1/1/slh OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

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 anythingreproduced for the purposes of a judicial proceeding or of a report of a judicial proceeding.

_____

INQUIRY INTO THE MANAGEMENTOF OFFENDERS IN CUSTODY

THE HON DENNIS LESLIE MAHONEY AO QC, Presiding

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT PERTH ON FRIDAY, 5 AUGUST 2005, AT 10.32 AM

Continued from 4/8/05

MR PETER QUINLAN, Counsel assisting

MS NICOLA FINDSON, Instructing solicitor

5/8/05 1191(s&c)

1/2/slh OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

MAHONEY, MR: Yes, Mr Quinlan?

QUINLAN, MR: Yes, may it please you, sir. I recallMr Hide to complete his evidence.

HIDE, DAVID JOHN:

QUINLAN, MR: Mr Hide, yesterday we had reached the pointI think that Keating - Mr Keating had been transferred toBunbury Regional Prison following the serious offendersmanagement committee meeting of 13 March 2002 - 15 March2002. The next meeting of that committee, which we don'thave scanned but which - I will ask you to be shown a copyof the minutes, was a meeting of 19 June 2002. Thisrecords again yourself being present at the meeting. Underthe heading Paul Keating it states:

The general manager public prisons reported that PaulKeating looked content when he saw him briefly in theeducation centre at Bunbury recently. Paul stated hewas happy at Bunbury Prison, has no issues, and islooking forward to moving into the self-care unit.The superintendent at Bunbury Prison confirmed thisand stated that Paul has settled and there were noproblems reported by prison staff.

However, there were rumours circulating that Paul wasgoing to be transferred to Karnet and prisonadministration there telephoned Bunbury to ascertainwhen this would occur. SOMC discussed and agreedthat as Paul has settled at Bunbury and as he is in asupportive environment there should be no rush totransfer him. Any decision to transfer Paul would bethe result of an approved prerelease program and itwould occur slowly, with Karnet being involved in theprocess.

Do you recall that issue of his transfer to Karnet - or thepotential for his transfer to Karnet first being raisedwithin the SOMC committee?---Yes.

Do you recall what are described there as the rumourscirculating that he was going to be transferred to Karnet?---Yes.

At what level of the prison administration were thoserumours occurring and what was, as far as you were able toascertain, the view being expressed in relation to thatprospect?---The rumours circulated against the seniormanagement in Casuarina Prison. It had reached that highand there was concern.

So at that stage you were the deputy superintendent ofCasuarina Prison and no longer had custody, if you like, ofKeating for eight months - - -?---Yes.

5/8/05 HIDE, D.J. 1192

1/3/slh OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

- - - but at the level where you were there was discussionabout the - - -?---Yes.

- - - for him to go to Karnet?---Yes.

In terms of the time during which he had been in themainstream environment at Albany since October, this nowbeing June the following year, can you say in yourexperience what the usual time frame for adjustment is forprisoners moving through from a restrictive regime such asspecial handling unit or multipurpose units into a moreopen environment?---They can vary. For a long-termprisoner I would find that unusual for it to happen thatquickly.

The next meeting, which we do have scanned, was25 September 2002, which is document 425. This again hasyour presence noted at the meeting, and then in the firstfull paragraph:

An assessment of Paul Keating's suitability for aprerelease program is being undertaken and acommunity corrections officer is preparing a reportregarding this. It was suggested that the prereleaseassessment report should be signed off by SOMC priorto going to the Parole Board for approval. If theParole Board approves it the DOJ will be required todevelop a suitable prerelease program, therefore itis likely that the time frame will be approximatelysix months. Paul's progress was discussed and it wasnoted that he has coped exceptionally well withchanges in his environment -

and it continues. Then it says down the bottom:

There was a consensus that SOMC should continue to beinvolved in Paul's management a prerelease programthat is recommended by SOMC would provide greatercredence to the Parole Board. At present there isevery indication that he will be found to be suitablefor prerelease and therefore SOMC will need toarrange Paul's transition to Karnet so that staffthere understand and accept his transfer.

It was acknowledged that Karnet needed to be involvedin the process and therefore it was suggested thatthe superintendent of Karnet be invited to attendSOMC. It is anticipated that the suitability reportwill be available within a month and therefore therewill need to be another extraordinary SOMC meetingbefore the recommendation goes to the Parole Board inearly November.

5/8/05 HIDE, D.J. 1193

1/4/slh OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

Remain SOMC: Extraordinary meetings to be called asrequired to progress Paul Keating's application forprerelease. Karnet to be invited to participate inSOMC in order to prepare for Paul Keating's transferthere.

Do you recall that meeting at which those decisions weremade?---Yes.

Can I ask you, firstly, what your view as to the - I willfind the reference again, "At present" - this is the top ofthe second page:

At present there is every indication that he will befound to be suitable for prerelease and thereforeSOMC will need to manage Paul's transition to Karnet,so that staff there can understand and accept histransfer.

Obviously this is now more than a rumour - - -?---Yes.

- - - by September. Where was the indication that - itsays, "At present there is every indication." How is theview formed that before there had been a report that therewas every indication that he would be suitable forprerelease?---I don't know.

What was your view as to the prospect of his beingtransferred to Karnet?---At that time my view was that hisbehaviour at Albany and Bunbury had been positive. I wasstill apprehensive in my own mind. I was aware that thesuperintendent of Karnet and his staff would have someobjection to him going there and that's where it lay atthat moment.

Did you express your apprehension at the SOMC level inrelation to the prospect of him being approved forprerelease and moving to Karnet?---I believe I did. Ican't recall exactly what was said, but I believe I did.

At any rate there was a prerelease program prepared inrelation to Keating and it was referred to theattorney-general and ultimately that was rejected in 2003.Were you involved in SOMC meetings after that rejection wasreceived?---No.

Not that you can recall?---Not that I can recall.

I will just ask you in that regard to look at the minutesof the meeting of 19 November - when I find the file - 2003which is document 518. This was a meeting at which therewas a proposal discussed as to the potential for Keating tobe moved down to minimum security whilst at Bunbury and

5/8/05 HIDE, D.J. 119410.38

1/5/slh OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

it's not indicating that you are present. Do you recallbeing at any meeting where that proposal was discussed?---No.

At that point in November 2003 what was your positionwithin the department?---I believe I was the assistantsuperintendent, incident management.

At Casuarina?---At Casuarina.

Would that have meant that as a result of that decision youdidn't stay on the Serious Offenders Management Committeeor were you still a member of the committee?---No, I wasdetermined not to be a member of that committee.

I have no further questions, sir.

MAHONEY, MR: Mr Hide, I wonder if I might draw upon yourexperience in relation to another matter. As I understandit, you have had a long experience in the prison system andyou have had a long experience with maximum securityprisoners. Is that right?---That's right, sir.

I'm going to put things to you because it's the easiest wayof getting information, not because they're necessarilyright but in order to give you the opportunity of saying,"No, that's not right," or qualify it or whatever?---Yes,sir.

You know what I mean, so don't hesitate to - - -?---Iunderstand.

- - - disagree with what I'm saying. This is the way ofgetting information out of you?---Yes, sir.

As I understand it then, you have been involved withmaximum security prisons at Albany, at Casuarina. Were youat Fremantle?---Yes, sir.

So you have been at most, if not all, of the maximumsecurity prisons in the Western Australian system?---Yes,sir.

5/8/05 HIDE, D.J. 1195

1/6/slh OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

Now, at Casuarina as I understand it there is the highsecurity section with, I understand, about 16 cells there?---That's the special handling unit.

That is the only high security section within the wholesystem. Is that right?---Yes, that's the only specialhandling unit that's in the Western Australian system.

The SHU as they call it?---Yes.

You were in practical charge of that, as I understand it,for a considerable time. Is that right?---Yes.

How long?---From 93 through to 2003.

So about 10 years?---10 years.

You actually ran the thing for about 10 years?---Yes, sir.

Subject to your superintendent from time to time?---Yes.

Now, in relation to that unit I wanted to just press you alittle bit as to your understanding of the functions ofthat - for the high security prison. Let me put thesethings to you so that you can agree or disagree with them.As I understand it the purposes, the objectives of having ahigh security prison of that kind are firstly, to preventsomebody being rescued; in other words, if you have a drugdealer and somebody outside wants to rescue him you havegot to have a secure prison to stop them?---Yes.

Secondly, to prevent a prisoner who may have desire toescape from escaping. Thirdly, to prevent the prisonerinjuring; that is, himself, other prisoners or prisonstaff. Would they be the three main reasons why you havethe high security prison of that kind?---That's true.

Have I got it right, that's really the substance of it?---That's the three categories I would agree with.

So that I can write it down later on and say this is what Ithink. One other thing in relation to objectives, thepresent philosophy is that you mustn't use high security orthe like for punishment but does it not operate, as itwere, as an area of apprehension for prisoners who are notthere that if they misbehave in a which shows they're aptto escape or injure other people they are likely to be putthere and to that extent it's a kind of warning orapprehension or even a potential punishment in one sense?Is that a fact or is it not?---It's not a fact but it's -the special handling unit regime is run the same as for aprisoner in mainstream. He's allowed the same privilegesexcept he is confined - the only difference is he isconfined to that area. He is not permitted to leave that

5/8/05 HIDE, D.J. 119610.44

1/7/slh OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

area but he has the same items, the same privileges as aprisoner would have in mainstream.

Let me then press you as to the means by which theseobjectives that we have referred to are obtained. As Iunderstand it, there's strict security of course within theprison itself. It's a prison within prison and it's - thesecurity and the walls, et cetera, are rather harder tosurmount than one set of walls. Secondly, the prisonersare under constant surveillance with cameras and the like?---They are under constant surveillance with cameras andalso observation, optical observation.

I visited the prison and having spent a little time there Iknow all about it, as you would appreciate, so pleasecorrect me when I get it wrong but as I recollect it therewere cameras which enable the people in charge of theprison to keep an eye on what was happening in the variouscells?---If I recall, there are only two cells with camerasin them in the special handling unit.

Are there? Yes?---They are the two cells that have theirown exercise yard, which are used for certain reasons outof the norm.

Am I right in thinking that the prisoners there are keptseparate from one another?---They have individual cells.

Yes?---But in unlock hours they congregate amongstthemselves, unless there is a prisoner under protectionfrom prisoners in the special handling unit.

I think the 16 are divided into two sets of eight and theone eight doesn't deal with the other eight?---Correct.

The ones in one set of eight can then mix with one anotherbut under supervision. Would that be right?---They canfreely mix during unlock hours and it has been known forprisoners who may be in the other side have had access tocome across and also visit those prisoners.

5/8/05 HIDE, D.J. 1197

1/8/slh OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

And am I correct in thinking that apart from moving fromtheir cells to the recreation area which each of them has -each eight have, the prisoners move only under strictsupervision by warders?---No, no, they can - there's freeaccess. During the hours of unlock they have free accessto their cells, the dining room area and also the yardexercise area.

But they can't go out of the area except under strictsupervision?---Except under two officer escort.

How many - I think you may have told this already but wecollect it at this stage - warders per prisoner orprisoners per warder are there in that high security area?---It's not determined on prison officer to prisoners, thearea's determined to have one senior officer and fiveofficers.

Five officers. I think when I was there there were eightprisoners there?---Yes.

What's the greatest number that you have had there?---Ithink 14.

14?---I may be incorrect but it will be round - it will beup towards that number.

Let me lead you to another matter. I suppose people cometo that high-security area - are brought to thathigh-security area from various places within the prisonsystem?---Yes.

If I were planning for a high security area like that forthe whole of the state, I suppose I would be looking to thenumber of prisoners that would be likely to be needed atany particular time. I know this is partly a guess or anestimate but an estimate from a person with yourexperience. How many do you think?---I would say thatnumber very waxes and wanes. For instance, after a majorserious incident such as the Casuarina riot you could haveup to 50.

Up to what number?---Up to 50.

Up to 50?---But that is rare. In, if you can call itnormal time in prisons, I believe you could have up to 20.

Up to 20?---Yes.

The figure I was given by other people was that in thesystem you ought to look to about - somewhere about 15 to25 people who were apt to be in that kind ofsecurity - - -?---That sort of category.

5/8/05 HIDE, D.J. 119810.50

1/9/slh OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

Do they move in and out from time to time or are theynormally there for lengths of time?---Times can vary.During the period I have looked after that area variousforms of applications were put forward. I'll digress abit. The inspectorate tried to insist on that a prisonergoing into that area should have an exit plan and a timeplan which I disagree with.

Why is that?---Why do I disagree?

Yes?---A person who is determined to escape I don't believe- if this is day 1, I can determine how long that prisonershould stay there before it's deemed that he is cured ofhis escape ideas. Other forms such as, say, sexualpredators, I believe if the appropriate programs are put inplace then there can be time limits put on it. For aprisoner who may have access to large sums of moneyexternally and assistance externally I don't see that youcan put a time frame on it. You have to rely on otheragencies to provide you with information that that has goneaway. What I'm saying is, it's the category that shoulddenote the time or not.

You have one there I think, a person who had a brain injuryof some kind and has been there for some time. Is thatright?---Yes, he went in there after I left there. I knowthe prisoner. I believe he's there under the Mental HealthAct.

That would be really to protect him and other people fromwhat he might do?---He has assaulted many officers.

5/8/05 HIDE, D.J. 1199

1/10/slh OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

Let me then ask you this - it's a question which has arisenin other states and I think may arise here as well. If youhave to have a high security prison of this kind - I assumeyou are of the view that you should?---Yes, I am of thatview.

Where should it be? Should it be within another prison orshould it be a separate organisation? Let me bounce thesethings off you because they were things that were suggestedto me which may or may not be right. Firstly, that youought to have it in the same - within another prisonbecause you ought to provide for the movement of officersfrom that high security prison back to the mainstream fromtime to time, that it's wrong to keep them in the highsecurity prison. What do you say about that?---I agreewith that. I firmly believe that it should be a prisonwithin a prison; one for the financial aspect of - I thinkyou need education people to visit them regularly; theyneed access to medical services, dentist, doctors,psychological services, psychiatric services.

And it's easier to do that if they could use the medicalfacilities, et cetera, within the main prison?---Existingwithin the main prison.

Secondly, it was suggested to me that you ought to have itwithin a main prison because as it was put - I'm not sureaccurately - that that holds out hope for people in thehigh security prison to be able to move back into themainstream. What do you make of that as a factor?---Iagree with that because there's constant communicationbetween prisoners, it doesn't matter where they are withinthe prison. Prisoners in the special handling unit cantell me what was going on in mainstream before I could findout. It offers all the time - prisoners do not like to bein a special handling unit area. I believe it needs to be- an improvement in design. I don't believe it should bemade uncomfortable, barbaric or - it needs to be designedfor the safety of staff and also the safety of prisoners.

Yes. The other factor that appealed to me, which I thinkyou disagree with, is that if there is a high securityprison within the main prison it creates a reason why theprisoners in the main prison might behave themselves betterthan they would otherwise do. It's something that struckme. I'm not sure that you agree with that?---I have kindof two trains of thought on that. There's always -prisoners who have been in the special handling unit have astigma; even when they are back in mainstream they are thehard men, they have been through it. There's always thestories that, you know, there's brutality and that thatgoes on because very few people see in there, so there arefigments of imagination that are used. I cannot recall itbeing used as a punishment area where prisoners are placed

5/8/05 HIDE, D.J. 120010.56

1/11/slh OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

in the special handling unit. There's always been quite asevere procedure for getting them in there.

Let me go back to Keating and the questions I'm going toask you obviously can't be answered with any degree ofcertainty but you are one who I think had experience of theday-to-day operation of him?---Yes.

As great as almost anybody. Would that be right?---Mostprobably more than anybody.

I take it it's the function of an officer to get to knowwhat prisoners are apt to do and, as somebody said, you'vegot to get inside their head about how they think?---That'strue.

And they will probably think the same about prisonofficers?---Yes.

