This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/sep/27/don-dale-detainee-unfairly-punished-with-teargas-for-actions-of-others-court-told

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Don Dale detainee 'unfairly punished' with teargas for actions of others, court told Don Dale detainee 'unfairly punished' with teargas for actions of others, court told
(about 3 hours later)
A former detainee of Darwin’s Don Dale juvenile detention centre was being “unfairly punished” for the actions of other inmates when he was teargassed, shackled, and transferred to an adult prison, the Northern Territory supreme court has heard.A former detainee of Darwin’s Don Dale juvenile detention centre was being “unfairly punished” for the actions of other inmates when he was teargassed, shackled, and transferred to an adult prison, the Northern Territory supreme court has heard.
It also heard allegations that at guards handcuffed and forcibly bent at least two boys over with a baton while being transferred to a medical appointment.
On Tuesday the young man gave evidence about the night in August 2014 when he and five others inside the isolated behavioural management units were subjected to teargas by prison guards. Guards were responding to one detainee who got out of his cell and began causing damage. The other detainees remained in their cells but were also subject to teargas for up to eight minutes.On Tuesday the young man gave evidence about the night in August 2014 when he and five others inside the isolated behavioural management units were subjected to teargas by prison guards. Guards were responding to one detainee who got out of his cell and began causing damage. The other detainees remained in their cells but were also subject to teargas for up to eight minutes.
They were taken outside, handcuffed, and hosed down while lying on the ground, before being transferred to the adult prison.They were taken outside, handcuffed, and hosed down while lying on the ground, before being transferred to the adult prison.
The group is suing the NT government for damages over the teargassing, handcuffing, transfer, and subsequent treatment at the adult facility, which they claim amounts to assault and battery. Settlement negotiations with the NT government are ongoing as the trial proceeds.The group is suing the NT government for damages over the teargassing, handcuffing, transfer, and subsequent treatment at the adult facility, which they claim amounts to assault and battery. Settlement negotiations with the NT government are ongoing as the trial proceeds.
The young man told the court he believed he was being “unfairly punished” because of the actions of one detainee, and was angry at being transferred.The young man told the court he believed he was being “unfairly punished” because of the actions of one detainee, and was angry at being transferred.
Under cross-examination by David McClure, the lawyer acting for the NT government, he said the appearance of guards in riot gear and with attack dogs during the incident was “scary”.Under cross-examination by David McClure, the lawyer acting for the NT government, he said the appearance of guards in riot gear and with attack dogs during the incident was “scary”.
His statements to the court appeared to contradict his own affidavit. The detainee said he believed at the time he was OK because he wasn’t taking part in the disturbance but was still worried about it becoming “a group thing.”His statements to the court appeared to contradict his own affidavit. The detainee said he believed at the time he was OK because he wasn’t taking part in the disturbance but was still worried about it becoming “a group thing.”
“You only see them wearing riot gear when something’s about to happen,” he later said under questioning from his own lawyer.“You only see them wearing riot gear when something’s about to happen,” he later said under questioning from his own lawyer.
“I knew they were going to drag me into it, because the guys in the other cells were destroying it … When they grab you the treatment’s not good, even if you are in the right,” he said.“I knew they were going to drag me into it, because the guys in the other cells were destroying it … When they grab you the treatment’s not good, even if you are in the right,” he said.
Once at the adult facility, the detainee said he “buzzed up” to a guard through the intercom, asking for a Panadol because “my head was throbbing”.Once at the adult facility, the detainee said he “buzzed up” to a guard through the intercom, asking for a Panadol because “my head was throbbing”.
“I was stressing, I was unhappy to the point I wanted to kill myself,” he said.“I was stressing, I was unhappy to the point I wanted to kill myself,” he said.
He asked the guard for a Panadol but was told it wasn’t an emergency and the guard hung up on him, he alleged.He asked the guard for a Panadol but was told it wasn’t an emergency and the guard hung up on him, he alleged.
He buzzed again, and threatened self harm, and was again allegedly hung up on.He buzzed again, and threatened self harm, and was again allegedly hung up on.
The detainee said “some time” then passed, during which he ripped up a pillow case and fashioned a noose, and was “getting ready to do it” when guards arrived.The detainee said “some time” then passed, during which he ripped up a pillow case and fashioned a noose, and was “getting ready to do it” when guards arrived.
