Is that correct?---Yes, that's correct. You left the department - retired from the department on 11 October last year?---Yes, correct. Prior to being - I think the position you were in when you left was executive director of prisons. In terms of the previous structural arrangements of the ministry and then the department, that role or that position came under other names. I think it was general manager public prisons at one point. Is that correct?---It came under the title general manager prison services. General manager prison services. Was that the name of it when you originally went into that role?---That's right, yes. When did you commence in that position?---I commenced in that position on 15 March 1999. You were, in effect, in that position with the different names until you retired from the department in October last year?---That's right, yes. In terms of the structure of the department, your position was one which directly reported to the CEO of the department of the director general?---Yes, that's right. For the entire time that you held that position, Mr Piper, held the position of director general?---That's correct, yes. Could you tell us something of your - prior to that period when you were effectively the head of the prisons division, if you like, of the department, just give us a brief history of your experience and work history in relation to the corrections area?---Prior to my appointment? Yes?---Prior to my appointment - well, I guess I began work as a social worker in Queensland in the 1970s, working in the area of child welfare and juvenile offending and 10/8/05 SIMPSON, T.W. 1504 2.02

Spark & Cannon 26/2/rds OIC/05 through various positions. I went from there to the Northern Territory where I held the position of assistant director welfare services which was responsible for child welfare and juvenile justice services for the Northern Territory. I came to Western Australia in 1985 to take up a position with the then Department for Community Services where I had the portfolio responsibility for juvenile justice services through Western Australia and was also responsible for the metropolitan region. When I left that department I went to Justice initially as the executive director corporate services which was not a correctional position, although I was responsible for the procurement process for what is now Acacia Prison, the first - contracting for the first private prison in Western Australia and it was in that environment of a public - sorry, a government policy of contestability around correctional services that the position that I ultimately applied for and got was created. I want to ask you effectively your evidence in relation to some particular matters concerning the management of Paul Keating's case?---Yes. Then I will go on to some general issues concerning the department and seek your comments in relation to some broader structural questions. In relation to the case of Paul Stephen Keating, you would have come into contact with the question of his management, I take it, on numerous occasions during the course of your period as executive director of the prisons division?---Yes, that's correct. The general progression of his case, I take it, was not something which you had any hands-on responsibility for but he, I take it you became aware fairly on, was somebody who involved outside agencies and wrote to you directly in relation to his management. Is that correct?---Yes, certainly. I can't recall precisely but my recollections are that my earliest contacts in relation to Keating were letters he wrote to the ombudsman, to myself, to various other people, yes.

10/8/05 SIMPSON, T.W. 1505

Spark & Cannon 27/1/nal OIC/05 In the context of his management, at one point a management plan was developed, which we have had in evidence, and ultimately at the beginning of 2000 a serious offenders management committee was formed to take over the development and ongoing management of that management plan. Can you tell us something of what role you had in the establishment of that serious offenders management committee and what the function of it was within the structure of the prisons division?---Yeah. My recollection is that the committee in some respects grew out of a number of high profile cases, including that of Paul Keating, that were receiving fairly regular attention by the ombudsman. One of the issues that was becoming apparent was that there wasn't always consistent views in different parts of the system in terms of his management and that applied also to other prisoners but also that prisoners such as Keating were very quick to pick up on even the most minor inconsistencies and ambiguities between the information that they received from one part of the system and another and wished to take up grievances in relation to that. So my recollection is that initially the group got together informally by Glenn Ross who was the manager of the forensic case management team as a way of getting some relevant parties together on these cases and I think particularly Keating but a few others. I then, at a later stage, formalised that committee and asked Tony Leach, whose job at that stage was director metropolitan prisons, to actually formally take charge of and chair that committee to give it a level of authority in terms of the outcomes of the matters that it was dealing with. What was intended to be its relationship with the existing decision-making bodies in relation to classification or case management and matters of that kind where there were existing director-general's rules which reposed certain delegated authority and particular positions? Was it contemplated that this committee would take over those roles in relation to these prisoners or that it would be functioning as an information gathering and advisory body? ---My recollection of that is that certainly it wouldn't take over from them, that the DG's rules provided for formal decision-making processes but I think there was two important roles it would play. The first is that there are a lot of things happen between formal case conferences, so there's a lot of management of issues, a lot of things that still require the people involved to be largely singing from the same song sheet and heading in the same direction towards achieving consistent goals for the particular offender. With this small group of particularly complex and difficult cases it was seen that something outside of that formal structure was needed to really galvanise the relevant people to keep on a similar track but quite obviously because of the level of seniority of the people who were involved in that the decisions coming out of SOMC would have considerable weight once it came to the formal 10/8/05 SIMPSON, T.W. 1506 2.08

Spark & Cannon 27/2/nal OIC/05 decision-making processes but I didn't ever see it as taking over from those processes as outlined under the DG's rules. In relation to Keating, I think when he first - when that committee was first formed he was in restrictive regimes, either multi-purpose units or the special handling unit at Casuarina Prison and one of the issues was whether he'd be involved in sex offender treatment programs in order to get him into the mainstream of the prison environment. I take it that was a process that you were aware of, at least in terms of the general intention that he should be gradually reintroduced into the mainstream of the prison environment?---Yeah, in fact early on I did attend one meeting of the SOMC committee and that was very much a key part of the issues being discussed, that against the background of his behaviour towards a previous facilitator of a sex offender treatment program whether it was safe and reasonable for him to be admitted to another program, and it's fair to say that views amongst the group of people around the table weren't all consistent at that point, so that a key role of the committee was to get to a stage where the decision-making was all heading in one direction.

10/8/05 SIMPSON, T.W. 1507

Spark & Cannon 28/1/glj OIC/05 Eventually he did get onto that program and in 2001 there were proposals to move him to Albany Regional Prison and to prepare new management plans in relation to him?---Yes. At around that time there is correspondence between yourself and the inspector of custodial services concerning Keating's management. If I just put an example on the screen, document 500 is a letter from the inspector to you in relation to Keating, and this is dated 14 August, where the inspector refers to minor systemic changes: I feel I must put on record my concern about the manner in which Mr Keating's case has been handled. There have been numerous changes of intention and he has been given quite a lot of conflicting information as the weeks have gone by - and similarly at document 498, there's a correspondence of 17 December 2001 which refers to an individual management plan being determined for him since he has been at Albany: "Frankly it's little more than a mish-mash of previous reports and comments," et cetera. To your recollection was it a usual practice that the inspector would become involved in the case of a particular prisoner in that way? ---No, it wasn't a usual practice and in fact the legislative mandate he has, from my recollection, specifically precluded that. The movement that occurred from Casuarina in restrictive regimes into Albany and then into Bunbury Prison appears to have happened quite rapidly. He went from restrictive regimes in Casuarina to Albany in October and then a decision was made to move him to Bunbury in March of the following year. Were you aware at the time of the pace with which he was moving through the system?---Look, I was indirectly aware. At one time when I was visiting Albany Prison whilst Mr Keating was in Albany, the superintendent apprised me of how he was going and was fairly positive about the way he'd fitted in and the progress he appeared to be making, and as an aside said to me that, you know, there's even consideration of him being reduced to medium in the near future. That certainly, yeah, did surprise me. I wasn't a part of the decision to do so, but I was certainly aware it was under consideration. When he moved to Bunbury in the first half of 2002 there were then proposals for him to go on a prerelease program and those proposals went backwards and forwards between the department and the Parole Board, and in December you wrote to the Parole Board in relation to the matter - this is document 433 - bringing to the attention of the board concerns you had regarding the progress of Mr Keating towards a prerelease program; this was dated 6 December 2002. Can you just tell us how it was that you became aware that this proposal was taking place and what your 10/8/05 SIMPSON, T.W. 1508 2.14

Spark & Cannon 28/2/glj OIC/05 concerns in relation to it were?---Okay. I became aware that Paul Keating was up for review as I think it's section 18 of the Sentence Management Act requires in relation to governor's pleasure prisoners. So I was certainly aware that there was consideration about to occur around that.