If you attempted to do that you would no doubt have formedsome assessment of Keating. One of the things thatoccurred to me, and this is perhaps simplistic but bearwith me for a moment - he was put into Bunbury and heobviously had been led to think he might be able to getinto a prerelease program and ultimately be released fromprison?---Yes.

That seems to be right?---Yes.

5/8/05 HIDE, D.J. 1201

6/1/khb OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

Some of those who on a psychology level or whatever seem tohave formed the conclusion that he had changed to theextent that if released and been brought under thepressures of every day life, he wouldn't again explode andstart to rape somebody or do the things that he had donepreviously. Now, what in fact happened happened atBunbury. The simplistic question that occurred to me wasis that because he really never had been habilitated orrehabilitated at all and that it was always on that hewould do that and they were quite wrong in theirappreciation of him or that he hadn't changed and thatbecause of the disappointment of being told he was nevergoing to get on the - he was not going to get on to theprerelease program that he exploded and did what he did?There's no simple answer to that and the answer may liehalfway in between, but what is your assessment of how hecame to do what he did?---My view is if you look atKeating's history from childhood to today, he's neverreally lived in a community. He's been confined almostbasically since, I think, he was about eight years old, sohe's got no social skills of living in the community orunderstanding of how to treat other people. He's lived ina severe environment of prisons which are not nice places.They're very hierarchal amongst prisoners and he hasreached the pinnacle of that. Other prisoners who knew himextremely well, and I'm talking other prisoners in the SHU,always said to me, "Mr Hide, he has not changed. We knowwhat he thinks and what he says when you're not around andwhen other people are not around," and they were talkingabout staff. They said, "He will do this again and againand again," and that was my view.

So you think with all the psychology that was applied tohim he really hadn't changed?---I don't think he couldchange. I think it's too long.

In fairness to him, because of his background, perhaps hecouldn't change?---I agree with that.

Now, you and I appreciate that that judgment, like theother one, might have been wrong?---Correct.

But that's the best that you can do as a person who knewhim as well as you did?---Yes.

Does that summarise it fairly?---I believe it does.

Yes?---I mean, there was a long hard push by people thatthought he could be cured, if I can use that word, datingback to a CEO of the department in which two - which werethe director of health at the time and a psychiatriststarted saying that this guy's been in the special handlingunit too long, that it's now becoming a punishment for himto remain there and that there should be a progression.

5/8/05 HIDE, D.J. 120211.02

6/2/khb OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

Yes?---I had no objection to a progression, but it shouldbe lengthy and it should be challenging.

Yes. Is there anything further that arises out of that,Mr Quinlan?

QUINLAN, MR: No, sir.

MAHONEY, MR: Yes, thank you, Mr Hide?---Thank you, sir.

I'm obliged to you for your help. I hope our breakdown ofthe computer yesterday didn't greatly inconvenience you?---No, it didn't, sir.

(THE WITNESS WITHDREW)

QUINLAN, MR: Sir, I call Ms X.

5/8/05 1203

7/1/slh OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

MAHONEY, MR: This is the witness about whom an order wasmade, is it, Mr Quinlan?

QUINLAN, MR: Yes, that's correct. I will confirm thenature of that.

MAHONEY, MR: Thank you.

MS X sworn:

MAHONEY, MR: You came here yesterday and the system brokedown?---Yes.

You had to come back today. Technology is a wonderfulthing but sometimes it doesn't work and it didn't workyesterday afternoon unfortunately.

QUINLAN, MR: Your full name is Ms X. Is that correct?---Yes, that's correct.

I will just confirm for you when you are in the witness boxand for the purposes of the transcript and any mediapersonnel that there has been an order made that your nameor anything which might identify you not be the subject ofpublication?---Yes, that's correct.

MAHONEY, MR: That means what when the transcript ispublished on the Internet, for example, the appropriatealterations will be made to it.

QUINLAN, MR: Yes. Yes, that's correct.

MAHONEY, MR: Yes?

QUINLAN, MR: You are currently employed by the Departmentof Justice. Is that correct?---That's correct.

(Reporter's note: small portion of approximately twominutes of transcript suppressed)

QUINLAN, MR: As part of that unit I understand that youcommenced individual counselling with Paul Keating while hewas in the special handling unit?---Yes, that's correct.

Is it correct to say that the purpose of that individualcounselling was as an introduction, if you like, to thepossibility of participating in the sex offender treatmentprogram but individual counselling was necessary because ofthe particular concerns in relation to his as a prisonerand the time he had spent in the special handling unit?---Yes, that's right. It was felt that he needed a periodof individual counselling; one, to see if he was preparedto engaged to sort of ascertain his level of motivationand, yeah, whether we thought that we could do something

5/8/05 MS X 1204

7/2/slh OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

with him. It was also thought that given that he had beenin such isolated environments for so long - and I think forsome time he was one of only two prisoners and then he wasthe only prisoner residing in that area - and then justsuddenly coming to quite an intensive group like this wouldbe unwise, so yes, we engaged on a one-to-one basis.

5/8/05 MS X 1205

8/1/nal OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

I take it that, for example, the sex offender treatmentprogram involving, as it does, group therapy might be quiteconfronting to somebody who had not had a great deal ofcontact with others for a significant period of time?---Yes, it's confronting and no prisoners particularly liketo do group therapy, no, and particularly someone whohasn't - who doesn't particularly like to be around a lotof people, yes.

So it's confronting for anyone; there were particularconcerns in relation to Mr Keating. Those individualcounselling sessions were held at the special handling unititself. Is that correct?---Yes, that's correct.

Can you tell us were there particular security arrangementsin relation to those individual counselling sessions? Howwere they organised? How did they take place?---You havebeen in the special handling unit so there is, as Mr Hidedescribed, a glass room and at all times that I was seeinghim there were three officers stationed outside the room.So whilst they weren't privy to the communications thatwere going on or any of the therapy content they werevisible at all times, as was I, so they would sit outthere. Sometime later on Keating was subject - I can'trecall the accuracy of it - I can't recall whether he wassubject to strip search or a pat down search prior to eachsession.

That was during the individual sessions though that at somepoint there became a pat down search of an individualsearch prior to each session?---Yes.

In relation to that individual therapy can you tell us whatthe procedure was within the programs group where you werein terms of recording of material and contacts with anindividual prisoner who was undergoing therapy and to whatdegree the records of those contacts were maintained?---Atthe time - in the lead up to the individual therapy therewas obviously quite a bit of documentation because the - interms of the decision making to actually engage theindividual in the first instance, then for my part, once Icommenced working with him - and I haven't seen a program,so I'm judging on what I believe I have done - I wrote up atreatment, I suppose, plan, if you like, outlining what itwas that needed to - what was the achievement, what werethe objectives to be for the individual therapy, so thereshould be that, and then every session that was spent withhim was documented. At that time we didn't haveparticularly good electronic services, so we just handwrote things. Most of my individual notes at that timewould be handwritten.

Where would they be kept?---They would be kept on theoffender programs file. Any relevant file notes thatneeded to go to prison administration or officers in the

5/8/05 MS X 120611.14

8/2/nal OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

special handling unit or other parties that were involvedin the decision making would have received copies orseparate, you know, memos that perhaps didn't breach any ofthe sort of client confidentiality issues but anything thatrequired attention of other parties they would havereceived and they would then put that on their own filesbut copies should also be on offender programs file.

How regular was the one-on-one counselling?---Initially itstarted at once a week and I think it was for abouttwo-hour sessions and then at some point, as my otherduties - when I finished the intensive program that I hadbeen undertaking I obviously had more time available andthen the sessions went to twice a week at some point.

How long did that go on for?---The individual sessions?

Yes?---From approximately March of 1997 until September of1997 when he came into the group.

So that's about six months?---About six months.

There would be then a - there would be expected to be alarge volume of material in terms of your written notes ofthe individual counselling sessions?---There should be.

You haven't seen them recently?---No. No. I tried toobtain the offender programs file to refresh my memory butthat was subpoenaed, I think for here, so - - -

I don't think we have actually got a copy of that but wecan try and identify that?---I know that the file wasreturned Wednesday.

There was - in September Keating moved into the groupprogram?---Yes, that's right.

5/8/05 MS X 1207

9/1/khb OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

There was an incident involving you in which he was removedfrom that group program in January of 1998. Prior to thatincident was there, during the individual one-on-onecounselling, any untoward incident involving Mr Keating ofconcern to you at that stage from the March to September?---On one occasion when I was working with him it was on anactual occasion which was quite rare when a session wasactually conducted in what was one of their day rooms andhe disclosed that he'd been having sexual fantasies,that - - -

MAHONEY, MR: This is the incident that is documented, isit?

QUINLAN, MR: No. No, this is - - -

MAHONEY, MR: It's another one, is it?

QUINLAN, MR: Is it fair to say that at the time duringthe individual counselling there was an occasion when hedisclosed fantasies during the course of that counselling?---That's correct.

Which were consistent with the kinds of fantasies that hehad had in the past?---Yes.

Can I just take you to document 283? This is a report ofMr Harrison, page 9. There is a reference there to a filenote of yours from April, of June 1997. Do you see thatdown the bottom?---Yes.

There is a reference to him "being able to reveal that heminimised the account of wanting to hurt me last week," etcetera?---Yes.

Is that a reference to the incident or the occasion thatyou have referred to during the one-on-onecounselling - - -?---Yes.

- - - concerning those fantasies. Now, on that occasionwas that an occasion when that disclosure was made that youfelt threatened by the disclosure or was it a regular partof the therapeutic discourse that was going on at thetime?---On that occasion I did not feel threatened.Shocked obviously - - -

Yes?--- - - - but to be expected because, you know, this isa man that has had an entrenched pattern of fantasy for avery long time. I did not feel threatened on thatoccasion. His disclosure was appropriate. It was withinthe therapeutic context. He appeared to be quitedistressed by that. His manner, his tone, there wasnothing threatening about his disclosure on that time - atthat time, so I did not feel threatened.

5/8/05 MS X 120811.20

9/2/khb OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

It would be an accurate statement then, as is stated inMr Harrison's report, that he had disclosed fantasieswithout causing any apparent distress to you?---That'scorrect.

Yes. He then moved into the group environment inSeptember. What was his approach to the group like hisbehaviour in the group sessions and did that change at allduring the course of the program?---It did change.Initially I think that most of the other group members hadnot previously engaged in any therapeutic programs. Paulhad obviously done six months of fairly intensiveindividual work and, I guess, because of that he felt thathe had some expertise or some - - -

Background that he could bring?--- - - - background, yes,to offer the group, so he was a very motivated individual.He would, you know, go around and organise the groups.He's quite good at organising. Help settling in the otherguys. Reassuring them that the whole process wasn't goingto be as bad as everybody expected it to be because nobodyparticularly comes willingly into a residential SOP. So inthat sense he was sort of, you know, trying to be like thebig brother of the group and in doing that quite often ingroup, you know, we don't expect - I think on that occasionwe had 12 or 13 members, I'm not sure - you don't expectthat everybody, every offender is going to agree with youand you actually want some debate and some discussion butwe soon became aware that other offenders in the group didnot feel as though they could challenge myself or myco-facilitator or disagree with us because they would feeluncomfortable in Paul's presence, I suppose. So that wassort of noticeable, that he would always back us a hundredper cent and that would dampen down a lot of thediscussion.

Was he being protective in a sense of you and theco-facilitators views?---Yes, he was.

5/8/05 MS X 1209

10/1/slh OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

And were there - perhaps you might continue. You saidthings changed during the course of the group?---Yes.Quite often in a group you get all sorts of personalitiesand so some are more dominant and some are more quiet.It's a skill that obviously when you're facilitating agroup you need to ensure that all parties get equal airtime and things like that, so his behaviour in that sensewasn't difficult to manage. It was a normal part of groupprocess. However, it was still something that we needed totalk to Paul about - to discuss with him and what ourconcerns were about his participation, how he was engagingin the group, how he was perhaps influencing the othergroup members. That was done on a couple of occasions, Ithink. We did ask that he perhaps - he would - because hehad covered a lot of work in individual work he tended toknow the answer, so it's like the kid that's smarter thaneveryone else in the class. He would sort of speak up anddo a lot of the work which would take away some of what weneeded to achieve with the other group members so we askedthat perhaps he monitor how he's interacting and thingslike that. He appeared to respond okay to that. However,what became evident in the group was that he took theopposite tact and refused to speak at all, so we had gonefrom one extreme to another which obviously required us todiscuss that with him because we wanted a happy medium. Weneeded him to just participate on a normal level. Also, Ithink contributing at that point in time was that - youknow, we're talking obviously a few weeks in so some of theother group members had become to feel comfortable. Theywere sort of started off on their own processes and theybecame more confident to speak and to discuss and morerelaxed with us as the facilitators as well because youhave generally got quite significant trust issues whenyou're running a group and it takes a while for each memberto kind of sound out the situation and know who everyoneis. As the others became more engaged in the process itappeared to us that Paul was becoming disengaged in thatprocess. He was distancing himself from what washappening.

I think there was also - according to the exit report thatwas ultimately prepared in relation to the matter, leadingup to the Christmas break in December of 1997 there weresome changes in relation to his behaviour. Can you tell usabout that and what if any steps were taken within thetreatment program between the facilitators and managementin terms of your ongoing management?---I think sort ofaround the time that, you know, he had chosen to - hisparticipation in group was fluctuating between extremes,either all - it was all or nothing. It was either, like,being very supportive, very protective or he'd stand backand then became somewhat argumentative, so he was almostgoing in the opposite direction to what the other offenderswere moving in. We were concerned about that. We wereconcerned that he appeared to want to be everybody's best

5/8/05 MS X 121011.26

10/2/slh OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

friend in the group. However, his journal entries wereinconsistent with that. We ask the men to keep a journaland then we would review that on a regular basis to give ussome sort of way of checking out where they were at, whattheir thoughts were, how they were feeling about things.We noticed that some of his journal entries were quitederogatory and he wasn't raising these in group and hewasn't raising them in community meetings, so he washolding back quite a bit. We had also noticed that he was- at the beginning and end of every group you do what'scalled a feelings check to just see where everyone's atbefore we start the group; if there's anything that youneed to process before you get into perhaps some of thecontent areas. We noticed that Paul would sit with hisfists tightly clenched and his toes tightly clenched andyet he would tell us on a consistent basis that he wasfeeling quite relaxed and quite happy. Clearly hispresentation wasn't consistent with that so we began to beconcerned about that. We just sort of generally noticed anincrease in his agitation, his discomfort within that sortof environment.

Do you recall - if I just - this may assist. It was sometime ago. Document 384 is the treatment report that youand Ms Shires completed. If I can just go to page 5 of it- no, sorry, back; page 4, page 3 - here we are. There's areference there to conversations with Mr Hide providingbehaviour in relation to an offence cycle and that matterbeing discussed between yourself and Mr Hide and I thinkMr Upton-Davis who was also in management at the sexoffender treatment program. Do you remember those mattersbeing discussed? This is the second full paragraph onthat - - -?---Yes, I do.

So at that time in December there was talk in terms ofwhether or not this offending cycle was progressing inrelation to Keating?---Yes, yeah. I suppose for mostoffenders it would be safe to say that - particularlyrepeat offenders - they have an offence cycle that once itis identified may well stay with them for some period oftime, so at any one time, even with any of our offenders wework with, you might know where they're at. Most of themwhilst they're in custody don't go into any of the sort ofhigh risk - they don't have the opportunity to enter into amore active phase. When we had this conversation withMr Hide and with the other parties that were present itbecame apparent that we thought that Mr Keating was in amore active phase as opposed to a more latent sort of -where he posed a far lesser risk.