He was transferred to an at-risk cell – identical to the one he was already in but with a camera installed.He was transferred to an at-risk cell – identical to the one he was already in but with a camera installed.
The detainee denied he had told a guard he wanted a different cell because his had no TV, and rejected claims he never had any intention of harming himself.The detainee denied he had told a guard he wanted a different cell because his had no TV, and rejected claims he never had any intention of harming himself.
He said he didn’t remember telling a mental health nurse two days after the incident that he never intended suicide because “I wouldn’t do that to my family”, and said if he’d been held in the adult cell another half an hour he would have tried to take his own life.He said he didn’t remember telling a mental health nurse two days after the incident that he never intended suicide because “I wouldn’t do that to my family”, and said if he’d been held in the adult cell another half an hour he would have tried to take his own life.
He also denied telling a guard: “get out before I knock you out”.He also denied telling a guard: “get out before I knock you out”.
The court is also expected to hear allegations that three other boys received inadequate care for teargas contamination in the adult prison, including medical examinations of just one to two minutes in length, and that one boy was made to wear contaminated clothing for four days. The NT government is expected to dispute this. A second plaintiff alleged that on two occasions his arms were handcuffed behind him and then raised up with a baton twisted between his hands, in order to push his torso low while he was walked to places.
All four plaintiffs are expected to take the stand, as are several adult prisoners who witnessed their transfer, and the former corrections commissioner Ken Middlebrook. The teenager had no involvement in the August 2014 disturbance other than being in the BMU at the time and subject to the guard’s response.
However after McClure showed a video depicting one of the occasions which disputed those aspects of his account, the detainee said he had misremembered but maintained an earlier transfer – between two adult facilities after the disturbance – occurred as described.
The video confirmed the boys were shackled at the ankles and covered with a spithood, which the NT government has conceded was “excessive under the circumstances”.
The boy said he felt “ashamed and abused” when asked how he felt to be placed in a spithood. “I’m not a spitter, so I don’t know why I had it on. It’s a disgusting habit, I don’t know why people do it,” he said.
The second plaintiff also said he was worried to see the attack dog and the prison guards in riot gear, even though he was not doing anything wrong. McClure suggested this was inconsistent reasoning but the judge disagreed with him.
A third plaintiff also accused guards of using a baton to twist his arms behind him during the transfer.
Under cross-examination he agreed he had caused damage in the BMU during the disturbance, including blocking his cell camera, smashing the light, and breaking off and throwing bits of wall render.
At least two of the plaintiffs said they heard the detainee outside his cell say “I give up” to guards upon hearing the dog bark, and before the use of teargas.
However McClure argued the detainee did not give up, and attempted to spear a metal bracket through a window at guards. The third plaintiff was accused of making incorrect statements and “deliberately leaving out detail” in his affidavit.
The court is also expected to hear allegations that the boys received inadequate care for teargas contamination in the adult prison, including medical examinations of just one to two minutes in length, and that one boy was made to wear contaminated clothing for four days. The NT government is expected to dispute this.
The fourth remaining plaintiff is also expected to take the stand, as are several adult prisoners who witnessed their transfer, and the former corrections commissioner Ken Middlebrook.
Both sides outlined their cases on Monday, and presented CCTV and handycam footage. The plaintiffs will argue the use of teargas and related treatment was not authorised, reasonable or necessary, and that the teargas may have constituted a breach of the Weapons Control Act.Both sides outlined their cases on Monday, and presented CCTV and handycam footage. The plaintiffs will argue the use of teargas and related treatment was not authorised, reasonable or necessary, and that the teargas may have constituted a breach of the Weapons Control Act.
The NT government has conceded the use of shackles and spithoods on the boys was “excessive under the circumstances” but maintains the teargas and handcuffs were justified. The government maintains the teargas and handcuffs were justified.
McClure indicated he would be arguing the use was, in fact, authorised and that it was also self-defence on the part of the authorities, based on the volatile situation and the known history of the “difficult and sometimes dangerous detainees”.McClure indicated he would be arguing the use was, in fact, authorised and that it was also self-defence on the part of the authorities, based on the volatile situation and the known history of the “difficult and sometimes dangerous detainees”.
The civil trial, one of two going before the courts relating to the Northern Territory’s controversial youth justice crisis – continues.The civil trial, one of two going before the courts relating to the Northern Territory’s controversial youth justice crisis – continues.