10/8/05 SIMPSON, T.W. 1509

Spark & Cannon 29/1/slh OIC/05 I guess - yeah, but it certainly did surprise me when I received documents for my signature before forwarding to the Parole Board which were actually recommending a prerelease program for Paul Keating. I was surprised, as you have put it, in terms of the rapidity with which he'd progressed from highly restricted special purpose accommodation in Casuarina to within just over a year being considered for a prerelease program. Yeah, my concerns were based on (a) my knowledge of his offending history, which was certainly at the very serious end of offending histories, but - and his history of conduct in prison, but I guess one of the things that stuck out in my mind was the many letters that you referred to that had come across my desk from Paul Keating. Really, only about - you know, the last of those would probably have been 12 to 18 months prior to the time that I was asked to consider the prerelease program. I guess what had always disturbed me about those letters was that the way they were expressed sort of I guess to me seemed to indicate a total self-absorption with not a lot of insight or apparent remorse for the many things he'd done to many people and almost an attitude that, "Well, the system owes me, you know, to open all the right doors for me on demand to make the progress that I wish." Now, that's probably a simplistic explanation but that did concern me. What also concerned me was the apparent very low tolerance of any level of frustration or ambiguity that would send him off in a written tirade. To me this sort of gave me a sense of foreboding as to how that might be expressed out in the community because a prison in fact is a far more ordered existence than life out in the community. If he was - I guess I had a strong concern that in view of the fairly recent low tolerance of frustration and ambiguity that he'd shown over decision-making in the prison system, how was he going to respond when hit with all of the stresses and ambiguities and frustrations of life in the community including in particular the first time he was rejected by a woman. I guess although I wasn't holding a view that therefore this man should never be considered for release, I was aware that there had been, you know, very strong and competent therapeutic efforts to address the issues that led to his offending and prepare him for release but I guess - but my feeling was that after that very long history of offending behaviour, institutionalisation, that it was all moving too fast. I had a sense that if there wasn't some circuit-breaker to slow it down then we could be seriously regretting it at some time in the future and hence I took, you know, the very unusual step. In fact, that's the only letter of its kind from me on file in the department of writing to the Parole Board expressing concern about plans that had been developed for one of the prisoners. From the point of view of the process; that is, the stage in the process at which you became aware how far his 10/8/05 SIMPSON, T.W. 1510 2.20

Spark & Cannon 29/2/slh OIC/05 progression had reached, have you got any comment to make in terms of your reaction as to that issue, the extent to which at the time you first became aware of the proposals for prerelease a certain amount of work had already gone into it and communications by the Parole Board and the Department of Justice had already taken place?---Yeah, and, look, that did take me by surprise because my first reaction when the papers came to me was to talk to the - I think it was the manager parole release and say, "Look, I've got some serious reservations about this. I don't think we should be recommending a prerelease program at this stage for Paul Keating." She said, "But it's too late for that, the Parole Board has already approved that he be - that a prerelease program be developed and has asked us to develop one so now we're responding to what in fact is a request from the Parole Board to prepare a prerelease program." I learned something about the internal processes that I wasn't aware of prior to that and that is that when I had on a number of occasions, for similarly serious offenders, signed off prerelease programs to go to the Parole Board, that there had already been an earlier step of the Parole Board endorsing a recommendation that the program be prepared. So as a result of that I had the procedures changed because I said, "Look, the most important decision for me to be involved in is whether or not there's a prerelease program and that's more critical than the details of that program, so in future I want to see them at that earlier stage," and that new process was instituted at that time.

10/8/05 SIMPSON, T.W. 1511

Spark & Cannon 30/1/rds OIC/05 The matter ultimately went to the Parole Board who amended the prerelease program, if you like, to put a portion of it in medium security but ultimately the attorney-general in 2003 refused approval for a prerelease program. Later in that year there developed a proposal put up by Bunbury Regional Prison to reduce Keating's security rating to minimum with or without a prerelease program and at that point, as we have heard evidence, there was a certain vexation within SOMC as to whether or not you had the authority to do that or whether the authority lay with somebody else and the matter was ultimately returned to you. Do you recall that occasion when that issue came up in relation to Keating and what was your response to those particular proposals?---Yes. Look, I do recall that and I don't think that was the only occasion that that issue came up. My response at the time was based on a view that I think has been pretty well adhered to within the department, that you don't put a prisoner in minimum security unless there is a documented decision that contemplates their release and particularly with prisoners who are on indeterminate sentences, we must contemplate the fact that they won't be released. That's the whole point of someone being on an indeterminate sentence, that it's only if those that need to be are satisfied that it's safe to do so that that person will ever be released. So the practice has been, and it's a practice that I strongly endorse, that you don't contemplate a movement to minimum security unless a decision has clearly been made that contemplates the release of that person. At that point in time the recommendation for a prerelease program had been rejected which means that the department could in no way assume that there was any sort of imminent likelihood of release and therefore he should stay at medium security. We have heard evidence from a number of people, both on the SOMC committee, for example, and particularly at the level of Bunbury Regional Prison in relation to that proposal. As to the desire to find some way of what's described as progressing the person further, to give them some way of demonstrating treatment or rehabilitation gains they have made by progressing further in the system, can I ask you to comment generally in relation to the philosophy of the department in relation to prerelease programs and the like as to the constant progression of a person's sentence?---Of the person's sentence? Yes. I don't know if I have made myself particularly clear?---Yes, you have. Look, the department's philosophy - and if I can speak more broadly than just indeterminate sentences - around progression of sentences and preparation of people for release into the community is that it's seen of high importance to be progressing people through the system in a way that will maximise the potential for their successful release into the community and, as a consequence, a cessation to their offending. The 10/8/05 SIMPSON, T.W. 1512 2.26

Spark & Cannon 30/2/rds OIC/05 re-entry program that was introduced as a budget initiative about two years ago I think is an important testament to that, that one of the key, I guess, indicators of successful reintegration into the community centres around the level of preparation for that person and the level of support once they leave. What that means is that ideally people moving from prison into the community - except those who are on very short sentences and have only been absent from the community for a short time - that for the rest, the longer they can reasonably spend in an environment that allows a degree of autonomy and freedom of decision-making, as they'll be required to make when they're released, the better their preparation for release.

10/8/05 SIMPSON, T.W. 1513

Spark & Cannon 31/1/glj OIC/05 So I think, you know, that's a philosophy that holds true for all categories of prisoners. For prisoners on very lengthy sentences such as lifers, those on governor's pleasure after long finite sentences et cetera that becomes even more paramount because the length of time that they'd been isolated from life in the community, the deskilling that they've experienced in terms of the ability to cope with life in the community is such that it's preferable that we have as gradual and orderly transition from what it's like being locked up in a cell for 12 hours a day behind the razor wire to what it will be like once you're a free person out in the community. In relation to lifers and indeterminate sentence prisoners, that philosophy which you described as being an important one - - -?---Yes. The relationship of that to the statutory review dates that are set for lifers and indeterminate prisoners, is there in your view a problem that arises in relation to the application of that philosophy to the statutory review dates themselves in terms of the way in which that date is viewed?---Look, I think that there is certainly an expectation amongst a lot of prisoners and I think to varying degrees this gets mirrored in the views of some people in the system that a statutory review date is the equivalent of an earliest eligibility date for release for a parole-type sentence and, you know, I can certainly recall years gone by when there were no statutory review dates and in fact for people on governor's pleasure or life sentences they often languished, forgotten, with very little active review as to whether the circumstances that led to that order being made originally still applied and whether it was safe to contemplate their release. Now, the important difference I see between an EED and a statutory review date is that a review date is only that, and what it's about is asking the question of whether the circumstances that led to this order being made - in Keating's case, governor's pleasure - whether those circumstances have changed sufficiently and the risk has reduced sufficiently that we could contemplate his future release at some stage, but also to ask the questions, "What's happening with him in the system? How is he being managed? Are the right things being done for his rehabilitation and preparation for release to the community," et cetera which is quite different from an EED for a parole sentence which still is based around risk to the community and whether it's safe to let a person out, but we're talking with a finite sentence about someone who is going to get out at some stage anyway, whereas with an indeterminate sentence - and I think it's not sufficiently appreciated that an indeterminate sentence can be for the remainder of a person's life. Now, obviously one would hope that the system and the individual can achieve changes that could preclude that because I don't think it's in 10/8/05 SIMPSON, T.W. 1514 2.32

Spark & Cannon 31/2/glj OIC/05 anybody's interest to have a whole lot of people who are never released, but those review dates shouldn't be treated as an EED; they should be treated as a review without necessarily an expectation as to what happens next. Or any presumption as to what result should be necessarily worked towards or be achieved by that date?---That's right, yeah. I think when I spoke to you the week before last you said that the statutory review date had been interpreted in a range of circles, that it's an eligibility for release date and that you almost need to prove why they shouldn't be released at that time rather than what should be the reverse, particularly on a governor's pleasure and to a certain extent on lifers, that if a court has put someone in prison potentially for the rest of their life because they're such a danger to the community, the onus should be to prove that it's safe to release them?---That's right, yeah.