5/8/05 MS X 1211

11/1/khb OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

When those discussions were going on his behaviour in groupwas changing, were there any additional precautions orsteps, if you like, that were discussed between thefacilitators in terms of managing him?---Yes. Obviously wehad - Mr Hide came down probably most days. As he said inhis evidence, he wouldn't always pop his head in, but wewould kind of see him out the window, so everyone knew hewas around. Sometimes some of the other administratorscame down as well and in terms of Ms Shires and myself wehad noticed that Paul had a habit of being able to lure youaway to a more isolated or a less busy area. I don't knowwhether he does this consciously or unconsciously, I couldnot be sure, but he sort of - actions were to roll acigarette and keep walking and you tend to kind of justfollow and then you find yourself in places where there'sless supervision or less people around and we had noticedthat happening because we were constantly talking about howhe was in group, what was going on, as we did with all ofthe other group members and it became apparent becauseMs Shires had found herself outside in the yard area withPaul and that had concerned her because she wasn't quitesure how she had got there because there was a policy thatwe were never to be alone with him. We also weren'tallowed, in terms of where we could go in the unit, anyfurther past his cell which was the second cell in front ofthe control, just so that we had greater visibility. So wehad noticed that. One of the things we put in place wasthat if we talked to him, you stay still and you just staywhere everybody else is. You don't walk off with him, soit was one of our main, sort of, strategies to deal withthat.

Right. Now, I'm going to ask you now to take us to theincident on 14 January 1998 which resulted in him comingoff the course. Can you just tell us, without going intothe detail, of precisely what was said at that time, whatthe lead up to that incident was in terms of how it came tobe that you were speaking to him and where you were and soon?---Immediate on that day?

Yes?---Yes. We had had a group session that had gone tillquite late into the afternoon or early afternoon, I shouldsay, and as we were leaving the men were all preparing toget their lunch which was some time after what would be thenormal lunch hour, but the group's flexible, and Paul saidthat he wanted to see me, he wanted to talk to me. I saidto him that it had been quite a long morning, that it wastime for a lunch break and that it should wait until wereturned after lunch. He wasn't particularly happy withthat. He indicated that, no, he wanted to speak to meright now. I again said, "No, we'll see you after lunch,"and also too at that time he had done his usual trick ofwalking and talking and sort of found myself past the grouproom, in terms of the SOP area, more heading toward theexternal door into the yard and I just thought, "Well, hang

5/8/05 MS X 121311.32

11/2/khb OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

on a minute. We've already said that we're not walking,we're not going to be anywhere," so I stopped and walkedback in front of the office and stood there. By that stagehe was still over where he was and he was quite annoyed andcame back because as far as I was concerned we weren'thaving the conversation because we were going to be seeingeach other after lunch and then he came back and stood infront of me.

When you said that you said, "Hang on a sec, we've decidedwe're not going to do that," and you stopped walking. Itake it you said that to yourself?---Yes, it was aninternal - - -

A thought; that you thought - - -?---Yes, a thought.

- - - "Hang on a sec - - -"?---Yes.

- - - Ms Shires and I've talked about," and you stood yourground and he kept walking?---Yes.

Then you noticed that he realised that he had continued onbut you were back in front of the control room?---Yes,that's right.

Yes, okay. He came back to you?---Yes, that's correct.

What was his manner in coming back?---Initially when hecame back he was just distressed. He was just sort ofagitated. Paul often would get agitated. He had, youknow, started off he wanted to continue the conversationand he sort of opened the conversation with, "Well, when amI going to have a girlfriend? I want to know when I'mgoing to have a girlfriend? When's someone going to loveme?" and, you know, that - I was just, like, you know,"Well, we'll come back and we'll discuss this after lunch,"you know. It's not questions that anyone can answer and I,you know, would have said something to that effect. Thatstill didn't stop him. He still wanted to talk because bythis stage he just had - that's what he had decided, Isuppose. Then after that or during that I noticed that hebecame increasingly more angry. He had sort of gone frommore of a sort of distressed as Paul gets that you manageto being much more aggressive, much more agitated in a moreaggressive stance and in terms of his distress I see moreas an emotional sort of self-state. However, he was moreaggressive. He was standing very, very close within mypersonal space. His whole tone of voice changed from - hecan sort of sound quite desperate and quite childlike attimes and that's initially how the conversation commencedwith that sort of, you know, wistful wonderment of, "Well,why?" you know, and it became much more aggressive. He hasa habit of going quite red and getting quite intense. Hismood states are quite easy to recognise by his demeanourand he just became more aggressive.

5/8/05 MS X 1214

12/1/nal OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

His demeanour became aggressive and he became red and whatwas the level of his voice?---His voice was very low. Itwas more of a - kind of harsh - it was above a whisper butit wasn't loud. He wasn't yelling. He wasn't screaming.He was simply standing there and he was speaking in a veryaggressive tone but certainly speaking.

It was at that point that he revealed thoughts that he hadin relation to targeting yourself as a victim of hisoffending?---Yes. Correct.

If we can go to document 383, page 3. This is a documentthat you wrote on the day in question, on 14 January 1998?---Yes, I did.

You have seen this document again recently I take it?---Yes, on Tuesday.

If I can just have you confirm for the record - you don'tneed to read it out aloud but the description of the eventsin terms of what he said to you is that accuratelyreflected in that large full paragraph that appears on thatpage?---Yes, it is.

MAHONEY, MR: Did you write it out in your handwriting ordid you type it?---To be honest, it was quite confusingafter it all happened. No, I think from memory I didn'ttype it. I think that when we were down in theadministration area that I suspect that either security orone of those members took down my statement and typed itand then - - -

Typed it out. So somebody else typed it out?---Yes.

But you didn't write it out yourself?---No, I gave a verbal- as far as I can recall I think I just gave a verbalaccount of what had happened.

Thank you.

QUINLAN, MR: Over the page, just in the paragraph aboveyour signature, it said:

I felt threatened and intimidated by Keating and Ialso felt and had felt for some time he was buildingto an offence?

---Yes.

Is that an accurate description of how it was at the time?---Yes. Yes.

How did this occasion compare to the other occasion thatyou indicated he revealed fantasies on his part during theone-on-one sessions?---They were totally different. On the

5/8/05 MS X 121511.38

12/2/nal OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

occasion in the SHU he was emotionally quite contained whenhe was disclosing those fantasies, which were notparticularly dissimilar to this occasion. He was, frommemory, sort of - we had a desk between us for a start. Hewas on a chair, I was on one side and he was sitting thereand his whole posture, his demeanour, was quite differentand far more, sort of - I suppose when he was disclosingthose fantasies he appeared to be quite disappointed withhimself because it had been something that he really didn'twant to be having, so there was much more of that internalstruggle, so there was nothing threatening on thatoccasion; you know, there was nothing about his manner thatwas frightening or intimidating or I didn't - I didn't feelunsafe, you know. He appeared to be quite in control ofhis emotions at the time.

It was, from your perception, directly within thattherapeutic environment?---Yes.

The comparison with the later occasion was, I take it fromthe answer that you have just given, just the opposite interms of all of the matters?---Yes, and I think - certainlyon the day it was just the opposite and also in the lead upto that it was quite the opposite because in the group wehad noticed that he was starting to - and once we had theoffence cycle we could see - you know, track and chartwhere he was but in the SHU there was no indication ofthat. There was nothing to indicate that he was even in ahigh risk. He was emotionally stable at the time, whichagain is in contrast to how he was in the group.

The superintendent of Casuarina, Mr Connolly, you went tosee after this event?---Yes.

He wrote a report in relation to it, which is page 1 and 2of this document. If we go to page 2, I think you hadn'tseen this letter before until this week. Is that right?---Yes, that's correct. I hadn't seen it before.

5/8/05 MS X 1216

13/1/slh OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

Mr Connelly wrote at the top of page 2:

For Keating's conversation to have intimidated Ms Xto such a degree illustrates the seriousness of thesituation. While no physical act took place it isclear that Keating crossed the boundary of what maybe acceptable when professionally managed intreatment to a situation where a victim was indanger. The staff involved did not consider hisactions were disclosure as a part of treatment butclearly a threat to her personal safety and astatement of his intent.

Is that an accurate description of the way in whichyou reported it to Mr Connelly?---Yes, that's correct.It's accurate.

There was a decision made that he be taken off the sexoffenders treatment program on that day?---Yes.

Were you involved in the discussions in relation to that?---No - well, yes and no. Once we got down toadministration and - because I think we had phonedMr Jennings and said, "We really - we need to come down.We have to talk to you," and then once we got there they -I was quite distressed at the time. They asked us what hadhappened. We recounted what had happened and then it was adecision that was taken fairly much by the administrativestaff. They decided that there was an unacceptable riskposed and I didn't oppose that decision. I was party tothat but clearly it was - I don't even know if we'd said,you know, we wanted him to stay. I don't even know if thatwould've been acceptable.

But Mr Jennings, I think you said, Mr Connelly - Mr Hide Ithink would have been involved as well?---Yes, andMr Schilo I think at the time.

Mr Schilo. At around that time - it must have been on thatday the incident report that you signed and which I haveshown to you was prepared?---That's right.

On that day I think the administration of the prisonorganised for prime counsellors to come in - - -?---Yes,they did.

- - - to assist you. You have had no further contact withMr Keating since that day?---Not since that day.

Following the incident, do you recall what action was takenin relation to that incident in relation to prison chargesor an investigation or matters of that kind?---Nothingoccurred.

5/8/05 MS X 121711.44

13/2/slh OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

Were you spoken to again by investigators in relation tothe matter?---No.

At that time, did you - and this view may have changed butat that particular time, did it come as a surprise to youthat you didn't get any - there wasn't any furtherinvestigation or action taken in relation to the matter?---I had expected that at the very least he would get aprison charge and so yes, I was surprised that nothingseemed to occur.

Was there a difference - is there a difference between therelationship between - you said that you went later intothe forensic case management team - - -?---Yes.

- - - the prison counselling service. Was there adifference between the way that program staff wouldintegrate with prison management and the way that thecounselling staff integrate with prison management?---Yes,very much so. In the other intensive group that I wouldrun you wouldn't necessarily have contact with prisonadministration because you come in and you run a programand that's not particularly any need to be involved in anyaspects of - other than what impacts on you. Obviously thegroup which Mr Keating was on is different so you're almostlike a visitor who - at that time, I should say. Back thenyou were like a visitor that comes in a runs a program.You know the unit staff very well and you communicate withthem on a daily basis and presumably they then filterinformation up unless it's something that we needed tocommunicate directly, but the forensic case management teamin our prison counselling service is much more of anintegral part of the prison system because you meet - well,specifically at Hakea you would meet daily with members ofprison administration, you attend debriefs. As part ofprogram staff we had never attended debrief, which is themorning meeting held by administration and custodial staff.The first time I attended a debrief was actually while Iwas doing individual work with Paul because one of hisfriends had committed suicide and so I was privy to that interms of how that was going to be addressed with him, butas part of prison counselling service you're very muchinvolved in a lot of meetings with administration andsenior officers and it's - you get sort of moreinformation, if you like.

5/8/05 MS X 1218

14/1/khb OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

Did that, when you changed from one role to the other,change your perception of what had occurred following theincident with Mr Keating on 14 January and your perceptionof really what should have been done about it?---It did.Although I had been working in the system for three years,we didn't have to write, you know, I didn't know that wecould get people charged which sounds sort of naive andignorant but it didn't really occur to me because we hadn'tactually ever had many occasions where that would need tohappen, so it wasn't within my experience at the time, butwhat I did notice when I joined the forensic casemanagement team was that nursing staff might often, youknow, write a report that would result in a charge and theywould, you know, do that. As prison counsellors we moreoptions available to us to do that. There were moreexpectations so that did change my perspective. I justwondered why nothing had ever been done about it, but bythen, sort of, six months had passed and I didn't entirelyfeel comfortable wandering down and saying, "Hey, what'shappening?"

No. It sounds like there is almost a sense in which thepeople concerned, and I'm contrasting the position of thenurses that you have identified with the program staff,have to know to be assertive to bring the matter to ahead?---Yes, that's right.

Is that a fair description of the difference between thetwo?---It is, and also nursing staff, much like sort ofprison counselling staff, you're assigned to a particularprison and you have, I guess, more of a presence but in thesex offender program at that time really there was onlyfour staff members and another staff member who would comein to do assessments so we didn't have a large presence,whereas nursing staff had their management structure, theirsort of supervisory structure there as well and theyattended all the debriefs. We at that time didn't have arepresentative who regularly liaised, you know,particularly at Casuarina, we didn't have that, didn'texist at that time.

As time went on you continued as an employee with thedepartment and you said in your evidence that you went toAlbany Regional Prison later and, I think, Mr Keatingarrived in Albany Regional Prison the year after?---Almostsimultaneously. No, we were there at the same time.

You were there at the same time?---Yes.

As time went on did you gain any appreciation of thesignificance with which the incident involving you wasgiven in terms of his management and placement andclassification and so on?---Sorry, can you - - -

Sorry, for example, he arrives in Albany?---Yes.

5/8/05 MS X 121911.50

14/2/khb OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

No action has been taken by way of a prison charge. Youhave not been spoken to by investigators in relation to thematter?---Yes.

Did you become aware of how the department viewed thisincident with you as obviously he comes into the sameprison with you again?---Yes. I did. I got the sense thatit wasn't considered serious. I got the sense that itwasn't particularly considered to be an issue. When Iarrived at Albany I was aware that when I met with thesuperintendent that Paul was down there and I was surprisedat the time that the superintendent didn't appear to haveany awareness of concerns that I might have about being inthe same facility as this individual and so I actually hadto go and see the superintendent and explain what I wasworried about, what my issues were associated with that andhe didn't appear to have a great deal of knowledge aboutthat. What knowledge he did have was that he was awarethat something had happened but he didn't think it wasanything particularly serious.

Did that surprise you?---Yes, it did.

Now, there were references, I think, to the circumstancesof him leaving the sex offenders treatment program on thatoccasion in other reports by clinicians and assessors.Ms Gianatti refers to it in her reports and Mr Harrisonrefers to it in at least one of his reports. Did eitherMs Gianatti or Mr Harrison speak with you in relation tothe incident?---No.

You would have both been within the prison counselling -you would have all been within the prison counselling fieldof the justice department, I take it?---Yes.

Given your contact with him as a psychologist and in theclinical role that you are, do you think that that's animportant thing in terms of the continuity of the clinicalintervention with particularly serious offenders, thatthere's that kind of not only reports on file but, whereavailable, oral discussion between the cliniciansinvolved?---That's important, yes.

5/8/05 MS X 1220

15/1/slh OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

I just want to ask you about some particular references insome of those reports. In document 389 at the bottom ofthe first page - this is a report written in November of1998 but - no, sorry, I will go back. Document 386: thisis a report written in May. Under Assessment it says:

I have been unable to locate a report from SOTUcommenting on the reasons for Mr Keating's removal;what facets of the treatment program had beencompleted and a general comment on his progress tothe point of his removal.

Was your - the incident report that you prepared, doyou know whether that was available to be accessed withinthe prison by people involved in Keating's management?---Well, I assume - when there are incident reportsnormally copies are distributed as appropriate, so thereshould have been one on an offender programs file, thereshould have been a copy of that on his unit file. I wouldexpect perhaps that there should have been a copy on hismedical file. Certainly programs don't have access tomedical files but forensic has, management, prisoncounselling service do. We also can go to units and lookat unit files if we need to.

Back then to document 389. At the bottom of the first pagethere - this is a report written in November 1989 - no,sorry, 1998. Under Background:

After his removal from SOTU Mr Keating did notreceive follow-up or closure that in the past isafforded to all individuals who are removed from atreatment program to ensure that they are stabilisedand psychologically intact.

Could I ask you to comment on that in relation toMr Keating?---That wasn't my understanding of what hadoccurred. Following his removal from the program myunderstanding was that there was an arrangement made forhim to have that sort of contact with psychological - toreceive psychological assistance.

Where from?---It would have been at that time from theforensic case management team. The sex offender unit atthat point in time didn't really want to provide that.

I think Ms Gianatti who wrote the report was with theforensic case management team?---Yes.

That was the team that was providing the closure and thefollow-up as you understood it?---Yes.

Over the page there's a reference to - in the second fullparagraph on the fourth line:

5/8/05 MS X 122111.56

15/2/slh OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

Also in Ms X's opinion Mr Keating was extremelydangerous and had returned to his offending cycle,although in my experience this did not seem to be thecase. I was very cognisant of the implications andpotential danger.

