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.