10/8/05 SIMPSON, T.W. 1515

Spark & Cannon 32/1/nal OIC/05 The presumption or the starting point, if you like, in relation to a statutory review date for a indeterminate sentence is almost the opposite of what the presumption would be for an earliest eligibility date?---Certainly, yeah. That's my view and I know that that can be interpreted, I guess, as a fairly harsh view from the point of view of the person who people see needs to be given some hope in terms of the light at the end of the tunnel and something that they can work towards an aim for and many of the people in that situation have had tragic lives themselves but the people in that situation also have shown a potential to inflict huge tragedy on others and at the end of the day I think it's - if we err at all it should be erring on the side of community safety not the other way. I think that deals with the issues that I was going to ask in relation to the particular case, so I'm perhaps moving into the more ephemeral areas but hopefully I can ask some reasonably specific questions in relation to it. Firstly, concerning the structure of the department, and there's been a lot of talk and submissions made to the inquiry in relation to how the department is best structured, whether it's structured as a ministry encompassing the kind of broad activities that the department does now or whether it should be divided into separate corrections departments and leaving courts and matters of that kind out on their own. Before going to that question specifically, can I ask in terms of your experience as the executive director of prison services under a chief executive officer who is responsible for a broader area of governmental administration did that structure cause difficulties, in your view, in terms of the ability to effectively administer prison services in your role?---It did in that - I think that the perception of many would have been that I was in charge of prisons and had full responsibility for the operation of prisons and in many respects that's correct and certainly in terms of the strategic directions and change agenda and day-to-day management I did that. I think though that - yeah, with the structure that we had in fact the person with end of line responsibility for prisoners was not myself, it was the CEO of the department. I was exercising delegated authority and the CEO, as was his entitlement, would decide to what extent he would be involved in the detail or the decision-making over certain matters governing the management of prisons and - well, certainly in relation to, you know, budget issues, staffing issues, recruitment issues and a whole range of things like that, although, I guess - yeah, 90 per cent of the time that was not an issue. I think between the then CEO and myself we had a fairly strong shared overall vision for the type of system that we were aiming for and I felt I had his support for what I was putting in place to achieve that vision. There were lots of issues, as I said, particularly around resourcing and staffing matters and things like that where he would often intervene and make decisions that I 10/8/05 SIMPSON, T.W. 1516 2.38

Spark & Cannon 32/2/nal OIC/05 would have to wear and in many cases those decisions made my life more interesting. In the sense that you said that they were decisions you had to wear; you had to wear them in the sense - in one sense you had to wear them because he being the CEO had the right to make the particular decision?---Absolutely. But you also had - is it fair to say you also had to wear them in the sense that you had to wear them in front of the troops. They were then the ministry's or the department's decisions in relation to prisons which you had to be the face of to the people who were further down the line from you?---Yeah, quite definitely and, you know, it's - in terms of, I guess, ethical participation is part of a management team, you go out, you know, with a face of solidarity for what's been decided and you don't go out undermining that and that was certainly my view, so that whatever the decisions that were made, whether they were made at my level, the director-general's level or the minister's level - whenever I represented them within prisons it would be that, you know, this is the decision and I'm part of that, yeah.

10/8/05 SIMPSON, T.W. 1517

Spark & Cannon 33/1/mjd OIC/05 In terms of the resourcing issues we heard some evidence this morning from Ms Tang in relation to the integrated prison regimes project and resourcing issues that arose in the implementation of that. In the prisons area were there particular pressures on the prisons division in relation to resourcing that were greater than other aspects of the department?---Yeah, look there were and certainly there was a view that prisons were over-resourced and when I came into the job one of the key objectives given to me was to reduce the cost of imprisonment and based on - well, partly based on some published national comparative figures that we later found to be flawed which showed an unfavourable cost per prisoner per day comparison between Western Australia and other states but - and also based on public, private sector comparisons which weren't flawed, which were valid, that by and large - and this is across Australia and I think internationally to some extent that private prison systems have done it - the job more cheaply than public systems and so there was strong pressure that the public system approximate a lot more closely the cost profile of the private sector and so at the same time as being charged with implementing a major reform and development program across the prison system I was also faced with a restricting budget and in fact that was expressed in the form of annual 2 per cent cuts off the top of my budget and no additional money for extra initiatives such as the requirement that they all be found within. So it's not just within budget but the budget is reducing by 2 per cent was the target?---Yes and basically, you know, the classic doing more with less, yeah. Yes. That was, I think at the time, a general - there as a general government initiative to have reduction in public sector spending?---Yes, indeed. So the Department of Justice itself would have had - the whole department would have had targets to reduce budgets at the time. Is it the case that within the department the prisons division had budget reduction targets in addition to those which applied across the board?---Yes, that's right. So when we have heard, for example, and we have heard a lot of evidence in relation to the AIPR introduction and there was questions of case management that were introduced from 2001 and following and concerns raised in relation to funding extra positions for training or case management and coordinators and so on but the response was always they were to be - these things were to be done within existing resources. That was, in essence, the only response that could be made to any question about new resourcing. Is that fair to say?---Yeah, look there was one exception to that and that is for the establishment of the assessment centre at Hakea. I was successful in getting additional 10/8/05 SIMPSON, T.W. 1518 2.44

Spark & Cannon 33/2/mjd OIC/05 resources for prisons division from within the department for the establishment of that unit. But in terms then of the roll-out of the assessment system across other prisons and all of the training and other support inherent in that, there was - the expectation was that be done within, yeah. Now, going back then to that issue of the end of line responsibility for prisons, the fact that in the current structure the end of lien responsibility is with the CEO, although the day to day operational authority is with the executive director of prisons, is there a model in your view which is preferable in terms of reposing the responsibility and the day to day management in the same person and as a corollary of that does that necessitate a break up of the departmental structure?---Yeah, look I think there certainly - yeah, there's another model and I think if you look at other states in Australia and other jurisdictions around the world, you will find very commonly or almost universally there's a position titled Corrective Services Commissioner or something similar being the person with end of line statutory responsibility for correctional services.

10/8/05 SIMPSON, T.W. 1519

Spark & Cannon 34/1/slh OIC/05 That position got lost in the creation of the ministry then the Department of Justice . I think it's important that such a role be established. In the comments I made about, you know, what made life difficult for me, I wasn't criticising individuals, it was just that it was a structure where the decision-making kept bouncing up and down from one level to another; sometimes it would be made here, sometimes it would be made there. I think for a role that is as important and as complex and as difficult as managing a correctional system there needs to be as little ambiguity as possible about who's in charge and who's responsible for what, so I'd - and also I think the correctional system was fragmented under that structure. I was outside watching Jacqui Tang giving evidence earlier. Her position as executive director community and juvenile justice service and mine were the two sort of executive director level positions responsible for the correctional system but ours was the only function in the entire Department of Justice where that function wasn't managed by one individual below the position of director-general so in fact Alan Piper was effectively director-general Department of Justice for the lot but commissioner of corrective services for the functions that Jacqui and I were involved in. I really think that's quite a messy, ambiguous structure. Should a separate Department of Corrective Services be formed? My answer to that would be no. I think there's a lot of other things that have been gained by bringing together that number of justice portfolios under one umbrella. Those things that have been gained are in terms of the ability to develop coherent justice policies and strategies that overarch all the components of the justice system. Certainly the - well, the ability to progress things like seamless electronic information systems flowing between the parts of the justice system would be far more difficult to achieve if they were separate departments. I think there's been some real progress made in that area under the department's information technology plan. It's not at all coincidental that the bit of the justice system that's the hardest to link up to all that is police, which is a separate agency. You know, I think that in terms of an overall umbrella that provides policy direction, an environment of support for technological solutions and that sort of thing, but also the basis on which the heads of the various portfolios meet together regularly as colleagues around the same board table I think is healthy in terms of integration where integration needs to occur and I think that would be lost if corrections went out to a separate department. I think an example of what I'm describing is - there are a few examples around but one is certainly the Victorian system which I'm well aware of where not only the commissioner for corrective services but the commissioner of police also comes under a broad justice umbrella. I think there's a lot to be said for that but I see the role of the CEO in such a structure not being a hands-on, day-to-day manager 10/8/05 SIMPSON, T.W. 1520 2.50

Spark & Cannon 34/2/slh OIC/05 of any of those specific functions but one of a policy strategic coordinator of bringing those parts of the system together where they need to be brought together and keeping them separate where they need to be kept separate as well. For example, with the judiciary et cetera those are important considerations, so I'd see the CEO's role in that structure being very much a hands-off role about integration, coordination and direction setting, not about day-to-day management. MAHONEY, MR: Do you think the time has come for the bringing together of the various strands into a common justice system? The precautionary measures against crime, the dealing with crime, the dealing with the consequences of it, parole and subsequently need all to be brought together under one overall justice system?---Under one coordinated policy umbrella and coordinated strategic umbrella I think but I see that as being quite different from hands-on management by one person of all those parts.