It refers to your opinion there. Did you discussyour opinion with Ms Gianatti or would that have come fromsomewhere else?---I did not verbally discuss it so someoneelse.

On the fourth page under the heading (3) To Recognise WhenRisk is Imminent and be Able to Deviate Himself Away Fromthe Potential Offence by Implementing a Plan Strategy ofAppropriate and Socially Acceptable Behaviour it says:

It would seem that Mr Keating implemented one of hiscoping strategies by disclosing his fantasies in anattempt to take away the potency of his thoughts andthus minimise the risk of acting out.

Then there's a follow-up:

Mr Keating maintains that at no time was histherapist or anyone else at risk of physical orsexual assault. He states that his work on changinghis cognitions prior to and in one-on-one therapywith Ms X was firmly in place. Mr Keating stated -

this is a little further down -

this is why he was so upset that his fantasies hadspontaneously returned after months of abstinence.He also stated that his fantasies involved Ms X inthe future, not at that point in time.

Can you comment on that, which I take to be adescription of Mr Keating's account of the events on14 January, in terms of your own perception of thoseevents?---Again, it's not - that was not my experience ofthat incident. I do not believe he disclosed in anappropriate fashion. I certainly didn't consider itsocially acceptable.

How did he - how did the incident end?---I have askedmyself that a thousand times. I can recall that at thetime - it may sound a little unusual but I can recall Paulspeaking sort of more at me rather than to me and I canrecall thinking to myself, "Nobody can - you know, no-onecan hear him. No-one knows what he's saying." I began tofeel quite threatened by that and I began to feel quiteunsafe and all I can remember thinking is, "I have to getout of here," you know - "really have to get out of here,"and the only thing that I can think of in terms of how to

5/8/05 MS X 1222

15/3/slh OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

end it is I actually just think, I said something like,"I've got to go." I think I just kind of disengaged andwent. That's the best I can just kind of think of becauseI just don't know. I just remember thinking to myself,"You have to get out of here. It's not safe."

5/8/05 MS X 1223

16/1/khb OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

Do you remember Mr Hide gave evidence yesterday that he gota call on the radio and he came in to the area andMr Keating said, "I've fucked up, boss. I've fucked up bigtime"? Do you remember that or - - -?---I do. I wasn'tpresent. I remember that when I was in administration andthey decided that they were going to take Paul from theprogram I remember being very, very concerned because anongoing theme with him is that he wouldn't be taken downeasily. Part of the fantasies that he disclosed to meactually involved forcing MSU or, I think they were calledMSU at the time, to actually kill him because he wasn'tgoing to surrender. So I remember being quite concernedabout staff going down there to take - because I just kindof imagined that the situation might escalate, so I justremember being really worried about that prospect and Iremember Mr Hide coming back and saying, "No, he just gaveup," which was quite a relief.

I will take you to another reference. Document 283,page 9. This is a discussion of the incident involvingyourself:

There is no doubt, nor is it disputed, by Mr Keatingthat the precursors of past sexual assaults hadre-emerged and it is apparent that Mr Keating wasthen at risk of reoffending. It's not clear to mewhether Mr Keating acknowledges the level of risk hepresented at the time as he repeatedly asserts hewould never have assaulted Ms X. However, asMr Keating was able to disclose his fantasies therebyforestalling a possible assault, it may be validlydeduced that the level of risk was significantly lessthan that immediately preceding previous assaults.Disclosure of fantasies is an established relapseprevention strategy.

I take it that again consistent with what you have saidbefore your opinion, having been there, was that this wasnot part of a relapse prevention strategy?---No. When Ilooked at his disclosure I don't consider it a relapseprevention strategy. His earlier disclosure very much so.My sort of impression of that situation now is that, Isuppose this is a tad contradictory, could almost see it asa relapse prevention strategy but the way I consider it isthat when he'd become the most angry and the most likely tocarry out the offence was on the previous evening. I wasobviously not present. I work sort of standard hours. Mysense of that is that when he wanted to initiate theconversation and then when I essentially, for hisperception, rejected that he then became very angry and Ithink he'd built to a similar sort of level of anger andpotential for assault. However, it didn't get any further,so I actually think my impression of that was thatdisclosing that was almost like his way of being able toovercome an internal inhibition to - he was winding

5/8/05 MS X 122412.02

16/2/khb OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

himself up in preparation, so I don't see it as a relapseprevention strategy. I see it very much as a tool he usedto overcome an internal inhibition which I do think heprobably did try quite hard not to act on that, but myimpression of his disclosure at that time was that it washis way of overcoming his internal inhibition byverbalising that and almost geeing himself up.

Acting out the event - - -?---Verbally.

- - - verbally because he couldn't do it the night before.I think that was one of the things you said was that if youhad been there the night before he would have - - -?---That's right.

- - - done all of these things that he said?---Yes, that'sright.

MAHONEY, MR: Was there another possibility that, I don'tsee it referred to anywhere in the documentation, was hethe kind of person who might get pleasure out offrightening you?---That's quite hard to say. I do think heprobably did get some satisfaction. It's obviouslysubjective. I remember when Ms Shires found herself out inthe back garden with him she distinctly recalls that whenshe realised, "Oh, okay, I'm alone," she felt that shedetected something in his face in terms of, "Yes," youknow, "we are out here alone," so she thought that shecould detect something in his face that he realised thatshe realised they were alone, so I do think, yes, myopinion is that he would've got some satisfaction fromthat.

Was that not a simple explanation of what he did?---Yes.

5/8/05 MS X 1225

17/1/nal OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

That he did that because he wanted to frighten you?---Yes.I think so.

I'm not talking as a psychologist but I'm talking to apsychologist who was there at the time and I wondered whythat as an explanation doesn't seem to have appearedanywhere?---Yeah, I don't know. Even in terms of, youknow, me making sense of it as well I don't know but it'sone of the few explanations that I can come up with.

Yes. Yes, Mr Quinlan?

QUINLAN, MR: Over the page on page 10, under the quote itsays:

Regardless of his motives Mr Keating should be givencredit for his disclosure for at the very least hedealt with his anger in an alternative manner,thereby breaking the chain of events, which in thepast would probably have led to his offending. Atbest he demonstrated a maturity and resolve to stophis fantasising and reduce his risk of reoffending.

Do I take it from what you've said earlier that thatdoesn't accord with your perception of whether he should begiven credit or not?---No. No, it doesn't. If he haddisclosed in a more appropriate manner or to other peoplethat were present that he had a good therapeuticrelationship with then I would agree with that comment butgiven the way it was disclosed, no, I don't agree withthat.

In terms of his demeanour and the way it was - - -?---Yes.

If it please you, sir, I have no further questions forMs X.

MAHONEY, MR: Just a couple of things; that report thatyou dictated and which they typed out, can you think of anyreason why that wasn't put on the record and featured?---No. No, I can't. Again, you know, silly for assuming -I just assumed that these things happen because it's asystem with protocols and procedures and practices inplace, so it wasn't even something that I chased up becauseI assumed that I'd given a statement and it would berecorded and appropriately filed and stored.

Looking at the terms of it, one would have expected that itwould be the kind of thing that at least would have beenfeatured on the history of it rather than merely saying,"What a wonderful fellow he was because he was able toreveal his fantasies"?---Yes.

There is obviously another explanation of it. You can'tthink of any reason why they wouldn't have at least put

5/8/05 MS X 122612.08

17/2/nal OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

that forward as being a possible explanation to what hedid?---No, I can't offer any other - I can't offer areason, no.

The other thing, quite a different thing entirely, fromwhat we have been told by you and a lot of other peopleMr Keating seems to have received quite a great deal ofattention - - -?---Yes.

- - - from people in the prison system; from psychologistsfrom outside and - an extraordinary amount of attention?---He has.

Looking at the matter on the outside as a person who wasn'tinvolved would that have been quite unusual, the amount ofattention, or is it the kind of attention that was apt tobe given to anybody in the system?---It's an extraordinaryamount of attention but he's not an ordinary prisonerbecause of his actions within the custodial environment butI still consider he's had an extraordinary amount ofattention, even in spite of his extraordinary status.

It would seem to me that - again, jumping to a conclusion,which may be quite unjustified - that the amount ofattention given to him was far and away beyond what, forexample, an ordinary person who was mentally ill or neededmental attention would have been given in any othercircumstances. Why? Do you know?---I don't know why. Isuppose because he is a high profile prisoner within thesystem. I think there would be few staff that would knowwho he was, so he's a very well-known prisoner and I guessquite often it's, you know, to use a term, it's a squeakywheel that gets the most attention and he's been a squeakywheel, so he's received a lot of attention but there areother prisoners who are high profile prisoners or what'sconsidered - they are deemed high profile prisoners whodon't get seen. They don't necessarily have contact withprison management. They don't necessarily have contactwith psychological services or programs and quite often yousee that in violent offenders, they will come into aviolent offender treatment program and there will benothing on them because no-one's seen them and yet they areconsidered special profile or high profile but they havenot received any attention from anybody.

Without intending any disrespect to Mr Keating, who maywell be a highly intelligent man, was it that he was a kindof bizarre example that everybody fastened on? Is that anexplanation of it?---No, I wouldn't say a bizarre example,I would simply say that he is - he's quite engaging and Ithink perhaps it's more his capacity to engage others.When you work with him, and I look at the times with himone to one, he does all the right things, so in that sensehe's not awful to work with. Do you know what I mean? Idon't think - prison staff generally find him - that havemanaged him they don't find him awful so I think that - I

5/8/05 MS X 1227

17/3/nal OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

think in that sense - like, there's lots of other prisonersin the system that you kind of roll your eyes when you haveto go to see them and they just bug everybody but hedoesn't come with any of that sort of baggage beyond hisoffences. In prison he's fairly - he just does his time.He doesn't particularly oppose the day-to-day problems andissues. He's not smart, you know, with them. He doesn'tparticularly swear or - he's not like other prisoners,which is surprising given how long he's been incarcerated.

5/8/05 MS X 1228

18/1/slh OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

He was able to lead people into acting with him?---In what- in terms of the riot at Fremantle or a differentscenario? I'm not sure. He's more of an individual. Hedoesn't really have - and I'm not sure if you're referringto staff or other prisoners. He's very much a loner inthat sense so I'm not sure.

I'm just trying to understand who it was that with all thathappened and with his history he was able to get so manypeople working for him to get him into a prerelease programrather than anybody else who had perhaps a similar kind ofhistory?---I think it is unusual in the number of peoplethat were involved but there are other examples where Iguess the system is forgiving in terms of offenders whohave been quite violent, particularly towards custodialstaff, and yet there is still that option that custodialstaff when the time comes will do - anybody in the prisonsystem will do what they need to do to help this personchange. I suppose overall we like to think that peoplewill change. I guess it's from that sort of positivestance that you try and do the best you can. Some peoplejust need an awful lot of assistance to do that but Isuppose on the part of - even in terms of the uniformedstaff there's that sense of, "All right, well, let's tryand do it." I just think with Keating he just seemed toattract a lot more people than perhaps other people do.Maybe that's due to his ability to articulate and toexpress his needs. Perhaps he communicates them better andthat's what helps people get on board. Most of the otheroffenders of his sort of status are not particularlyliterate and not particularly articulate.

One has the situation - I'm sorry just to pressthis - - -?---That's okay.

- - - but it interested me - as I follow the dates that hehad been recommended for inclusion in the prereleaseprogram and then in the middle of 2004 that was refused bythe minister and then by the beginning of the followingyear, March 2005, he was again being pressed for inclusionand being put forward et cetera. It was in the context ofhis then being further pressed for inclusion that he didwhat he did on 16 March 2005. I just wondered whyeverybody was so enthusiastic about him?---I guess he justkind of invokes that kind of response.

Yes, thank you very much. Anything else arising out ofthat?

QUINLAN, MR: There is something I forgot to ask. I'msorry to ask further questions, Ms X, but there was onething I forgot to ask you about. Were you still atCasuarina throughout 2001 when you moved to the prisoncounselling service?---No, in 2001 - I moved to prison

5/8/05 MS X 122912.14

18/2/slh OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

counselling service in July of 1998. In 2001 - January of2001 I moved from Casuarina Prison to Hakea Prison.

Do you remember - do you know an assessment writer atCasuarina Mr Glassborow?---Yes, I do.

Mr Glassborow prepared a report in relation to Mr Keatingwhich is document 533. If we look on page 7 of this reporthe in that last full paragraph that's on the screen says:

The circumstances of his removal have been givenextensive coverage in the reports by Les Harrison andSunny Gianatti. However, according to Ms X Keatingbecame aggressive and adopted a threatening demeanourtowards her -

and then he goes on to describe that incident further.Mr Glassborow gave evidence that he contacted you andanother woman later on in relation to these incidents whenhe was preparing this report in October 2001. Do yourecall having contact with him or him being in contact withyou about it?---Yes. I couldn't tell you what the dateswere but, yeah, I do remember having contact withMr Glassborow, yes.

5/8/05 MS X 1230

19/1/khb OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

Then he sought you out and asked you about your perspectiveon it?---Correct, yes.

Thank you, sir. Nothing further.

MAHONEY, MR: Yes, thank you very much. Thank you forcoming along.

(THE WITNESS WITHDREW)

QUINLAN, MR: Sir, before I call the next witness I shouldclarify something for the purposes of the record. I askedMs X about notes of her treatment record in the one-on-onecounselling with Mr Keating and indicated that I wasn'taware that we had received the documents. DetectiveSergeant Saunders has in fact passed me a note thatindicates that we do have an offender services treatmentfile that has Ms X's notes on it.

MAHONEY, MR: Yes.

QUINLAN, MR: With that clarification, sir, I call AlanRoy Parke.

PARKE, ALAN ROY sworn:

QUINLAN, MR: Mr Parke, your full name is Alan with one L,and Roy Parke with an E on the end?---That's correct.

You're an employee with the Department of Justice?---That'scorrect.

You have been employed by the Department of Justice or itspredecessors since February 1986. Is that correct?---That's correct.

What position do you hold at the moment in terms of asubstantive position?---At the moment I hold the positionof acting prisons parole delegate.

So you are the person, I think we have heard, that hastaken over some of the workload that Ms Rabbit used tohave - - -?---That's correct.

- - - in her position as a manager of parole release andyou sit on the Parole Board as the delegate for thedepartment?---I do.

Acting in that position, I think you have as a substantiveposition a systems superintendent, offender development?---Assistant superintendent, offender development.

Sorry, assistant superintendent, offender development.Whereabouts is that?---That's at Albany Regional Prison.

5/8/05 MS X 123112.20 PARKE, A.R.

19/2/khb OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

At Albany Regional Prison. Can you just tell us somethingabout your history within the department and withincorrections since 1986?---Well, I joined as a probationaryprison officer in 1986. I think in 89 or 1990 I became afirst-class prison officer. 91 I became a senior prisonofficer. In 1992 I acted as coordinator of security atAlbany Regional Prison. I acted in that position for anextensive period of time. It changed to assistantsuperintendent, security. I acted in that position for anumber of years. Then in 1997 I acted in the positionbefore getting the substantive position of assistantsuperintendent, program and resources. Following on fromthat I got the position of assistant superintendent,offender development at Albany Regional Prison.

That would have been the position you held in 2001. Isthat correct?---That's correct.

What essentially were the responsibilities of that positionwithin that Albany Regional Prison's structure?---It wasthe second in charge of the prison as, I suppose, a deputysuperintendent to the superintendent. I oversaw at thatparticular time the Walpole work camp. I oversaw theprison management as it relates to prisoners and programsas it related to ensuring that prisoners were provided theprograms that they were required.

Now, while in that position in 2001 I think at some pointin the middle of 2001 there was a proposal that theprisoner Paul Stephen Keating would be transferred toAlbany Regional Prison. Do you recall that - - -?---Yes, Ido.