10/8/05 SIMPSON, T.W. 1521

Spark & Cannon 35/1/rds OIC/05 QUINLAN, MR: So that, for example, there may be a broad strategic department but the operational body, the commissioner's position, commissioner of corrective body, would be autonomous in terms of statutory decision-making power and budgets and matters of that kind?---That's right and would be involved in direct discussion, say, with the minister on issues relating to budget rather than being represented by the CEO solely in those sorts of dimensions, yes. Another point that I raised with Ms Tang and I wanted to ask you about from your perspective is - - - MAHONEY, MR: Just before you leave that, one of the things that has struck me in trying to work my way through this complex of statutory provisions is the number of actual duties and powers that are vested not in the head of the prisons department but in the chief executive officer, and no doubt a sensible chief executive officer would delegate most of those, but that seems to lead to the kind of thing to which you have been referring. Do I see it right?---Yes. As I understand your question, yes, the statutory umbrella currently vests almost all powers in the CEO who delegates and, you know, I have to say that the great majority of those powers were delegated. There would be a great temptation I think to reach down from time to time?---Yes, and certainly in the aftermath of the sorts of events that make headlines - - - So the kind of thing that we are talking about would require quite a significant amendment to the legislation? ---Well, I think certainly if you're talking about the Prisons Act, significant amendment is long overdue but I - yes, it would be significant. It's - what I'm describing could not be implemented administratively. It would have to be implemented via significant changes to the legislation to create a new statutory role that doesn't currently exist, yes. Yes? QUINLAN, MR: Perhaps while we are still on that issue of end of line responsibility, could you comment on how the role and perhaps the potential statutory functions of superintendents for their own prisons fits within that structure? One of the things that has been said during our visits to prisons is that superintendents have less control and responsibility than they used to and that things are determined in head office which were once the province of a superintendent of a prison. Is there any comment that you could make in that regard and are there particular end-of-line statutory responsibilities which are best reserved to the local management of a particular prison? ---Yes. Look, I guess having only been associated with the 10/8/05 SIMPSON, T.W. 1522 2.56

Spark & Cannon 35/2/rds OIC/05 prison system for five and a half years, I'm not the full bottle on the history of the place but that was a common catchcry, that power was being taken away from the superintendents and they genuinely believe that. Whenever I quiz them though on that, the biggest issue seemed to be around budgets, where they would develop what they believed was a realistic budget for their prison for the following year and get something significantly less, but that was a fact of me not getting enough money to cover all their requests. At the end of the day in any organisation - and, you know, particularly in the environment we've had in public sector management for a considerable number of years. So aside from what may have happened specifically in prisons, generally budgets were being tightened and no managers anywhere in the public sector were getting the budgets that they would've liked. So whilst I understood that argument, the fact was that at the end of the day I can only distribute what was there. I think there were certainly issues around sentence management that caused them some concerns and around the time that I left there were discussions about, yes, decisions around sentence management currently being made centrally could perhaps be delegated out. The extent to which in years gone by they had been delegated out, look, I honestly don't know. One of the things I would comment on though, if you would allow me to - - -

10/8/05 SIMPSON, T.W. 1523

Spark & Cannon 36/1/mjd OIC/05 Absolutely?---You did mention earlier Jacqui Tang's comments on the integrated prison regime strategy which was really a broad-based strategy for change in the system and one of the things that struck me very early on and which among other things led to the development of that strategy was the number of activities within a prison over which superintendents didn't have any power or control, that basically the superintendents were responsible for the custodial prison operations. The people who ran prisoner programs were - not only weren't responsible to the superintendent but weren't even based in the prison but came from - except for in the regional areas but in metropolitan area they were all housed in Milligan Street in the CBD and went in and out of prisons. So superintendents basically had almost no control over what rehabilitation was occurring in their prisons. Health services were responsible back to a director health services in head office. Now, that one I justify and in fact there are some fairly strongly held international principles that the provision of health services should be administered separately from the custodial services in a prison and in some jurisdictions they're even provided by separate departments. So I could - the prisoner counselling services, at that stage were part of prison health services so the whole wellbeing of prisoner stuff was - the resources were out of their hands as were education services. Now, one of the objectives of integrated prison regime and I think largely those structures have been put in place now was to bring a lot of those functions back under the responsibility of the superintendent so that they could truly be in charge of the full range of functions in their prison and therefore be the person accountable for the success or otherwise of that prison in achieving its objectives and not just as I think they were previously the head prison officer. I think the sort of issue we discussed in relation to Keating was symptomatic of that, that there were people representing different disciplines, different services, none of whom reported to the superintendent all being involved in management decisions about their prisoners. So structures like the serious offender management committee were needed where they started to go wrong to pull the parties together and get them around the same table. So, look, it's almost a year now since I left the system and I haven't kept in detailed touch with how that's all progressing but certainly my vision for the system was with the one exception being health services that the role of superintendent would move from being basically the head of custodial services in a prison to actually running a multi-disciplinary team that was responsible for all the functions in the prison and that I see is - and as I said, I think a fair bit of that structure is now in place and I think that certainly creates a very different role for superintendents but gives them a lot more power and responsibility. I might say they were all very supportive 10/8/05 SIMPSON, T.W. 1524 3.02

Spark & Cannon 36/2/mjd OIC/05 of those directions too. MAHONEY, MR: That would mean, of course, that - and I don't suggest this as a reflection on any superintendent - that would mean that the superintendents would have to be up to the job?---Absolutely. Which means you've got to look at methods of training and monitoring and various things of that kind?---Yep and for that reason - and the first part of that transition was actually the amalgamation of prisoner counselling services and offender programs into one branch and creating manager offender services in each prison and for that reason we decided to transition it, having them, those people initially, operating in the prison as part of the prison management team but still responsible back to head office until there was comfort with the ways of working and the relationships and I guess the boundaries between administrative and professional decision-making and how those boundaries were negotiated. So it was never planned and never occurred that we made that switch as a - "Right, here you are, all of this reports to superintendent now" - it was designed as a gradual process which would allow us to ensure that, as you say, they were up to the job, they had a complete enough understanding of the functions they were managing to be able to do so properly.

10/8/05 SIMPSON, T.W. 1525

Spark & Cannon 37/1/glj OIC/05 A big difference between ultimate responsibility in head office and the thing being monitored by head office to make sure that there's an appropriate degree of consistency and proper dealing and so on?---That's right, and that's the structure we were working towards, that professional standards and monitoring, which still occur from the heads of those disciplines in head office but the day-to-day management come under the authority of the prison superintendent. Yes. One of the things that occurred to me, I have a fascination with pieces of paper which show boxes of responsibility and so on. All of them seemed to be directed - and I'm putting this very broadly - to ways and means rather than objectives. Do you follow what I mean? The various sections of responsibility - - -?---Yeah. - - - that were set up seem to get lost in ways and means, but none of them seem to be oriented towards achieving this objective or that objective or monitoring or finance or whatever it may be and I wondered whether that might lead rather more to confusion than to clarity?---Well, I guess the boxes that you're referring to I imagine are organisation structure charts and I guess my response would be you need both; you need an organisation structure chart so you know who is responsible to who and how many of them there are, et cetera, et cetera, but you also need clear delineation of function, purpose, objective, strategies to achieve those objectives, which is what occurs as part of the business planning process and the two stand distinctly but I'd agreed with you that the latter is more important than the former. QUINLAN, MR: That leads into the area I suppose of training and career planning of custodial staff and you may have heard I quoted some comments of yours to Ms Tang during her evidence. If you could comment - in terms of your history with the department - the degree to which there's an apparent divide between operational-custodial staff and other arms of the department, and we have heard prison officers telling us when we attend prison that they are not regarded as being particularly important and one of the operational people gave evidence last week that said that they were viewed as knuckle-draggers within the department. The answer to this is obvious but it may lead into some comments. How important is it to address that apparent divide that exists within the department and what's the best way of going about it in seeking to redress what is at least an apparent view that's taken by custodial staff within the department?---Yeah, look, I guess if I deal with that in a few parts. Certainly - and again, going back to the integrated prison regime strategy, and I

10/8/05 SIMPSON, T.W. 1526 3.08

Spark & Cannon 37/2/glj OIC/05 could actually table a document which you may not have seen that I think I brought with me, which was the document that we introduced that program with, and what you would see in that is that in fact there was a central theme of integrated prison regime not only validating but further enriching the role of prison officers. In fact, having written part of that document myself I recall - - - MAHONEY, MR: It must be right?---It's got to be, yes. Statements like that prison officers are the glue that keep the system together, that they're the ones who are there 24 hours a day, seven days a week and that a lot of the other professionals perhaps with sexier-sounding jobs are often home tucked up in bed when the real crises or issues are happening. A central focus of that strategy was to lift up the role; elevate the role, the training and the skills of prison officers, and that took many forms. There was certainly an expanded prison officer training course developed, including a very strong emphasis on interpersonal skills training; training up prison officers to run a new rehabilitation program, the cognitive skills program which you may have heard about that was a program designed to be run by prison officers; and generally the direction - and prison officers becoming case officers under the new case management system and being an integral and equal part of the assessment teams, together with educationalists and psychologists and that in terms of the assessment system. So there was a very conscious strategy of elevating the prison officer role from a mere custodial role to, I guess, a custodial professional alongside the other professionals of equal status and a fair bit of training, and a lot of the new initiatives that were introduced in training over the years - for example, I almost had no involvement in training for teachers, training for doctors and nurses, or training for psychologists et cetera but a lot of involvement in terms of training strategies for prison officers and that was everything from, you know, a prison leaders program to train up future prison leaders to the sorts of training strategies I've referred to and others. I guess what I would say, though, is resources were always an enormous problem and one of the problems - when you're training and a lot of the training that did occur and - you know, we resourced some fairly substantial, for example, system-wide training in prison officers in interpersonal skills. Unfortunately the resources didn't go far enough to do all that we had hoped, but the big issue with prison officers is that unlike white collar workers who can say, "Right, we're all going off for a training day today," and the world doesn't miss them overly much, the prison officers can't do that, so there's a much more substantial cost to training prison officers because often you're having to bring on people to backfill behind them et cetera. So what, at the end of the day, was the end result of that I

10/8/05 SIMPSON, T.W. 1527

Spark & Cannon 37/3/glj OIC/05 think we made a number of significant inroads into training in particular areas but it was always underdone because the resources just weren't there to do all that was necessary. As to how prison officers are regarded in the system; you know, are they regarded as sort of - what was the expression you used?