- - - occasion? Can you just tell us how it was that youbecame aware of that proposal and what you were told interms of the reasons for that and what was intended tohappen?---How exactly I became informed I couldn't quitesay but I'm sure the superintendent would've been informed.He would've informed me. We would've had discussions.From there we would've spoken with the directorate andfollowing on from that, when we confirmed that Mr Keatingwas to be transferred to Albany Prison, we then put inplace some more formalised structures as to how we would bereceiving the prisoner.

5/8/05 PARKE, A.R. 1232

20/1/nal OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

What was your understanding of the reason why he was comingto Albany?---He was coming to Albany to, for want of abetter word, mainstream him, to put him in the prisonmainstream. He had been held in the special handling unitor, prior to him coming to Albany, was actually in thecrisis care unit at Casuarina Prison and it was felt thathe required to be mainstreamed so that he could be moved onthroughout his sentence.

Was there, at the time that you became aware that he wascoming to Albany, a view as to - an understanding as to howlong you would have him?---We were of the understandingthat this would be as a temporary measure with noparticular time frame set, however it was looked upon as atransitional accommodation, for want of a better word, forhim to be placed at Bunbury Regional Prison.

Was this when you first became aware that he was coming toAlbany, that the proposal was he would be in transition onthe way to Bunbury?---Yes, that's my belief of whathappened at the time.

You said no particular time. Was there a view or anestimate as to how long it was expected that you would havehim?---No, there wasn't. There was no time frame set down.I mean, we had looked at this as a - as we do - Albany hasreceived a number of this type of prisoner over the yearsand for us we would evaluate how he was progressing throughthe system and make a determination in relation to that ata later stage, however he was being managed by the SOMCcommittee, so therefore our input into his transfer toAlbany and his transfer out was very limited.

In terms of the actual decision-making, that was happeningby the SOMC committee?---That's correct.

You were finding out about their decisions in terms of hisplacement. I think when you were spoken to by Mr Saundersthis week you said when asked was there any sort of timeperiod as to how long you would have him before he wastransferred on - you said, "I think six months wasmentioned"?---Yeah, but I wouldn't like to - as I say, thiswas a number of years ago, I wouldn't like to say sixmonths in specific was mentioned but there was a timeperiod mentioned and, as I say, it was a traditionaltransitional time period whereby he would - he was notbeing transferred, for want of a better word, as apermanent transfer to Albany. He was transferred to Albanyas a staging post for his onward transfer to Bunbury.

Just so that I can be clear about this, whilst you are notable to recall the time frame that you were told in 2001you can recall that there was a general time framementioned and that your recollection is that that was in

5/8/05 PARKE, A.R. 123312.26

20/2/nal OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

the context of it being a transition to get him to Bunbury?---That's correct.

Why was it that he couldn't go straight to Bunbury?---Frommemory two reasons were given; one of course was hissecurity rating was maximum security and he wasn't -Bunbury is a medium security prison, so therefore he, youknow, didn't meet the qualification as far as that regard.The second one was in relation to that again he was comingout of the special handling unit and the perception thatsomeone coming out of the special handling unit after beingin there for so long should have, you know, a longer - aperiod of time in a maximum security environment.

That decision was obviously communicated to Albany afterSOMC had made a decision. What was your - as the second incharge, if you like, at Albany and, if you are able to say,the superintendent's view in relation to him coming toAlbany? Was there a feel at Albany Prison about that?---Fear is probably a word which could be used. There wasan extreme amount of concern, particularly in relation tohim having spent so much time in the special handling unit,to be coming out and placed in, for want of a better word,a mainstream prison. We felt that it would have beenbetter for him to have been placed in a mainstreamenvironment within Casuarina Prison rather than moving himthrough to Albany. There was a fear surrounding Mr Keatingin that staff didn't believe that he was sufficiently - hadbeen treated sufficiently to not be a risk to them.

5/8/05 PARKE, A.R. 1234

21/1/slh OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

Following the decision there would have been no doubtcommunication between Casuarina and Albany Prison inplanning for that process. I understand there was aspecific occasion where a delegation, if you like, fromPerth came down to Albany. Can you tell us about that?---Because of the concerns that were raised by both thesuperintendent and myself in relation to Mr Keating comingto Albany, they felt that it would be appropriate if Mr LesHarrison and Mr Dave Hide came down to brief the staff onwhere he was and to assure them that he was no longer therisk that they perceived him to be. They attended theprison and after the morning debrief gave a discussion tothe senior management team and to the senior members ofstaff in relation to Mr Keating coming to Albany and triedto allay the fears of the staff that were concerned.

What was your view as to - how usual was it for that kindof a visit to occur when you were getting a new prisoner?---I think in my statement I said it was unprecedented. Ithas never happened before and it has never happened since.

What kind of prisoners do you have at Albany?---Wehave - - -

I mean, Mr Keating is obviously a notorious person withinthe system?---That's correct, and Albany Prison has areputation for being able to deal with the - with this typeof prisoner. However, again, as I stated in my statement,when Mr Nolan was transferred to Albany he was takenimmediately out of the SHU and put on an escort vehicle andtransferred to Albany Prison. Now, for - the staff wereextremely concerned that the department felt the need tosend two people down to allay their fears. They could notunderstand - they felt - that immediately sent alarm bellsthrough them to say, "What's going on?"

Mr Hide I think - I don't think we have got a transcript ofprecisely the words he used but I think he said at leastthat that was a meeting that he hoped he would never haveto go through again that occurred at Albany. What was themood? What were the views being expressed at that time?---Very hostile. Very hostile in that - from some staff'spoint of view they were seen as a dumping ground. It wasfelt that, you know, this type of prisoner there was norehabilitation for, that although there was a number of -he had been assessed a number of times as not being - or asbeing cured, for want of a better word, the staff did notbelieve it and that they didn't want him in the prisonbecause they feared for the safety of female staff withinthe prison.

Were there particular arrangements made in relation to hisintended management when he would be at Albany RegionalPrison?---Yes, there was. It was determined - and I'm notquite sure whether it was just between the superintendent

5/8/05 PARKE, A.R. 123512.32

21/2/slh OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

and myself or the superintendent and myself in consultationwith others - that I attend the - I attend Casuarina tomeet with Mr Keating and put forward a management planwhich I devised with the assistance of staff at Albany asto what regime he would be under while he would be at theprison and also to explain to him that the staff at Albanydidn't want him there. You know, I had to make sure thathe was aware of all the issues that were going to surroundhim should he be transferred to Albany.

You went to Casuarina, I take it?---Yes, that's correct. Iwent to Casuarina. I met with Mr Keating in the company ofMr Hide and Mr Harrison outside the back of the crisis carecentre where he was housed at that particular time and wentthrough the management plan, explained to him the concernsof the staff and where the staff were coming from, becauseI felt that it was important that he was aware of the stafffeelings and what we were going to be putting into place toensure that when he was transferred to Albany that we wouldbe doing, you know, everything we could, as we do withevery prisoner, to ensure that his stay there would be assafe and equitable as possible.

That plan was reduced to writing, I take it?---That'scorrect.

If I can just show you document 411? This is just to showyou that the second page of it has your signature on it?---Yes.

Is that a copy of the original plan developed for Keating?---That's correct.

The aim is, as you have described it:

To maintain safety of staff, contract workers andother personnel within the prison; to allow Keatingreasonable freedom within guidelines to move to areashe is required to be.

How did - and the placement was to be in accommodation in Ayard in unit 1. Unit 1 is, am I correct in saying, theentry level unit at Albany?---That's correct. It is.

Albany is structured in such a way that a prisoner,depending upon their behaviour within the prison, as amatter of privilege, if you like, will move from unit 1 tounit 2, then to unit 3, and then I think there's a top ofthe range spot back where unit 1 is, which is unit 4?---Well, we call it D yard self-care cooking so that - - -

5/8/05 PARKE, A.R. 1236

22/1/khb OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

D yard?---Yes.

It's the one with the passionfruit tree?---That's it.

What was the regime that was planned in terms of managementof Keating? How did it compare, how was it different, tothe management regime that would apply to therun-of-the-mill prisoner coming in to the prison, if therebe such a thing?---Okay. His placement in A yard would notbe unusual for a prisoner coming in. Depending on anotherprisoner's associations within that unit, that would not beunusual for a new prisoner coming into the prison to behoused in A yard in the single cell accommodation.However, to remain in unit 1, restricted to A yard, is notsomething which we would do for a standard prisoner. So,in other words, while he was within that yard the grillegate to the yard which was normally left open was securedand could only be opened by a staff member to allow entryor egress to that particular yard.

So in fact the security arrangements in relation to theyard itself changed with his arrival?---That's correct.

Yes. If you can continue in relation to, and perhaps byreference to the plan itself, by reference to otherdifferences that might have - - -?---Okay. Again, I mean,I just put in the note there that this area has cellinspections daily, that's because in units 2 and 3 theydon't have that. I wanted him - again, the plan was aboutmaking Mr Keating aware of the differences from where hewas coming from to where he was going to and I didn't wantto leave anything out so that he could - not so that hecould, but so that he wasn't informed about what changesthere would be so I put that notation in there that thearea has daily cell inspections; to have the same access tofacilities within the area as all other prisoners, takinginto account his management plan. That was within the areathat there are four particular yards in that area. Someyards have access to other yards, some yards don't and inthat particular area he was in he was not to have access toany other of the yards or the forecourt area of thatparticular unit; to be under one male officer escort whenrequired to leave the yard for any purpose. Basically thatwas due to, again, he was an unknown quantity in AlbanyPrison. There was a certain amount of tension in relationto him being in Albany Prison and of course the maleofficer was because of the incidents that he had beeninvolved in in relation to female officers.

A prisoner in unit 1 generally in Albany would be able tomake their way around the prison unescorted, for example,to go to education or health or the industries?---That'scorrect, unless they were a protection prisoner in whichcase they would be under escort as well.

5/8/05 PARKE, A.R. 123712.38

22/2/khb OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

Albany in terms of its regimes between different units andinternal to the prison is not unlike the regime thatapplies at Casuarina. Would that be fair to say?---That'scorrect, but we do - for our perspective we call it ahierarchical management system, in other words, byconforming with our rules and regulations, by doing thecorrect thing, then you can progress to a different area ofthe prison which in turn gives you less restrictions andgreater freedom within the prison.

"Recreation to be within the yard"?---Yes. Yeah."Recreation to be within the yard," that's correct. Again,because he was an unknown quantity then his recreation wasconfined to whatever was within the yard which at thatparticular time was - like, there was a pool table in thereand some static weights training station, along with thenormal card games and that and that was his exercise or hisrecreation.

The other recreation areas within the prison which wouldordinarily apply - - -?---That's correct. If he was inunit 2 or unit 3, there are basketball, tennis courtsthere. There is also the oval which all prisoners under anormal routine would have access to during recreationtimes.

In relation to work, was there a particular restriction?---There certainly was. When I went up to see him atCasuarina I had been informed that he was enrolled in thedistance education centre. One of the main concerns thatwe have, and I discussed this with Mr Harrison, was thatagain our education centre is a rabbit warren. I'm notquite sure if you've been into the education centre or not,but it is a rabbit warren. We had a female educationmanager. There was only one male education officer and astatic DO and a roving DO, that's disciplinary officer, sotherefore we felt it prudent to put this restriction uponhim again because he was an unknown quantity and because ofthe offences he'd committed and that his work would bethrough the distance education and would be done in hiscell and no involvement and work in the education centrewould be permitted. Again, the reason for the notation asto his care level was that while he was in Casuarina Ibelieve he was on level 1 or level 2 gratuities. We wantedto standardise - we wanted to show him and other prisonersthat he was not different to them and therefore, if the payrate within the education centre says that you start onlevel 4 then that's what he is to start on and you wouldprogress to - if you met the criteria you would progress toa level 3 rate, so that was the reason for that. Again, Istress, we wanted to ensure that there was no specialtreatment as far as we were concerned being dealt to him.

5/8/05 PARKE, A.R. 1238

23/1/nal OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

Can I just ask you in relation to the education area, youdescribed it as a rabbit warren, and essentially by that,if we can just describe it for the purposes of thetranscript, it's an area which is adjacent to the healthservices part of the prison. Is that correct?---That'scorrect. You come into the - the area itself is, for a bitof history, is the old administration area. When theprison underwent its 1991, 1992 redevelopment that area wasconverted into the education centre, so when you camethrough the front door and you turned left there was anoffice on the left-hand side, which was where thedisciplinary officer - control officer operated out of; youwent down a passageway, on either side of the passagewaythere are a number of rooms. You then went to an L-shapedcorridor, again there were a number of rooms. You furtherwent on to an open corral area which has 40 corrals in it.You then went on through that and then you had more roomson both the left and the right-hand side ending at the endof the area where a large - it used to be, at his time, thearts room was down there.

That configuration with the narrow passageway that goes inan L-shape, in terms of the prison officer that is attachedto education, is that the beginning or the entrance of thecontrol - - -?---The officer is - there are two officersthere; one is on a permanent basis, that's the disciplinaryofficer, and then we have what we call a roving DO whostarts his position off within the blocks, within the cellunit and then when the work parties go he then moves tothat area there and he's stationed there and his job is torove throughout the area ensuring the security of the area.

But certainly it's a location in terms of architecture thatwould be completely inappropriate for a person for whom youhad concerns?---Certainly would be, yeah.

Over the page we have:

Visits to be at prescribed times, however may be in aseparate area.

That speaks for itself and again, canteen and libraryaccess - both reference to escorts. There was a referenceto the psychologist designated responsible for his welfareneeds is Mr R. Summers. That's Roger Summers, Iunderstand?---That's correct, yes.

Who is a psychologist attached to Albany Prison?---AlbanyPrison.

Were there any particular other arrangements put in placein relation to his psychological treatment or development?---Yes, there were. We were informed that Ms Gianatti andMr Harrison would be coming down to give ongoing treatmentto him for his emotional or whatever - you know, just to

5/8/05 PARKE, A.R. 123912.44

23/2/nal OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

ensure that his transition to Albany Prison was not havingany ill effect on him.

Was that an unusual thing to occur in relation to aprisoner, that they would, in a sense, have staffcontinuing contact with him?---Unusual but not isolated.

Now, at the time that he was being prepared to come toAlbany this was obviously happening, as you've said, as aresult of meetings of the serious offenders managementcommittee. You weren't on that committee at the time, Itake it, that those decisions were being - - -?---No.That's correct. Well, I was involved in two meetings ofthe SOMC committee; one prior to his attending Albany andone while he was at Albany.

In terms of information in relation to him obviouslymembers of staff would have known about the incident thatoccurred in 1992 involving a prison officer at Casuarina?---That's correct.

That's principally what would have given rise to theirsense of apprehension about his coming to the prison?---That's correct.

Were you aware of, prior to his arriving, an incident thatoccurred in 1998 involving a facilitator with the sexoffender treatment program?---I'm not aware as to whetherit was prior to his arriving or prior to my interview withMr Keating at Casuarina Prison but at no stage prior tothat had I been informed that there was any incidentinvolving Mr Keating and another member of staff. It wasactually, I believe, Mr Keating who actually raised thatissue with me at a meeting. From memory, I can't rememberif that was actually on that meeting I had with him inCasuarina or when it was when I interviewed him when hearrived at Albany Prison.

5/8/05 PARKE, A.R. 1240

24/1/slh OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

So it might have been after he arrived that - - -?---Itcertainly might have, yes.

It was Mr Keating's perspective of that incident that yougot?---Yes, it was.

Were you given - or did you have available an incidentreport in relation to the matter from the staff memberconcerned?---No, I didn't.

Can I ask that you be shown document 383? Page 3 of thisdocument is an incident report dated Wednesday, 14 January1998. Does that - that, I take it, was not something thatyou had available to you or which came with thefiles - - -?---No, certainly not.

- - - in relation to him?---No.

Have you since seen that document?---I've heard of it. Ibelieve this is the first time I've physically seen it on acomputer.

If I could just ask you to read to yourself that largeparagraph.

MAHONEY, MR: Read the whole document, Mr Parke.

QUINLAN, MR: It might be easier if I give you my papercopy of it, that way you don't have to tell Ms Ward toscroll?---Did you want me to read the full document or justthat page?

No, if you can go on and read the second page including thelast paragraph?---Yeah.

Having seen that document, how does it compare with thenature of the incident as it was described to you byMr Keating?---He didn't describe the incident to me. Sorryif that - - -

Sorry. Okay. So he didn't identify what the content of itwas, he just says there had been some?---No, he said thathe had made disclosures to Ms X about - how would youphrase it?

Fantasies?---Yeah, fantasies around her but that was as faras it went. He didn't actually go into detail. Sorry ifthat was the impression that I gave.

Sure?---He didn't go into detail in relation - as to whatit was about.

So you wouldn't have had the detail of what was said orwhat the staff member's reaction to that was as describedin that document?---No, he did say that he'd been taken off

5/8/05 PARKE, A.R. 124112.50

24/2/slh OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

the group for comments that he'd made, what he believed tobe disclosing in a contextual basis to Ms X.

Having seen that incident report, in your position asassistant superintendent, how seriously would you regardthe information contained in that report?---Very seriously.

Is that information which you would consider wouldordinarily - or would warrant prison charges being broughtagainst a prisoner?---It would certainly have been referredto the prosecutor for the prosecutor to give me his opinionon whether charges should be laid or not. That would beeither internally or externally.

In terms of receiving a new prisoner - receiving Keating,let's be specific about the example, is that information ormaterial which you as the assistant superintendent at thereceiving prison would expect to receive?---I would haveexpected to have seen an alert on the system whereby itwould have identified to me that there were incidentssurrounding this prisoner which by contacting thesuperintendent of the sending prison I would be informedof. I would maybe not expect - I certainly would notexpect to see that in a file, I'll be quite truthful.That's not something - basically - - -

MAHONEY, MR: You were certainly what?---I would notexpect to see that in a prison file. That's only becauseof the openness of which the files can be, you know,accessed, so I wouldn't expect that in a file but Iwould've expected an alert within the system to advise methat such a document did exist and I would be able toaccess that document appropriately.

It wouldn't be on the file but you would be notified ofit?---I would not expect that to be on the file, no, but Iwould've expected a notation to be made that, you know,there are documents which need to be accessed due toconfidentiality and security reasons.

QUINLAN, MR: Let me put it this way: it's a documentthat should be readily accessible to persons who would needto know it?---Yes, it is.

Including, for example, an assessment officer who wasconducting an assessment of the prisoner?---I would believeso, yes.

Not only that - not only should it be readily accessiblebut you would expect that there would be some mechanism toalert you to go and look for it?---That's correct, yes.

If it please you, sir. I notice the time. That's probablyan appropriate point to adjourn.

5/8/05 PARKE, A.R. 1242

24/3/slh OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

MAHONEY, MR: Mr Parke, I'm going to ask you questions notrestricted to Mr Keating but with your new hat on in theParole Board so would you have your mind focused on thatlater on because I may be able to extract some informationfrom you?---Okay, sir.

Yes, we will adjourn until 2 o'clock.

(Luncheon adjournment)

5/8/05 PARKE, A.R. 1243

25/1/khb OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

MAHONEY, MR: Yes, Mr Quinlan?

QUINLAN, MR: Thank you.

Mr Parke, we had reached the point, I think, at whichMr Keating is being transferred to Albany and he camethere, I think, on 15 October 2001 or at least in themiddle of October 2001?---Yes.

Then, I take it, became subject to that management regimethat is reflected in document 411 that we have beenreferring to?---Yes, that's correct.

How was his behaviour at Albany in that time after hearrived there?---His behaviour could only be described asexemplary. He never put a foot wrong. He ensured that hedid not put himself in a situation where he could becompromised, so he didn't really give a, for want of abetter word, true indication of how he was reassimilatingback into the normal prison routine.

Okay. While he was at Albany did he, for that time that hewas there, continue to be subject to particular scrutiny ora particularly tight regime?---He was, yes. Probably theroutine - the scrutiny, rather, was more so than what itsays in my management plan on him and that staff werecontinually scrutinising who he was associating with, whathe was doing and that type of thing, so he was underconstant scrutiny by staff. He was under scrutiny also bymyself and other members of the administration and themanagement team in relation to how he was progressing withthe management plan that had been set in place for him.

You say he didn't put a foot wrong and, I may havemisheard, that he didn't necessarily present a true pictureof how he would perform in mainstream or - - -?---Well, wedidn't - I personally, I won't say we, I said I personallydon't believe that he did and my main reason for that wasthat as he progressed in Albany his management plan wasaltered to reflect as we felt he was going to, actually sothat we could gauge better as to how he was performingwithin, you know, for want of a better word, letting thereins loose to allow - to get him to explore how he wasgoing within the prison environment. I don't believe thathe took advantage of the opportunities that were given tohim.

Could you give us an example of that?---Probably inrelation to his movement from what we considered to be theold area of the prison, unit 1A yard, to another area ofthe prison which had a less restrictive regime and thehierarchal management was higher up the scale, gave him abetter class of cell and better accommodation, more visitsand more privileges as they related to electrical items andthe like, but he determined that he would remain within

5/8/05 PARKE, A.R. 12442.03

25/2/khb OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

unit 1 and A yard.

I think that was reflected in some revised plans that youproduced progressively while he was there and I will askthat they be put on the screen. Document 528. This is theplan relatively soon after his arrival at Albany RegionalPrison which bears essentially a marked similarity with theoriginal plan, I think, with some minor changes in relationto recreation. If we look down the second-half of thatpage:

Keating may have access to the unit 1 forecourt areaat recreation times during the week and weekend?

---That's correct.

Just to paint a picture of that, in unit 1 there are yardswhich are effectively enclosed areas or - - -?---Yes.

- - - at the very least they appear to be enclosed areasand there is a forecourt with grass and a garden which isout the front of each of those yard areas?---That'scorrect, yes.

So this was moving him not out of the bounded area of unit1 but into another recreational aspect of it?---Yes, wherehe would still be, for want of a better word, underscrutiny and direct supervision of the staff within thearea because, although he was out of the yard, thatparticular yard, he couldn't go into another yard and hecouldn't actually leave the unit 1 area itself.

Now, these revised plans, this one and the others that I'mgoing to take you to, I think you provided to theinvestigators with the inquiry on Wednesday. Where did youobtain them from?---From my computer.

So these were still on your computer at the time?---That'scorrect.

5/8/05 PARKE, A.R. 1245

26/1/slh OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

Would these ordinarily have gone onto the - onto his file?---Not necessarily, no. It was, for want of a better word,a work in progress. A copy was given to the - the planswere discussed after the morning debrief meeting; input wasput in there as to how we could assess and normalise thisperson within the system and then I would alter the plan onmy computer; call the prisoner down; advise him of whatchanges had been made to the plan; give him a - sign theplan and give him a copy of that plan. Whether I put acopy of the plan on his file or not - I may well have putit in my out tray to go on his file but I personally didn'tput a copy on his file.

The reason I ask is in relation to some files in relationto Keating that we have not been able to obtain that appearto have gone missing, one of which are unit files - orinformation in relation to unit files?---I would - can Ijust interrupt for a moment? Sorry. A copy of this wouldalso have gone to the unit manager of the unit that he wasin and the unit manager would've put a copy of that on hisfile. I wouldn't have done it, I would've put it inmy - - -

On his unit file?---On his unit file. That's correct.

That was really what I was getting at. I wasn't suggestingthat you had the responsibility for putting it on the filepin but this is the kind of document that we might expectto see on a unit file that a prisoner has at their unitthat's directing their day-to-day management?---That'scorrect.

The reason that we have not seen these documents before maywell be that the most likely place for them to be is on theunit files that we haven't been able to obtain?---That'scorrect.

The second one - I will take you to document 530, which isagain in similar terms. This is the 12 November 2001amendment. I think the change here is in relation toaccess to facilities. There's both access to the unit 1forecourt and to the oval when it is opened?---That iscorrect.

Again, how was that proposed to be managed in terms of hissupervision? I think that's the only change from the lastone?---His supervision would be by the two officerssupervising the oval whereby what we were trying to do was,as I reiterated, to assimilate him back into the prisoninto a normalised routine. We didn't want him to feel hewas special and we didn't want the other prisoners to feelhe was special. What we were trying to do was to move witha management plan that accommodated everybody's point ofview, also so that we could assess him to see who he wasinteracting with, because in unit 1 there's very few people

5/8/05 PARKE, A.R. 12462.09

26/2/slh OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

he can interact with. We wanted to see who he wasinteracting with, who he was forming a friendship with andthen that could allow us with our dynamic security to makeobservations and changes accordingly.

Did he avail himself of those opportunities?---He did availhimself of the oval, yes, he did, but not on a regularbasis.

There was a serious offenders management committee meetingon 28 November 2001 which it would appear you attended bytele-link. Would that be the telephone or - - -?---A video-link.

A video-link. Right. That's document 417. I take it by28 November there has been some restriction in relation tohis regime but he's still not venturing into educationareas or anything like that or venturing outside of unit 1except for those occasions when he has access to the openoval?---That's correct.

On the second page of that meeting it says in the secondfull paragraph:

There is a view that Mr Keating is developing anexpectation that he will commence on a prereleaseprogram some 15 months prior to his eligibility date.This may or may not be the case as the eligibilitydate is a date for consideration only. It was notedthat Mr Keating has advised that he sought legaladvice in regards to his management and placement.

Mr Keating was in Albany Prison at the time this wasoccurring. Are you able to help us as to - or expand onhow - who held the view that he was developing anexpectation of progressing to a prerelease program in thenot too distant future and where that view had come from?---Well, he would have held the view. However, the viewwould also have been determined in relation to - as hisearliest eligibility date was coming close, and he was a GPfrom memory, therefore - a prerelease program is somethingwhich happens to all prisoners who are on indeterminate GPapproval - these people would undergo a prerelease programsome 15, 18 months prior to their release. Thatexpectation is held by all these prisoners. In hisparticular case he would've - I mean, he expressed the viewto me that he would be - his earliest eligibility date wascoming up and it was of concern to him whether he wouldactually, you know, be considered for a prerelease program.

5/8/05 PARKE, A.R. 1247

27/1/glj OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

You said that all lifers or governor's pleasure peoplewould expect to be on a prerelease program, Is there a -and you may be able to add to this with perspective fromyour contacts with the Parole Board - a presumption if youlike that the statutory review date that is set in relationto a prisoner is seen as their earliest eligible date forrelease and that all things being equal everyone workstowards that as the release date?---That's correct and thatwas a view expressed I think it's from - I don't know; Imay be corrected in the time and date, but I believe thechange to the Sentence Administration Act back in 1997 whenit was deemed that the SRD would be the time at which aprisoner or when a statutory review date would be released.That was a time where the department changed to thenproducing a prerelease program up to 18 months prior tothat particular date. So all prisoners who came withinthat category would have known of the change and all I canrelate to is at Albany we actually - or I actually discussthat with all life and indeterminate prisoners as to whattheir expectations should be, and to get them to be ableto - how would one phrase it - do what they can to ensurethat they meet their obligations to be able to go on aprerelease program at that particular point in time, shouldit be approved.

Does that philosophy or approach to the statutory reviewdate, that it's seen in those terms - does that have theeffect - and I'm wondering whether it had the effect inthis case - that it drives the process so that on occasionpeople will get pushed more quickly through the system thanmight otherwise be the case?---That may be a perception,but I don't believe it to be the case. There have been -and prisoners are well aware that a number of things canaffect that, you know, prior to their statutory review datein that they must have met their obligation and thedepartment will meet their obligation. However, theprisoners are also aware of the fact that it is only areview date and that it is not uncommon for them to go pastthis review date and some of them quite substantially.

What was the reference to Mr Keating having sought legaladvice regarding his management and placement - - -?---Ican only speculate on that, but I would speculate that healong with a number of other prisoners had the seen thatthey were going past their statutory review date and whenthey were sentenced originally - and this is what prisonershave expressed to me over time, right - saying, "When I wassentenced back in 1984 there was no prerelease program andthe judge didn't make a determination that I should undergoa prerelease program. I was sentenced to 20 years inprison; therefore, my review is 20 years and I will be letout on 20 years," and so from that point of view there wasa number of prisoners who were actually trying to take thisto court for a legal opinion on it - - -

5/8/05 PARKE, A.R. 12482.15

27/2/glj OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

Yes?--- - - - so that they could actually come forward andsay, "You're holding me in prison illegally because when Iwas sentenced this was my date and you are now holding mepast this date."

And again, that really reflects a perception that thisstatutory review date is not seen as a date where aprisoner is just looked at without any presumption one wayor the other and there's a decision made: "Do we let themout or do we leave them in or do we leave them in foranother 10 years?" It's seen as, "This is my date forrelease, all things being equal"?---Yes, but that issomething which I personally advise the prisoner that's notthe case - - -

Yes?--- - - - because, you know, the minister or theattorney-general who actually releases them, albeit onadvice from a number of different areas. So some do get itin their head: "I've been sentenced to 10 years'imprisonment and that's it; I'm not staying a day extra inprison,"

Notwithstanding, for example, that they had actuallyreceived a life sentence - - -?---That's correct.

- - - with a 10-year minimum?---And that's why I go atpains to tell them it is a statutory review date; a date bywhich you must be reviewed, not a date at which you will bereleased.

I take it that you do that in your management of prisonersbecause the expectations or a build-up in expectationswhich is not then met can be a particular managementproblem as a prison administrator?---It certainly can, andI believe - you know, I talk to the prisoners; I advise theprisoners directly; I say, "If you've got any questions, Ioperate on an open-door policy. Come and see me. If whenyou get a decision slip which you don't understand" - Iwill explain it to them; I sit down - and I have beeninstrumental in getting a change made to the AIPR system inrelation to lifers and that another line is actually put inthere to say that, "Although you have been reviewed," youknow, "for programs and that, in the last three yearsthere'll be a psychological review which may then assessthat you do require programs even though at this point intime it's determined that you don't." So we're veryproactive in what we do and ensuring that the management ofthe prisoner is achieved to the best possible outcome.

5/8/05 PARKE, A.R. 1249

28/1/khb OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

That, in terms of the management of expectations ofprisoners, is obviously a need which is present throughoutthe system?---Yes.

Now, after that meeting on 28 November Mr Hendersonattended the prison to do a review of Keating's individualmanagement plan. Is that correct?---That's correct.

Firstly, what reason were you given that within two monthsof him arriving at Albany his individual management planwas to be redone?---I don't believe that I was given areason for it. I wasn't involved in it in relation to anyof it. What I - I mean, from memory my first realisationwas that Mr Henderson had arrived at the prison. However,as there were prisoners being converted on to the new AIPRsystem in regards to, as it was, director-general's rules13 and 14 in comparison to the old director's-general rule2B, that there was an expectation that all prisoners wouldbe changed over. As far as I was concerned, this was justone prisoner that was actually being changed over.However, I was not made aware of why it was happening.

The changeover to the new AIPR system, I take it, wassomething that the assessment group at Albany were doing aswell?---Very slowly and not to its full capabilities.

Yes?---Basically because we had limited, if any, trainingin it.

Yes?---We didn't understand at that particular time thefull principles, as to how it worked and it took a periodof time for myself to become fully conversant with it andto be able to - for me to pass on that knowledge to my casemanagement coordinator as it was and to other staff membersaround.

You will be pleased to know we have heard a great deal ofevidence in relation to those difficulties that wereexperienced in terms of bringing prisoners over, butspecifically in relation to Mr Keating, when Mr Hendersoncame to Albany did he transfer any other prisoners over tothe AIPR system?---No, he didn't.

Did you become aware of the outcome of that review and whatthe recommendations were?---I became aware of the outcomeof the classification review only because I asked him as towhat that was and I became aware of the outcome of thereview only after - probably a couple of months afterwards.