10/8/05 SIMPSON, T.W. 1528

Spark & Cannon 38/1/nal OIC/05 Knuckle-draggers was the expression that was used the other day?---Knuckle-draggers. Look, certainly that's not my view and, you know, if you read that document you will see it's certainly not the view of prison officers that I was promoting within the system. I have to say though that there were parts of the department that tended to hold that view and articulate that view thinking it would never get back to the people it was articulated about; generally not people in prisons division but people in other parts of the department, and that always disappointed me and, you know, I think it's a shame that that happens because - so what would give prison officers that view? I think one part of it would be that, you know, I had reported to me that from time to time prison officers who had been seconded to head office and were in disguise in a shirt and tie would be sitting in meetings where those sorts of comments were made and I think that's very unfortunately that there was in parts of the department that sort of culture, which certainly a number of us challenged vigorously whenever we encountered it but I guess that, together with the fact that - particularly in the area of training, which I think is critical if you want to achieve the level of professionalism that we are expecting of those people in that situation, that was underdone because it was under-resourced and I guess - so in the minds of custodial staff that all forms a bit of - part of the picture. MAHONEY, MR: I sat with prison officers and when I mentioned training they laughed. One of them said he had been in the position for 35 years and never had any training at all?---Well, I'd have to say he must have skilfully avoided it because, you know, certainly the opportunities for training are there but is the capacity there to provide it with the frequency and the level required? I'd say no. QUINLAN, MR: I think one of the things you said to me in discussion before and which I mentioned to Ms Tang was that there's a good investment in initial training of prison officers but then it tends to drop off?---Yeah. In terms of career planning and progressive training for movement up on a career path that that's really somewhere where investment in the custodial staff is lacking. Is that a fair explanation?---Yeah, and there were efforts to address that but again, all of those efforts had to be made from within the existing resources, so it meant if you poured an extra half a million dollars into prison officer training you first had to find where you were going to take that half a million dollars from and that sort of balancing act was always on. Certainly over time we did increase the level of training available to prison officers but it was always that robbing Peter to pay Paul type approach.

10/8/05 SIMPSON, T.W. 1529 3.14

Spark & Cannon 39/1/slh OIC/05 The difficulty that you described earlier of backfilling and taking officers out of operations in order to do training would not have been assisted by prison officer numbers coming down at times within the department as well, which appears to be the other major complaint that is put by prison officers in terms of numbers not being maintained and there being a great rush of new people now?---Yeah, we did have a time when we had a surplus of prison officers in the public system after Acacia opened. That was used as an opportunity among other things to do some extra training but it's true that the department was too slow to start recruiting again as that supply of additional prison officers reduced. That resulted in a substantial period again with less than adequate staffing to cover the jobs. Yes, thank you, sir. I have nothing further for Mr Simpson. MAHONEY, MR: One of the features of the people who have spoken to us and of these charts that we have had has been the number of officers who are in acting capacities. People I have talked to have smiled at that. Why was that such a feature of the administration?---Look, it's interesting. You know, currently there are a number of people in acting positions at the senior levels, I think there are some unique circumstances surrounding that at the moment, but the - yeah, throughout the system and in prisons, apart from the fact that from time to time there were reviews and restructures that may have held up certain positions, there was no cogent reason a lot of the time why a lot positions that were vacant couldn't have been filled more quickly. You know, certainly over recent years there had been, you know, scrutiny by the DG of all positions to be advertised as to whether he endorsed those or not but that was never a significant factor in terms of numbers. There would be some positions he would query or not approve. Certainly it was something that through our human resources branch I was actively policing and trying to get resolved. You know, around the time that I left there seemed to be some managers who would happily leave acting positions, go on ad infinitum, rather than put positions out - - - Suggestions were made to the effect that when a person was in an acting position he couldn't develop a policy of his own because he didn't know how long he would be there or whether it would be carried out and nobody knew what the practice would be in any particular line of decision. That's one of the features of acting positions, I suppose, is it?---Except that - you know, as I said, apart from - at the moment a number of the key strategic positions are vacant. Some are vacant because we had enormous difficulties filling them and others because of more recent events, but most of the positions that were vacant for lengthy periods of time, for example, in prisons, were 10/8/05 SIMPSON, T.W. 1530 3.20

Spark & Cannon 39/2/slh OIC/05 below superintendent level, so they weren't the policy interaction setting positions. By and large superintendents' jobs were filled reasonably expediently when they became vacant. In fact, at the time that I left I don't think there was a single vacancy at superintendent level. You know, my impression is most of the long-term vacancies were lower levels down the chain and it was often a job of getting the people responsible for those positions to get them permanently advertised. You know, I guess there's a lot of theories for that but they're all conjecture, that sometimes people would like to leave a preferred candidate a long time acting in a job before it was advertised. That's not appropriate but I think there were situations where that occurred or for all sorts of other reasons action just didn't get taken. Without exhausting that, the other complaint that I heard frequently - and bear in mind that when I hear a complaint I always have in mind what's the weight of it and whether it's part of the - somebody described it the natural whingeing of people at any level in an organisation but one of the complaints that I heard frequently was the delay in getting decisions, that you would be months and months getting decisions from head office. Was that a feature of the acting system or for some other reason?---Look, I think there could be all sorts of reasons behind that. I think sometimes it was often right but no, I don't think it was a feature of the acting system. I think there were a number of senior positions that fell vacant around the same time in prisons, you know. Tony Leach left to go overseas, Jacqui Tang got a promotion, I think the director of health services left, so I almost lost my whole executive within a short period of time and when that happens, it happens, and it was all for positive reasons. They all went on to better things, and during those periods when I think then you've got the inevitable people bumping up in different jobs, there perhaps is a bit of reticence or unsureness about which way to go but look, I think only some of the time - - -

10/8/05 SIMPSON, T.W. 1531

Spark & Cannon 40/1/rds OIC/05 I was surprised at the extent of the complaint, I must say - - -?---Yes. - - - visiting the various prisons that I have, the continuity of it in different places. That's why I'm mentioning it?---It was a complaint that came to me from time to time and I think there was probably some validity to it, that I think some of the decision-makers were particularly slow in dealing with issues. One of the things that occurred to me and now that Mr Piper has ceased to be chief executive officer, perhaps I could put it this way: every chief executive officer is entitled to run his ship in his own style but if he tends to reach down further than perhaps others would do, would that tend to delay decision-making, say, at an administrative level? ---Yes. Look, in those areas where that occurred, it would. I would by no means say that that would be the sole reason for this, you know. I became aware myself of blockages within the system, where it was just taking a lot of time for some of the people reporting to me to move things off their desks and so, look, you know, I think it's a combination. It's a combination of everything from - some decisions do take a long time because they're complex and difficult and sometimes they even require political ratification. I think often - and this is not blaming anybody - people who aren't aware of the decision-making processes centrally can be unrealistic in how quickly they expect sometimes a quite substantial decision turnaround. I think there are probably some very legitimate cases and I say it because I've known of some where decisions took much longer than was reasonable in the circumstances for the people responsible to deal with them. That causes frustration and there would be others, as you say, where there are other levels of involvements that therefore slowed down the process. So, you know, I think all of the above. I think certainly in my own case I generally manage to move decisions off my desk within 24 hours which I did unless they were again very complex matters, but the day-to-day - you know, everyday decision-making got into my out tray that day but there were others who did not rate that way. When the complaints were made to me from, you know, officer level, I took the precaution of challenging them and saying, "Well, you say that but give me some specific examples." I was interested that many of them were able to give me specific examples of how things had happened, not that I could follow through with the paperwork but they were saying it with some specificity. That's why I felt I should flag it in front of you so that you might be able to give me some help with it?---Yes. Look, it is valid and for a number of reasons. One of the things that occurred not long before I left was that we engaged an external consultant to do a review of head office structures and 10/8/05 SIMPSON, T.W. 1532 3.26

Spark & Cannon 40/2/rds OIC/05 processes. Part of the outcome of that was to identify areas where we had to look at just shortening the decision-making chain, that in fact many decisions were going through several desks in head office before they got to the decision-maker. So there was some inefficiency of process issue too that I think contributed to that. Now, where all that's gone I'm not sure but I would by no means say when people have said that to you that it's just whingeing because I'm aware of examples myself of decisions that just took too long often to get made and that that did make life more difficult for people out doing the job in prisons.