That the recommendation was - - -?---Well, I knew that hewas going to forward the recommendation that, you know -no, let me rephrase it. Not that the recommendation wasgoing to be, that medium security was what had beenprojected on the classification review. I knew that thatwas being put forward.

5/8/05 PARKE, A.R. 12502.21

28/2/khb OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

Did you know at that time that there was a recommendationthat he be transferred to Bunbury Regional Prison?---I wasaware that that recommendation was going to be made.Mr Keating himself had told me while I interviewed him atCasuarina back in July 01 that he actually wanted to knowwhy he wasn't being transferred to Bunbury directly and whyhe was coming to Albany. He kept reiterating that he hadan old sentence plan which actually determined that hewould be placed at Bunbury. However, what he failed torecognise was that in between that assessment having beenmade and this particular point in time he had committed anumber of further offences within the prison whichprecluded that from happening. However, he didn't wish torecognise that and was adamant that he should betransferred to Bunbury and all his energy was put intosaying, "I am medium security. I should be in Bunburyprison."

That was the energy - all his energy was being put intothat before he even got to Albany?---Yes.

He is a prisoner who is under your jurisdiction, if youlike, while he is in Albany. Is it unusual to haveassessment officers come from outside the prison inrelation to a particular prisoner?---Yes, that is unusual.However, I didn't think it's totally unusual because of thenature - if he was being assessed under the AIPR system orwhat I presumed was the AIPR system at that point in time.Because we didn't have the experience in that particulararea I didn't question it. However, if that was to happentoday, I would.

5/8/05 PARKE, A.R. 1251

29/1/slh OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

Yes, today with the fully established assessment team atAlbany it would raise alarm bells?---It certainly would.

I take it also with Keating there's the additional factorthat he has this committee - the SOMC committee that ishaving the oversight of his management and placement?---Yes.

Ultimately that recommendation for placement at Bunbury inmedium security came before the SOMC committee on20 February 2002. This is document 419. I appears againthat Mr McAllister, yourself and Mr Summers are present byvideo-link. We can see at the bottom of page 3:

The committee entered into a lengthy discussionconcerning the recommendation for a transfer toBunbury. There were varying views as to the meritsor otherwise of Mr Keating going to Bunbury.

What was your view as to the amount of time that hehad spent in Albany and the amount of normalisation that hehad achieved and the proposal that he go to BunburyRegional Prison?---At this particular point in time - youwill have noticed by my revised management plan on him, thelast revised one - if you relate to that where I'd saidthat as from the new education unit that his educationwould then be in the education centre - we had not at thattime - or he had not availed himself of that particularthing and had decided to remain within the unit to do hiseducation. He'd also remained within A yard so Ipersonally was a little bit concerned that he hadn't beentrialed in a more open environment; you know, moving himfrom what I would classify as a closed environment withinAlbany Prison, within the unit, to the open environment ofBunbury Prison.

So that he had been in close security, if I can call itthat; the SHU or the multipurpose units in Casuarina, andhe obviously hadn't gone to that kind of regime in Albanybut he had nevertheless gone into a closed regime in amaximum security environment at Albany?---Yeah, but moreimportantly I think is that he hadn't availed himself ofthe transfer to another unit with a less restrictive regimeso that we could see how he was assimilating within theopen environment of Albany Prison, albeit in a maximumsecurity prison setting.

I will - just to complete that picture, document 532 Ithink is the revised plan that you referred to, which is15 January which was I think the last plan before thismeeting of 20 February. That's where you have said:

His placement was initially in unit 1 and he has beenoffered a transfer to unit 3. However, he wishes to

5/8/05 PARKE, A.R. 12522.27

29/2/slh OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

remain in unit 1 until such time as a vacancy arisesin the unit 1 D yard?

---That's correct. Unit 1 D yard is, as I've said earlier,the top of the hierarchy of management system within AlbanyPrison. It's a small 10-bed self-contained yard. He had anumber of associates within that yard but he also had anumber of associates in unit 3, so you know, for me it wasreally okay. I'd like to see him, you know, show -demonstrate. You know, at this point in time although he'sdemonstrated that he's compliant - it's easy to demonstratecompliance but he hasn't demonstrated any interactionreally with staff members in a less restrictive regime; inother words, where - you know, in a self-care unit thestaff were not, for want of a better word, in your face.May I say they're not in your face at Albany anyhow. Youknow, so he didn't demonstrate to them that he could go upto a staff member and ask for anything, you know, or say,"I want to do this," or to allow himself to go - in themorning when he goes to work, you know, where work partiesare called at 8.30 he would make his way to the educationcentre; in other words, you don't deviate from the unit 3to the education centre. He hadn't demonstrated any ofthat.

So that in a sense you have kind of a - paradox is thewrong word but depending on what question you ask you mightget a very different response. If you say, "Is he behavingwell?" it sounds like the answer is, "He's behavingperfectly well" - - -?---Yes.

- - - but that may be because he has not put himself outthere at all in terms of putting him in a situation wherehe has the opportunity to behave unwell?---That's correct.

That was really your concern arising out of the fact thathe wasn't moving out of the close security of A yard?---Apart from the oval but, you know, that wasn't on adaily basis.

Similarly in relation to work in that document in the lastparagraph of that page:

Keating is enrolled in education through the distanceeducation program. To facilitate this he may work inthe education centre.

It opened and he was able to work in that centre as youdescribed it earlier?---Mm.

Did he avail himself of that opportunity?---No, he did not.

5/8/05 PARKE, A.R. 1253

30/1/nal OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

Do you remember any other people at the meeting of the SOMCin February 2002 who - it says there were varying views asto the merits of him going to Bunbury. Do you specificallyrecall any other people who were opposed to such a move?---No, I don't.

You don't recall what - - -?---I don't recall, I'll bequite honest, with the passage of time and the number ofthings that have gone on. I honestly don't recall. I knowthat there was a lengthy discussion but as to who said whatI wouldn't be 100 per cent sure but it was thought that - Imean, one section was saying this is good for histherapeutic value, you know, he's ready, this is the timefor him. Others were saying - such as myself - he hasn'tgot there yet; he's been given these opportunities but hehasn't availed himself of the opportunities but when you -and, I mean, I don't know whether you've got the minutes ofthat meeting. Is that the minutes there?

Yes?---I mean, discussion also took place in relation to,you know, his status as a high security escort prisoner. Imean, if you're medium security can you be a high securityescort prisoner? A lot of various discussions went on andno decision, I believe, was actually ever made from thatmeeting or from the part of the meeting that Mr McAllister,Mr Summers and myself were involved in. Whether otherinteractions took place after the video-link was finished Idon't know.

At any rate, by March a decision was made that he would betransferred to Bunbury Regional Prison and I think in April- was it April 2002 or thereabouts that he would have beentransferred to Bunbury Regional Prison?---Yes.

That seems a rapid progression from the closed environmentof the special handling unit or the multi-purpose units atCasuarina through to the environment at Bunbury RegionalPrison from October 2001 to April 2002. Would you agreewith that characterisation of the speed?---You could makethat assumption but for some prisoners that would - I mean,each prisoner is an individual and you've got to treat themeach as an individual and each case is individual; in otherwords, what works for some doesn't work for someone else.You keep getting to - when you get to that point in timewhen you believe that this is the optimum time for changeto take place then you've got to act on that, you know, andobviously it was thought that that was the optimum time forhim that, you know, change had taken place. From apersonal point of view - and I will say this is my point ofview - from a personal point of view I would have ratherhave seen him do time at Albany Prison within the prisonunit, in a different unit, under a different regime.

I appreciate that all prisoners are different and differentconsiderations would apply but the observation, I suppose,

5/8/05 PARKE, A.R. 12542.33

30/2/nal OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

is in terms of the nature of the change from the specialhandling unit or multi-purpose unit is not usual forprisoners, that he had spent a considerable period of timein those environments?---Yeah, however, as I said in mystatement, he's not the only prisoner to have come fromAlbany Prison to have - you know, come straight from thespecial handling unit to Albany Prison and to beassimilated and to fit in well within the prisonenvironment there and indeed work themselves through nowto, you know, for want of a better word, the opportunity toavail themselves of a prerelease program and having beenrecommended for one.

Would he be the only prisoner who would come down from thatenvironment of the special handling unit who wastransferred to a medium security prison in under a year?---To my knowledge, yes.

Mr Nolan, I think you made reference to earlier, who wasnotorious for having I think committed the only murder in aWestern Australian prison came down to Albany from thespecial handling unit some years ago?---That's correct.

He's still there?---He's still there, at his request may Isay, and he has, you know, assimilated well within theprison environment, has done an extreme amount of good workfor us in relation to his peer support group within theprison but, yes, I mean, staff had concerns in relation tohim but - - -

May it please you, sir, I have no further questions forMr Parke.

MAHONEY, MR: You mentioned the progress of Keatingthrough the system and you referred to aspects of it asbeing unprecedented?---Yeah, that's correct.

5/8/05 PARKE, A.R. 1255

31/1/khb OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

Somebody looking at it from outside wonders why. What wasmotivating this, do you know?---In my opinion the onlymotivation was to - I suppose that prisoners need to makeprogress and you have to make endeavours to have thatprogress met and that it's a case of sometimes you need todo the unusual to make that happen. That's as much as Ican say about it. I wouldn't, you know - if you'd like tobe a bit more, sorry, specific, I'd probably give you amore in-depth - - -

Well, he seems, looking at the history of the thing, tohave done everything which would make you think that hewasn't fit to be pressed ahead and yet not merely was hepressed ahead but he was pressed ahead with extraordinaryspeed. I was looking at the list of things here. Therewas the incident with the lady that we have heard about inJanuary 1998. There was then - June 2000, there was thisgreeting card incident that you may have heard about, whenhe writes to somebody, a card that seems to exciteinterest?---Yes.

Then in January 2001 one of the prison officers is seeinghim out of sight of the supervisor's office which seems toattract interest. He's taken off the serious offenderstraining program, the sexual offenders training program,after the first incident. He is put back. Did he everfinish that program?---I believe he did, but I'll standby - corrected on that, yes.

But he is being treated by - I have got a list of about sixor seven of these professionals, as they were called.Every one of them seems to have had a shot at him. Thenhaving come out of the special handling unit or the closeconfinement he is then pushed into Bunbury very quickly,but on the basis that he is going from Bunbury to - - -?---To Albany, sir, not - - -

To Albany - - -?---Yes.

- - - upon the basis that he is only going to be there fora short time and then he is going to be pushed on toBunbury which is medium security - - -?---Yes.

- - - with a view to prerelease which is minimum security.All of this within - he is transferred to Albany in October2001 and by 2003 he is in the stage where they're pushingthe prerelease program?---I don't believe the word "pushingthe prerelease program" is correct. I mean, a prereleaseprogram was seen as a viable option for this particularperson. I mean, he was coming up for his review inrelation to that. The Parole - sorry, not the ParoleBoard, but the prisons department would've been looking atwhether he was suitable for inclusion in the prereleaseprogram and that's just not Paul Keating. Everyindeterminate prisoner is looked at for a prerelease

5/8/05 PARKE, A.R. 12562.39

31/2/khb OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

program at a, for want of a better word, pre-set time intheir sentence. So although it may appear that, yes, he isbeing pushed for a prerelease program, I think that whetherhe was in the special handling unit at that particular timeor whether he was in Bunbury at that particular time, thedevelopment of a prerelease program would've gone ahead.However, the outcome of what that program was would've beendifferent, in other words, if he was still in the specialhandling unit, the outcome, I would think, would've saidthat he's not suitable for inclusion in the prereleaseprogram at that point in time.

Let me examine that. His first date for possible releasewas February 2004, according to the note that I have here?---Yes.

That wouldn't necessarily mean that they were going to havea prerelease program for him and put him forward. Theywould have to consider whether it was worthwhile doingit - - -?---Well, what happens is that the changes, as Ialluded to previously in relation to the SentenceAdministration Act back in 1987, everyone who came up atthat - everyone who the - there was an expectation, right,that those who came up on their EED, SRD would be releasedon parole. Therefore prior to that departmental policiesand that would've taken effect, so that 18 months prior tothat these people would have been assessed for whether theywere suitable or not for inclusion in a prerelease program.So that 15 months prior to that that program would havebeen presented to the Parole Board who would then make adecision as to whether they would adopt the program andforward that onto the attorney-general or minister forjustice for their signature.

5/8/05 PARKE, A.R. 1257

32/1/mjd OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

That is standard for all prisoners so I reiterate thatwhether Keating was in the special handling unit or inBunbury Prison he would still have been presented for aprerelease program to the Parole Board at that specificpoint in time. However, what the recommendations were inrelation to the program would obviously have beendifferent.

Yes. Looking at his history it seems that he would be -leaving aside his exemplary conduct which is something thatyou've commented on, when you look at what he actually didto people he seemed to be the least likely person to getapproval for a prerelease program and - - -?---I wouldagree that if you took on board his criminal record alone,however, when you take into account other aspects it maywell have been perceived that there was a marked change inhim and you know that this was again that time in hissentence when a prerelease program should be put forward.I'm not purporting that that's my point of view, I'm justpurporting that may be the point of view that was looked atat that time. When you look at these programs you don'ttake into consideration - well, everything is taken intoconsideration, nothing is looked at in isolation.Everything is looked at. So, yes, he has an atrocious - aterrible record, he really has and is that the type ofperson that you could think would be suitable for aprerelease program? Well, again, I'm glad I wasn't theperson who actually had to do the report.

Anyway, that's the chronology of it. I mentioned I wasgoing to ask you about some parole matters. Seeing thatyou're a member of the Parole Board, you bear all theresponsibility for everything that goes wrong and you getno credit for what goes right as you appreciate. I havehad the courtesy of discussing informally some of theaspects with the present president and he has been ofassistance but let me just take you to a couple of things.What is the latest actual report that you've published? Isit 2004, or 2005?---I've only been at the Parole Board forapproximately two months now, right, and I couldn't answerthat.

You don't know?---No, I'm sorry. But I can find out foryou - - -

If you could?--- - - - and if you like I can get you a copyof that report.

Copies of it, yes?---Yes.

It may be the 2005 one hasn't yet been published and Iwouldn't blame them for that but if it's 2004 I would beinterested in having a personal copy of that?---Yes.

5/8/05 PARKE, A.R. 12582.45

32/2/mjd OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

One of the things that interests me in relation to it isthis; the last report that I saw which I think was 2003 anddo correct me on figures - don't hold me to particularfigures but I want to draw you to a point, what it appearedto show was that each year there were something of theorder of 1600 people released on parole by the board. Now,I take it that would mean not the long term indeterminentprisoners who seem to come up through a different process?---That would include them.

But by the operative act of the board itself?---That'scorrect then, yes.

Now, taking those which means putting aside the lifers andthe others, that would - the figures seem to show that inthe same year there were people whose parole was cancelledor people whose parole was suspended and they totalledabout 40 to 45 per cent of 1600?---Yes.

I don't suggest they're the same people but you know thepoint that I'm making?---Yes.

Now, would that be, in your experience, more or lesscorrect?---That would be, yes.

Does that - and would I be correct in inferring that by andlarge in order to have parole cancelled or suspended youwould have to have somebody either commit a serious offenceor be up on a charge of a serious offence?---No, that'sincorrect.

What would be the position?---What would be the position isthe offender is given 72 hours to report to the nominatedcommunity corrections officer. If he doesn't report withinthat time and he may also be required to undertake programsand urinalysis and a number of other things which may beincluded in his parole order, if the prisoner doesn't turnup in the 72 hours and doesn't ring and give a lawfulexcuse as to why he hasn't - he or she hasn't done it, orif they were to produce a positive urine test, if they arenoncompliant in those matters which is the majority ofsuspensions then they're suspended for that for a period oftime. So you could be - I mean, just as we did yesterday,without going into specifics there were probably fiveoffenders who had their parole suspended for noncomplianceand the noncompliance was in relation to failing to reportand providing positive urine samples. They had notcommitted any new offences, they just had not met therequirements of the order.