10/8/05 SIMPSON, T.W. 1533

Spark & Cannon 41/1/mjd OIC/05 The other thing that I was going to raise with you and you have anticipated me, of course, was the chain of command problem in the case of the prisoner Cross who escaped after your time but he managed to escape from minimum security. The decision to put him on minimum security seemed to come from action by his case manager on the ground, as it were, up to a case conference where a number of people were involved and then up to head officer where one person - I think it was Ms Doyle, who has been very helpful in this inquiry - had to go up to her to get a decision as to the rating of one particular prisoner and I wondered whether that wasn't typical of the kind of chain of command that kept pushing things up to head office rather than at superintendent level?---Yes, look - and when I said that one of the areas of decision-making that had been identified as needing some examination was in that sentence management, case management area and look, there's - at the end of the day you need a system that enables people to get on and do the job they've got to do but with a reasonable degree of consistency and conformity with it; you know, proper principles across the system. I think the question as to whether in respect of that area of work it's overly centralised and perhaps with proper guidelines, monitoring, et cetera - bearing in mind that most classification decisions are made out of the prison, they don't all go to Ms Doyle as manager sentence management, she couldn't possibly handle that volume. In fairness, I think, you didn't start the classification and case management until, at the earliest, towards the end of 2001 and probably well into 2002 before it got going and it's now 2004, 2005, so there hasn't been a lot of time to - - -?---Well, yes and no. That was when the new assessment and case management system was introduced but the current prisoner classification system and the previous sentence management processes that supported that had been in existence for many years previously. Do you think there wasn't much difference between rule 2B and rule 13 and 14?---Sorry? There wasn't much difference between rule 2B and rules 13 and 14?---A considerable difference. You know, I think what the new system has done, and I was outside when Jacqui Tang was being questioned on that and she's far more expert than I - but I think what the new classification system has done has introduced more of an overt risk-based measurement approach into that. Certainly the other aspects of assessment and the case management approach that we now have are all new. Yes, anything further, Mr Quinlan? QUINLAN, MR: No, sir. I would ask that Mr Simpson - - -

10/8/05 SIMPSON, T.W. 1534 3.32

Spark & Cannon 41/2/mjd OIC/05 MAHONEY, MR: I'm quite sure there are a number of other things we would like to ask you, Mr Simpson, but they won't occur to us until after you are gone?---Sir, look, do you mind if I just say one thing in leaving? By all means?---I guess one thing that, you know, I would particularly like to say and it's got relevance to the Paul Keating case that generally that I think the people who were working in the prison system generally and including those people who were directly involved in the case of Paul Keating, you know, I think are by and large very capable committed skilful people who do their job well and serve the community well and many of them do jobs that most of the community would do in a fit and I know that that's not at all the tenor of this inquiry but there's been a tendency to resort to blame of individuals when things go wrong in the system and I guess what I would certainly like to see is those people, you know, the support and respect for them enhanced out of this process because I think there's not sufficient credence and support given to the important job they do and the degree of skill and commitment they bring to it. Maybe that's telling you how to suck eggs or whatever - - - Mr Simpson, if I were to make one parting criticism of you it is that you obviously haven't read the opening statement made at this commission?---No.

10/8/05 SIMPSON, T.W. 1535

Spark & Cannon 42/1/glj OIC/05 One of the things that has been emphasised throughout this commission is we are not concerned with praise or blame; we are concerned with what has happened and what that shows as to the deficiencies, if any, in the existing system?---Yes. If you had heard what happened yesterday, for example, you would have heard that reiterated at least on two occasions?---Good. We are not interested in praise or blame; it's what actually happened and the significance of that for the system that we are interested in?---Okay. Thank you for what you said?---Thank you. QUINLAN, MR: Thank you. (THE WITNESS WITHDREW) MAHONEY, MR: Yes, Mr Quinlan? QUINLAN, MR: Sir, the final witness in relation to this portion of the hearing is Sonia Anne Gianatti. There's enough time to commence her evidence today but it may be that we don't finish it and it may be necessary for her to return tomorrow, but I call Sonia Anne Gianatti. MAHONEY, MR: Yes. GIANATTI, SONIA ANNE sworn: MAHONEY, MR: You will have to speak much louder than that and directly into the microphone?---Okay. QUINLAN, MR: Ms Gianatti, your full name is Sonia Anne Gianatti. Is that correct?---That's correct. You are the manager of offender services at Casuarina Prison?---I am, yes. That's a relatively new position within the prison. Is that correct?---Yes, that's correct. I think we have just heard some evidence from Mr Simpson in relation to the nature of that prison bringing matters such as prison counselling and programs within a management structure within particular prisons. Is that correct? ---That's correct, and also the prison peer support area. They also come within my portfolio, and we liaise with education. Perhaps if I could ask you to take me through your work history within the department in terms of the positions that you have held and just give us an overview of your professional qualifications and so forth?---Okay. A 10/8/05 SIMPSON, T.W. 1536 3.38 GIANATTI, S.A.

Spark & Cannon 42/2/glj OIC/05 bachelor of science in psychology and I hold a masters of counselling, and I'm registered with the WA Psych Board with specialist title. I commenced with the department in 1993 with the substance-use unit which was - at that time each unit was separate. I then in 1993, just after that, I joined the sex offender treatment unit where I stayed with that unit until 1998. I mainly worked at - well, most of the work was running the intensive programs at Casuarina Prison from 1993 to 1998. With that program I would also do some work with people who'd completed the intensive program and we did maintenance groups with them in the evening. I then transferred across to - it was special needs then, forensic case management team, which is now the prison counselling service. Each of those different teams, the special needs team, the forensic case management team and the prison counselling service are a progression of names for the same unit within the department?---Yes. Yes. So I commenced there in 1999 and where I worked there until 2003. During that time I worked in the crisis care units and the protection units and I was then in 2002 the SHU psychologist for over 12 months; I think it was 18 months. At the same time I was the clinical supervisor for the Casuarina Prison counselling service team and then in 2003, I think it was August, I took on an acting position and it was a pilot at Casuarina Prison for the manager of offender services. That was the new role, that I would be responsible for the areas I mentioned previously, and also be a part of the prison management team. At Casuarina you would have the superintendents, the level 9; assistant superintendent, level 8, and I hold the same position as the manager of the special - his title is ASSFU which is a similar - holds the operational side. He's a level 7; I'm a level 7, and we share similar workloads.

10/8/05 GIANATTI, S.A. 1537

Spark & Cannon 43/1/nal OIC/05 Now, in relation to the work within the special needs team, forensic case management team and prison counselling service can you just tell us something about the work of that particular group, what the majority of its focus is and how it relates and differs from the programs aspect of the prisons?---Are you talking about previously or - - - Well, at the time that you were working, for example, in the forensic case management team, I think, from 1998 onwards?---Yes, 1998, 1999. I think it was - I'm not sure if it was December or January where the crossover was. At that time it was a separate service, it was under health services. It had originally - I think at that time it had just transferred over to health services. It had been under prisons and it was a separate - quite separate to programs. It was basically - were a part of what I saw as sort of on the ground service. Our main role was to review suicide, self-harm, do risk assessment, preventative work. There was some long-term counselling involved, a variety of work to work with prisoners but the main aim was to prevent suicide and self-harm. The special needs team had also had a similar role but that had been quite a small team. In 1998 when you were a member of that team you became involved in counselling in relation to Paul Stephen Keating in March of that year. Is that correct?---Yes, in March 1998. Can you just tell us how it was that you first became involved in counselling for him, where he was, what was the initial objective of that contact with him?---I can remember being approached by Glenn Ross who was the manager of the forensic case management team at the time; mentioning to me - asking me if I would go with him to see Paul Keating. He had - they were concerned about his deterioration and his mood state and I can remember going with Mr Ross. Mr Ross had said that they were trying to get some counselling for him from an external source to work with - a male from an external source, from the outside, but they couldn't get anyone. I'm not sure what the reason was to get a male at that stage but I can remember that he asked me if I'd go with him. At the first two interviews with Mr Keating Mr Ross stayed there and he sort of mentioned there would be a - his words were, I can remember, was like, "Can you fix him up in 10 weeks?" so it was - at that time it was stated as a short-term - - - Where was he at the time?---He was in the - it was in the IOU area but where he was housed was on the punishment side, however he had all his property because he wasn't under punishment. MAHONEY, MR: IOU is?---It's - sorry, it's called MPU now. It was initially the orientation unit that they were going to use for new prisoners. 10/8/05 GIANATTI, S.A. 1538 3.44

Spark & Cannon 43/2/nal OIC/05 What did the IOU stand for? QUINLAN, MR: Induction and orientation unit, I think? ---Thank you. MAHONEY, MR: Induction and?---Orientation unit but it was never really used for that purpose, so it then became the multi-purpose unit. So he was on that side when I - on the punishment side when I saw him. He had been in the special handling unit for something on 10 years, hadn't he?---Casuarina had - he came from Casuarina - I'm not sure at Fremantle because he had been in - like, they had to create a special handling unit at Fremantle after the riot, so he had been there. I had the belief that when he came to Casuarina they put him in self-care but I'm not sure because that's where he committed the first offence, it was in self-care. So he had had time in mainstream and I think that was when he arrived. I think 1991, 92, I'm not sure. Yes, thank you. QUINLAN, MR: Were you familiar with him prior to being asked by Mr Ross to be involved in counselling with him? ---No, only that because I'd been involved in the sex offender treatment unit I had heard about Mr Keating. Everyone had heard about - at the prison knew what Mr Keating had done in, I think, 1992. 1992. That's the offence that he committed against the prison officer in 1992?---Yes, the prison officer. Yes, it is. That notoriety at least preceded him?---Absolutely, yes. But in terms of having had any clinical contact with him before - - -?---No clinical contact. You hadn't had any?---No. I can remember though, because I had involvement with - I had involvement with the sex offender treatment unit. Speaking with the person that was going to run the programs, which was a male, speaking with him saying - just expressing my concerns, not that I knew Mr Keating personally but just expressing my concerns about when you work with someone individually it's quite difficult to work with them in a group because you're - you have been the individual therapist and then you're sharing - like, you're shared within the group and I can remember expressing my concerns. Mr Summerton was going - he was chosen to work particularly in that group with Mr Keating when they initiated the group but I wasn't a part of any of that, I just - that was my only involvement; I had mentioned that.

10/8/05 GIANATTI, S.A. 1539

Spark & Cannon 44/1/slh OIC/05 You said that initially it was a short-term engagement that was contemplated by Mr Ross. When did that change?---I have got - I think - I can't remember but I have a feeling that they spoke with me - when I say "they," I'm not sure if that was - I know Mr Ross would've been involved, Mr Hide would've been involved. I'm not sure who else. They discussed - given I'd already worked in the intensive sex offender treatment program - about me doing some work with him in the intensive - to do some work about reducing risk of reoffending or assessing him and doing some work in that area. I think there was a - if I can just show you a document - document 385. This is a memorandum from Mr Ross in relation to Mr Keating from 18 May 1998 which refers to a meeting with Dr Hodgkinson, Dr Pullela, Mr Connolly, who I think was the superintendent at the time - - -?---Yes, he was. - - - Mr Hide, yourself and Glenn Ross. The reference says: Shorter-term remainder of 1998, S. Gianatti - this is under Treatment - to continue to work with Paul with a view to completing all element of the SOTU program. S. Gianatti to develop draft proposal for review in two weeks? ---Yes. At that time - you then prepared a proposal - or a treatment plan in relation to him. Is that correct?---Yes, that would be right. This is document 386. If we just go the last page of that plan you will see that that's dated 26 May 1998, which is shortly after the meeting - a week after the meeting with those individuals. Under Assessment on the first page of that letter it has: I've been unable to locate a report from SOTU commenting on the reasons for Mr Keating's removal, what facets of the treatment program he had completed and a general comment on his progress to the point of his removal. The administration from SOTU said that a report may be available in a few weeks. At the time that you prepared that report, I take it that the treatment completion report from the sex offenders treatment unit had not been completed. Is that correct? ---Yes, that's right.

10/8/05 GIANATTI, S.A. 1540 3.50

Spark & Cannon 44/2/slh OIC/05 In terms of the reason for his removal - commenting on the reasons for Mr Keating's removal, did you nevertheless know why he had been removed from the sex offenders treatment unit?---I'd heard that he had expressed fantasies - he had had fantasies and had expressed those to the - his therapist. I hadn't - as I say, when I started working with Mr Keating that had only been mentioned - Mr Keating mentioned that. I didn't see anything about that. I asked Mr Summerton about it and - during this period of time, because Mr Keating was in that unit, Mr Hide was in charge of that unit so I can remember that he was removed because he'd expressed his fantasies to the treatment. However, from what I've heard since in the inquiry that was very different to what my sense of it was at that time. On the second page of that report - what's described as a treatment plan it has got, "General sex offender treatment goals," and it has got a number of goals identified and then your comments to that point in relation to Mr Keating. Where do those goals come from, the bits that are in italics? Are they from the sex offender treatment program guidebook or something?---Well, yeah, and also things that would need to be addressed if someone's looking at their offending behaviour. In relation to that at point 3 under To Recognise When Risk is Imminent and be Able to Deviate Himself Away From the Potential Offence by Implementing a Plan Strategy of Appropriate and Socially Acceptable Behaviour you have written: It would seem that Mr Keating implemented one of his coping strategies by disclosing his fantasies in an attempt to take away the potency of his thoughts and thus minimise the risk of acting out. Was that a reference to the incident that caused him to be removed from the sex offender treatment program? ---Yes, that would be - and he'd talked about how he'd had fantasies before, earlier in his individual therapy.

10/8/05 GIANATTI, S.A. 1541

Spark & Cannon 45/1/rds OIC/05 There was a follow-up, just staying on that comment for a moment, in a report of November 1998 - this is document 389 - on page 4 under heading 3. It appears from this document that, as we look at that paragraph there, the first paragraph under the italics words is the comment from your report of May and then the part in bold is an update as of November?---Yes. Is that a fair reading of that document?---I would think so. And likewise in that it makes it fairly clear that those comments are referring to the incident in which he was removed from the program, and then it states that his fantasies involved Ms X in the future, not at that point in time and so on. Was that, in effect, the view of - were your conclusions in relation to that drawn from what Mr Keating explained had occurred at the time of his removal from the program?---Yes, and I would've looked - had there been like incident reports or anything else to do with that, of course, that would not have been written like that. When I started working with Mr Keating, at no time was I told by prison management - I mean, I knew about Mr Keating but that wasn't sort of brought up as a particular point, so yes, I would've taken it as that. The document that has been referred to in evidence, which is document 490, the incident report signed by Ms X from 14 January 1998, was that not a document that was available to you at the time that you saw Mr Keating in 1998?---No. I only saw that document during the inquiry. From what I can gather it's an - I'm just trying to think of the name of what they call it. There's a whole lot of documents that are not accessible to us. MAHONEY, MR: Intelligence, is it? QUINLAN, MR: An intel document?---Yes. It's got a name that - as an aside, I think like when - I know that when I was working as a SHU psychologist, often we had to write reports on people, entry and exit reports, and at the time a lot of the information we didn't have and it was very difficult to try and - because it was like they were very separate. More recently prison management with the SHU psychologist will share that information and we see the documents so we can make some sort of judgment, because often there's information as in that document that has a very different flavour than an impression that I had. What about speaking with Ms X about the events? She was working from - she was at Casuarina in the sex offenders program until June and then she was working in the same area as you from July when she was transferred to the prison counselling service or the forensic case management team, as it was then called. Why didn't you discuss the 10/8/05 GIANATTI, S.A. 1542 3.56

Spark & Cannon 45/2/rds OIC/05 incident or his progress within the program directly with Ms X?---At the time Mr Keating actually had written a letter - and I mean, this is - I feel quite upset about this now that I actually - because I didn't know he had written a letter - - - MAHONEY, MR: Remember no praise and blame. We are not interested in that?---I know, but at the time - - - Tell us what happened?---Yes. At the time Mr Keating had written a letter of apology to Ms X explaining - when I say explaining, I can't remember all the detail. From a sex offender - working with victims and also with sex offenders, letters and apologies are the worst thing possible. However - I mean, one would never encourage that or do that. However, I can remember at the time taking the letter to Ms X because, as I say, I didn't realise that this is how the incident had been and Ms X said that she didn't want to speak about Mr Keating. I knew that there was - it was quite difficult at that time. The group - there had been some problems on the group. There was also tensions within our group, with the PCS group, so I didn't follow it up and I take responsibility for that, for not talking more about it but, as I say, listening to Ms X the other day and also reading that, I was really shocked by that. QUINLAN, MR: Because it would be an important part of not only understanding what had occurred in January 1998 but evaluating what Mr Keating is telling you to know what the perspective of your colleague was?---Yes. I can see that that would have been good. Also working with someone like Mr Keating who was very volatile, particularly earlier in the piece, often when he would speak he would be very aggressive and very angry and it was about - I mean, when I say him learning that that type of expression - so a part of me - there were several times with myself when he got very angry with me. It was about him - the way he expressed himself was very frightening. So that would have been useful information. However, I suppose also - which I think - I'm not sure which report I wrote it on - for someone to talk about their fantasies, it actually breaks the intensity and the keeping it secret and building up and building up. So in my experience with the sex offender treatment program unit that was always seen as a valuable thing to do, that people could actually be honest and actually say this was what - because it was quite risky to talk about how you might be fantasising about the therapist or what you were thinking and so I could see, as I say, the positive side as far as sex offender treatment.

10/8/05 GIANATTI, S.A. 1543

Spark & Cannon 46/1/glj OIC/05 Although that does tend to presume that that kind of therapeutic disclosure is what had occurred, rather than - - -?---Yes. - - - the way in which Ms X - - -?---Exactly. - - - took it and understood it to be?---That's right. So indeed simply establishing that it was therapeutic disclosure as in effect you have reported it to be is something that would really required debrief with the people involved, would it not?---Yes. At the time that that treatment plan was being developed in relation to Keating and addressing in one-on-one contacts the general sex offender treatment goals, I take it that you had access to his health file or his treatment file and the earlier reports that had been provided years before by Dr Thomas-Peter and by Prof Howells in 1993 and 1996 respectively?---I don't know if I - I mean, I remember getting access to them, but I don't remember what files in fact - I might have - I can't remember where I got them from. I know that some reports I got from Mr Keating, but I don't know if it was those particular ones. I'm just trying to think back where one would look for those things at this particular point of time. Put it this way. You were aware of the contents - - -?---I had access of them. - - - of those reports?---Yes. And going to the contents of those reports, if I go for example to MI368 which is Dr Thomas-Peter's report?---Yes. One of the conclusions that Dr Thomas-Peter draws is, for example, on page 3 of the print that we have got there; on the bottom of that page 2, that he represents a "daunting therapeutic prospect" - - -?---Yes. - - - and that his impression was that his "fragility, poor insight, pathological investment in control and his ingrained pattern of sexual interest is simply too pervasive to respond to treatment" and if I go to the top, further up that page to the second full paragraph: The key issue for Mr Keating is the control and influence he has, rather than the therapeutic benefit which may be derived. In this sense the examples of his positive engagement with therapeutic agents and cooperation with prison regimes offer palliative relief from tensions by meeting what may be pathological needs, rather than representing evidence of therapeutic change. Perversely, these might be interpreted as evidence of his motivation to retain a 10/8/05 GIANATTI, S.A. 1544 4.02

Spark & Cannon 46/2/glj OIC/05 commitment to power and control of strategies to sustain his self-esteem. To what extent were those kinds of concerns as to (1) the prospect he would ever respond to treatment and (2) that his engagement with treatment may well be a deceptive example of his desire for control and influence taken into account in developing what is a quite detailed treatment plan on your part?---There's two things. In that report I noticed that he hadn't had any sex offender treatment, so he had had therapists but I'm not sure - there was no reports on those. I tried to locate a report from Richard Taylor which I believe - but I could never ever get hold of that report; it was nowhere in the prison. I would have been really interested in that because I think he spent quite a bit of time with Mr Keating and it might have been prior to the offence, I'm not sure.

10/8/05 GIANATTI, S.A. 1545

Spark & Cannon 47/1/mjd OIC/05 I think that's right. Mr Taylor dealt with him in Fremantle?---Yes, but I was never able to get hold of that report. I still haven't seen it to this day. I'm just trying to go back to your question. So I saw on one side looking at the sex offender treatment, I suppose I have worked (a) working for a long time with people with sex offenders who go into treatment, like they go into the treatment program, I would say that there's probably maybe - this is just like - I don't have any set figures but there were 12 that would be starting treatment. You would probably find one or two that were highly motivated to actually change their behaviour. There were some that were - there was some motivation but most were in there to, like, gain parole or whatever so I was quite used to working with people who it was about having a look. Working with someone over a period of time so that I could sort of see where the motivation was, what that treatment plan was - perhaps - I mean, some of the things about sex offender treatment and things that I could probably - that were coming up. Mr Keating had also done six months treatment with Ms X and had obviously done - she had done some very good work with him at that time so he had already done the six months, he had already - also then about I think three or four months in the group. However, it was about making sure over time and that testing and working over time, forming hypothesises and gathering the evidence and dismissing them and seeing how Mr Keating performed over time, over a large number of different circumstances and stresses and things like that. The general thrust of both - there's difference between them but the general thrust of Dr Thomas-Peter's report you would agree is he should be managed in a palliative way and engaging him in treatment may be setting up unrealistic expectations which exacerbate the problem of his management. I'm not asking you to comment on whether that's a good idea or - - -?---No. - - - a bad idea but that was the general thrust of his view?---Yes. I suppose as a therapist I probably was a little bit bewildered about how that could be ascertained in, like, in 1993 in an interview. Okay, but that's what you understood him to be saying? ---Yes. And similarly, Prof Howells' report which is document 371, the last page, made a - said that he found many of the points were valid and he agreed with the conclusion that sensitive and honest representation of his prospects for discharge should be part of his management plan but Prof Howells suggested that he go into a sex offender treatment unit for the purpose of reintegration back into mainstream?---Yes, and that was where - my view was I had been asked to work with Mr Keating. Unless he was going to 10/8/05 GIANATTI, S.A. 1546 4.08

Spark & Cannon 47/2/mjd OIC/05 be kept in the SHU or in the - sorry, the punishment area, I had - the thrust seemed to be for him going to mainstream. That wasn't my decision. However, it's about making - if Mr Keating could control his offending behaviour we could reduce his risk of reoffending, that would mean that the prison community would also be safe. My question really is this: in your initial engagement with Mr Keating and the preparation of a treatment plan was the question asked, "Hang on, this whole idea of treatment that has been discussed in the meeting with Mr Hide and Mr Ross and so on is contrary to these earlier reports. Have we made a decision to positively change tack?" Was that addressed as a specific question?---No, that wasn't articulated or, no, this was - I mean what we've got is in prison you have - there's many, many people in prison that we work with like not necessary - we're not looking at perhaps separate treatment but we work with - even if we - perhaps - we work with them to bring down their high volatility or their propensity to violence. We work with them often on a crisis. We are called in, we're quite used to sometimes when all else fails often as a clinician on the ground sometimes you might be considered a nuisance but sometimes you're pulled in to try and settle an altercation, hostility. So quite used to - it's about, I suppose, trying to assist the prison for the good order and management of the prison as well as at times working with - and I mainly work with men - working with them to try and assist in some way. If along the way - I suppose treatment sometimes - and I've had different people say to me they hate psychologists, they don't want anything to do with them, they see them as trouble, but sometimes you might've intervened in a crisis and it's a way of perhaps starting people to see things differently or move through, so to me there's always sort of some sort of - something that you can start to link. That's not to say with many men I have worked with and I've been directed to work with that you know that in the end this person can't change. There are only a few of those.

10/8/05 GIANATTI, S.A. 1547

Spark & Cannon 48/1/slh OIC/05 You understand I'm not asking which view was right and which view was wrong at this point - - -?---No, okay. - - - but that at the time that this planning process began there wasn't a question asked, "Well, is this the right route to go down - - -"?---No. "- - - this seems to be a different approach to the approach that was being taken two years ago or three years ago." I think your answer to that is there wasn't any such express decision made, it just happened this way?---Yes, I think the decision previously had been made before Mr Keating went on the first sex offender treatment program, I'm not sure. I can't remember if the same people who made those decisions were making these decisions. If it please you, sir. That's probably a convenient point. It looks like we will have to finish tomorrow morning. MAHONEY, MR: Just two things. My note - I was asking you earlier about him being in the special handling unit? ---Yes. I have a note that he was there in 1993 after coming from Fremantle but he was still there in 1996. In the back of my mind I have got a recollection of having found somewhere that he was there for about nine and a half years. That may be wrong. If you've got any records or recollection of - overnight, if you've got nothing better to do - - -? ---Well, I've actually got something here. When I say "the early time" - just the other day during Mr Parke's evidence, and it wasn't Mr Parke that said it, but something came up where - I'm not sure, you will probably need to check when he came or I can find out from when he came from Fremantle, I think it's in the case notes, but - - - About 1992, 93, I think?---Okay. I did think he had gone into the self-care unit but I've got here that he transferred from the SHU to the first sex offender treatment program in 1997. So I think he came from Fremantle, there was a short time out, he offended and then he went back in, so in - - - Certainly four years or more?---Yes. QUINLAN, MR: That is effectively right. He was in the special handling unit at Fremantle Prison after the riot in 1998. Shortly prior to the move in late 1991 at Casuarina he was moved out of that unit and shortly after arriving in Casuarina he offended against the prison officer. Firstly, he went into punishment - section 43 - then he went into the special handling unit. So other than the window at the end of 1991 and into 1992 he had been in restrictive regimes, either in section 43 or the special handling unit. 10/8/05 GIANATTI, S.A. 1548 4.14

Spark & Cannon 48/2/slh OIC/05 MAHONEY, MR: The other matter I wanted to say was sleep well because you will give evidence tomorrow and remember no praise or blame. We're only interested in what happened and why it happened?---No, I don't actually feel I need any praise. Anyway, we are only interested, as I say, in what happened and why it happened?---Okay, thanks. Yes, we will adjourn till 10.30 tomorrow. AT 4.18 PM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED UNTIL THURSDAY, 11 AUGUST 2005

10/8/05 GIANATTI, S.A. 1549

Spark & Cannon