5/8/05 PARKE, A.R. 1259

33/1/slh OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

I understand that in principle but some of the documents Isaw suggested that the parole officers had been - notinstructed but given to understand that they shouldn'tbreach somebody for what I might call technical andcompliance because that cost too much money and was tootroublesome and that they were to be careful about theirbreaching of them. That's why I had suggested theconclusion that I did?---In fact - I'm not quite surewhether I should be saying this in this form. However, Idon't believe that to be the case. In fact, we've got ameeting with ALS because they believe that the CCOs arebreaching them for too many minor matters; in other words,this is not the case.

Can you tell me whether the board has some statisticsindicating the number of noncompliances and the reasons forthem?---No, but - - -

They don't say that in the report?---I can't answer that,but again I will find out for you to the best of myability.

I was going to get hold of the secretary of the board whomight be perhaps in a better position than you?---That'sthe person I was going to contact on your behalf.

You might speak to him which would save me calling himunnecessarily, but what I'm interested in is the overalleffectiveness of the parole system; that is, are the peoplewho are let out on parole, are they found to have eitherreoffended in such a way that it's obvious they have nottaken the parole seriously or there has been such adisregard of the parole questions that something has had tobe done about it, because the figure of 40 to 43 per cent -45 per cent seemed to me to be the basis for a question ofwhether the system is working?---Yeah, however, when youlook at it from the other regard, you know, a 65 per centsuccess rate, we can look at it from that regard. Also,there are a number of offenders who are suspended withinthe first eight weeks of being released to parole and whoare subsequently rereleased again. Those are the peoplewho have not - who have taken the parole order lightly anddecided that they're going to disregard it but when theyfind that their parole has been suspended and they'rereturned to prison have a change of heart on the secondoccasion and generally comply with parole conditions andsuccessfully go on to complete their parole. Sometimes,yes, it does happen whereby the offender says, "Well, I'mout on parole. Nothing's going to happen to me. You know,I can go out, I can, you know, smoke, I can take drugs andnothing's going to happen." However, that's not the case.The CCOs do a terrific job in monitoring that and inensuring compliance with the orders. There in my opinionwould probably only be 15 maybe 20 per cent of offenders

5/8/05 PARKE, A.R. 12602.51

33/2/slh OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

who reoffend in a serious manner that actually have theirparole suspended.

Can you get me some information on that because, as Iunderstand it, we have had some difficulty gettinginformation on it. I don't mean that has been withheld butdifficulties whether there are - - -?---I'd say, sir, thatyou're probably the first person who's asked it and peopleare trying to work out where they can get this informationfrom for you. It's not a case of saying - it's notsomething that they've looked at themselves and have got inon hand so - - -

If you would tell you the secretary that you have beenpressed - - -?---I will do.

- - - publicly for the information and you are embarrassedbecause you haven't got it and therefore can he give it toyou?---Yes, I will do, sir.

That may help to get it from him?---Mm'hm. As I say, Idon't believe anyone's withholding it, I just don't believethat - - -

Of course not?--- - - - they're statistics that anyone'sactually asked - - -

But we have had difficulty finding it and it may be theydon't collate it. If they don't - - -?---They should.

- - - we should know something about it. One other thing Iwas going to ask you about the parole system: am I correct- again, putting it broadly - in thinking that there are inthe whole system of parole three groups: there's the chiefexecutive parole for short-term prisoners which he dealswith; there's the parole which operatively is granted bythe board, and then there's what's called parole for thelifers or indefinite sentence people of the kind that wehave been talking about with Keating?---Yes, there is -that's correct. However, the second category is built intotwo which is what we call auto parole or automatic parolewhich is not actually - doesn't actually go to the ParoleBoard for release.

Of the second group, the one where the board has anoperative decision, am I correct in thinking that all oralmost all of those have an operation only within the lasttwo years of the sentence; that is, that they can be givena parole which operates only during the last two years ofthe sentence? Do I have that right?---Yes. However, itmay not necessarily go for that two years.

5/8/05 PARKE, A.R. 1261

34/1/glj OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

Of course, but it can only be during that two years?---That's correct, and even then there is what they call asupervised release which is a particular portion in whichthey're supervised, and then the remaining portion they'renot supervised; however, are still under the parole order.

Well, that clears up a lot of detail and I needn't worryany more about the detail of it then. I will take yourword for it and if you are wrong, you are the one who bearsthe responsibility?---Thank you for that, sir. Iappreciate that.

Thank you, Mr Parke, for that and if you could deal withthat matter of statistics I would be very much obliged?---Iwill do, sir. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes, anything further, Mr - - -?---No, sir.

(THE WITNESS WITHDREW)

MAHONEY, MR: Mr Quinlan?

QUINLAN, MR: Thank you, sir. Sir, I call Michael RobertHenderson.

HENDERSON, MICHAEL ROBERT:

QUINLAN, MR: Your full names are Michael RobertHenderson. Is that correct?---That's correct.

You are an assistant superintendent at Bandyup WomensPrison, employed by the Department of Justice?---That'scorrect.

What has been your experience within the Department ofJustice? When did you join?---I joined the department inthe middle of 1993. I, after initial training as a prisonofficer, served for approximately two years in GreenoughRegional Prison which is near Geraldton. After that Ispent five years at Casuarina Prison; about two and a halfyears in the assessment centre at Hakea, and from thenuntil now in Bandyup Womens Prison.

Since you have been at Bandyup Womens Prison, has that beenin the assessment role?---Yes, it is. I'm an assistantsuperintendent, but my managerial responsibility is managerassessments and case management.

So the beginning of your experience with assessments, wasthat at Hakea?---No, it wasn't.

Or at Casuarina?---Sorry, no, it was at Greenough RegionalPrison.

At Greenough?---Yeah.

5/8/05 PARKE, A.R. 12622.57 HENDERSON, M.R.

34/2/glj OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

So from an early stage in your career as a prison officeryou were involved in assessments?---From very early, yeah.From late 1993.

So you would have had experience with both the approachunder director-general's rule 2B and then the gradualintroduction to the AIPR system?---Yes, I did; yes.

At the time that the changeover to the AIPR system wastaking place in 2001, were you at the Hakea assessmentcentre at that time?---I was. In fact it probably goesdeeper than that. I was in the late 90s, about 98, I wasthe Casuarina assessments representative on the steeringcommittees that were developing AIPR and sort of fleshingit out, and in September 2000 I was one of the inauguralassessment officers on the assessment centre pilot projectwhich ultimately set up the assessment centre at Hakea.

Right, and so you would have been well familiar with thepressures that that assessment centre came under during thepilot in terms of the need for the Acacia fill and themovement of the pilot into full operation sometime later in2001?---I was aware we were under pressure to get thesystem rolled out as far statewide as we possibly couldthrough that period of time.

Yes. Did you have a particular function at the time withinthe assessment centre? I think you said you were atreatment assessor. Is that correct?---My originalposition in the assessment centre on the pilot project wasas an assessment writer, a uniformed prison officer, anddoing the basic assessments. During that time and becauseI also have a degree in a social science, I was offered theopportunity to act in the role as a treatment assessor.

Right?---I acted in that role for about 12 months and thenwas successful in picking up a permanent position in thatrole.

Now, can you just tell us briefly the difference betweenthe functions of the treatment and the assessment writer interms of where they fit into the process of an assessmentof a prisoner?---Yeah, that's easy. The assessment processunder AIPR is basically a triangular approach. Theprisoner has his or her normal assessment done which looksat criminal behaviour, prison conduct et cetera to reviewthings like security rating and placement et cetera. Atthe same time, on the initial assessment an initialtreatment assessment's done. In the past we used to sendreferrals off to various specialists; it was a way ofcentralising that, and we would look at - a treatmentassessor looks at criminogenic need, sexual offending need,violent offending need, substance use need, that sort ofthing, and the other leg of that triangle is an education,

5/8/05 HENDERSON, M.R. 1263

34/3/glj OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

a vocational training assessor, and they look ateducational needs and how we can sort of put together aplan for this person to move into a traineeship oreducational resources.

5/8/05 HENDERSON, M.R. 1264

35/1/khb OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

You were in the role as a treatment assessor, I think, thenat the end of 2001 when you came to prepare or did a reviewof the documents in relation to Paul Stephen Keating,putting him on the AIPR system in December 2001 when he wasat Albany Regional Prison. Is that correct?---That'scorrect. I believe I started my acting position as atreatment assessor in about July 2001 and I was successfulthe following year in getting the position when it wasadvertised.

The circumstances in which you came to complete an IMPreview and a classification review of Keating in Albany canyou tell us how that came about?---In terms of why I wentdown there or how I did it or - - -

Who told you - - -?---Right.

- - - why you were going down, what you were told about thetask and why it was being done?---Yep, that's easy.Mr Denis Bandy, who was the manager of the assessmentcentre at the time and my immediate manager, approached meand said that he'd either been to or been contacted by theSOMC committee, Serious Offender Management Committee, andit had been decided that they wanted to bring Paul Keating,along with most of the other indeterminate sentences in thestate but in this case specifically Paul Keating, into afull AIPR assessment, for instance, he'd never had atreatment assessment done, albeit it was a little late inthe day because he'd already completely a sex offenderthing. It was about audit trails to show that that hadbeen done, so down the track when he was being reviewed forvarious things it could be seen. An assessment had beendone a couple of months before in Casuarina but it was sortof an each way bet, to use a colloquialism. They'd usedthe scoring instrument out of AIPR but they'd used the old2B type IMP, so the SOMC committee wanted everythingbrought into line with AIPR which was to be the newpractice, if you like, which is now the accepted practicebut at that stage it was the new practice. So basicallywanted it tidied up and brought into that format.

Did you know about the SOMC committee prior to being toldthat by Mr Bandy?---No, I didn't.

It wasn't a committee that you were familiar with?---Iwasn't aware of it at all. He had to explain to me what itwas when he asked me into his office to discuss that.

What was your understanding of what the committee was, whatwas explained to you in terms of what role this committeehad?---I'm working very much from memory because it was aconversation with Mr Bandy but he explained to me it was acommittee that oversaw the management of, at that stage,about four people considered to be very serious or veryhigh profile offenders. Paul Keating being one of them.

5/8/05 HENDERSON, M.R. 12653.03

35/2/khb OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

The others escape me, I think Lacco might've been one butI'm not sure. I didn't actually deal with those, so Idon't - - -

No. Were you given any indication of decisions that hadbeen taken by SOMC that you should have regard to in termsof formulating your recommendations when you prepared anindividual management plan for him?---I'm not sure whatthat means, but if you mean was I given direction by SOMCas to how to do it, no, I wasn't.

No. No, I don't mean a direction as to how to do it, butwere you advised, for example, that SOMC had previouslyconsidered his placement on a long-term basis in terms ofwhere it expected he would go from Albany and in what timeframe that would occur?---I was aware that the SOMCcommittee had put in place that he would leave Casuarinaand move to Albany for basically a change in scenery, ifyou like, if that's an appropriate term, as a way of, well,commencing some sort of progress towards a possiblelong-term release. I was aware that the next step wouldsort of logically be a medium institution somewhere andthere aren't that many choices in those, so it wasn't hardto surmise where that might be.

Were you specifically told that SOMC's view was thatBunbury would be the next logical step for Keating?---Afterthe meeting with Mr Bandy I actually was - he told me I hadto go in and see Mrs Jackie Tang and she told me basicallythe same things as he did, which was she wanted it allneatly brought into AIPR rather than this half and halfapproach which had previously existed. In the meeting withher she asked me to consider when I was doing it, whetherBunbury would be the right option or perhaps even Acaciawhich was just coming online as a medium security placementmetro and she didn't believe, and for the same reasonsneither did I, that Greenough, which would've been anotherpossible option, was appropriate because of its distancefrom Perth and the limitations that would place on hisacademic pursuits.

So certainly prior to you going to Albany the prospect ofhis being transferred to a medium security facility of somekind was in contemplation?---In contemplation in that itwould be part of anybody's progression towards release,yes. It's the logical next step, that he would go on to amedium institution.

5/8/05 HENDERSON, M.R. 1266

36/1/slh OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

At the time that that occurred, were you also made aware ofKeating's own attitude to his management and placement andsteps that had been taken to bring outside agencies in tobring their views to bear on that process?---There'sprobably two answers to that question. The first one is Iwas aware of his angst to be reduced for his securityratings because two years prior, not long after the time hewas removed from the sex offender program, I'd done under2B what we used to call a security rating and placement onKeating. He and I had disagreed at that stage over acouple of things. It was to do with my recommendation - infact, no, that's a lie. It wasn't to do with myrecommendation, it was to do with a comment that I put inthe report he didn't like and he actually appealed that.All things that go to a case conference have a 21-dayappeal period and he appealed the comment that I'd made inthe report so I met with him afterwards and we sorted thatout - met with him in a prison context to sort that out, soI was aware he was anxious to have a steady progression. Ibecame aware when I went to Albany to interview him -because about the last 30 minutes of what was a fairly longinterview with him he vented about a lot of his concernsabout the way he was being treated, how he felt -basically, that would be described as conspiracy theories.He felt there were people out there stopping his progressand he discussed that with me in the sort of - towards theend of the interview.

What were the comments that you had made in the previoussecurity and classification review?---Comments is probablya strong word. It was more of an observation. It may takea little while to put it in context.

I don't think I have seen the documents. I will just - wewill try and track it down?---Basically what had happenedwas after he was removed from the sex offender program hewas participating in, my supervisor at the time, who frommemory was Senior Officer Debbie Morton who was the seniorofficer sentence planning, directed me to do a securityrating and placement on him which was a document we used touse under 2B to review a person's security rating andplacement. Under 2B removal, as he was, from a course forthat sort of reason would normally mean the person eitherstays at maximum security or possibly even gets reverted tomaximum security.

MAHONEY, MR: Did you know of the Ms X incident?---Knew ofit. I've never seen any reports on it unfortunately but Iknew of it because I was serving in the prison at the time.

Did you take that into account in your assessment?---I tookinto account the fact he came off the course withoutcompleting it. There was a course non-completion reportwhich I did see which gave some detail as to why.

5/8/05 HENDERSON, M.R. 12673.09

36/2/slh OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

That didn't really give effect to the significance of theMs X incident, did it?---It didn't, no, but this was stillquite early afterwards and my expectation was that wasstill being investigated with a view to him being chargedor whatever. When I was doing that report I worked in thesentence planning area which was an area in Casuarina. Hewas in the SHU at the time. In order to see him, becausehe was I think a two or a three-officer escort anywhere hewent in the prison, I had to negotiate with the SHU staffto see him. I'd done my background work and done a roughdraft of the sorts of things I was going to say. I rangthe special handling unit and asked for them to eitherbring him to me for an interview or for me to go to him foran interview. The senior officer in the area said, "Yes,"went away to organise it, rang me back a short while laterand said that prisoner Keating didn't want to see me so Isort of put the file aside. We get a little bit of thatwithin prison. That afternoon I rang again. He stilldidn't want to see me so I put it aside again. Thefollowing day or maybe after the weekend I rang again. Hestill didn't want to see me so I put it up to caseconference with a remark in the prisoner's comments area ofthe report that I'd attempted on three occasions tointerview him and on all three occasions he didn't want tobe interviewed, therefore he hadn't participated in theprocess. That was that. When he went to case conference,which was perhaps a week or two later, I'd already gone onleave. I think it was a task I did just before I went onleave. When he heard that he said, "Well, I didn't know hewas wanting to see me about this," that sort of thing so heput in an appeal to that. He appealed the process on thestrength of that. The appeal of a case conference decisiongenerally goes to the superintendent of the prison in thefirst instance. When I came back off leave I was asked bythe assessment manager Mr Brian Lesser if I would go andinterview Keating who at that stage was living in themanagement - in the MPU at Casuarina and sort it out withhim to see if we could resolve that at that level ratherthan having to go up to another level of appeal. I wentand saw him in the unit. He didn't know me and I didn'treally know him because although we'd been in the prisonfor four years, both of us, he'd been in the SHU and areaslike that and our paths had - I think I'd seen him a coupleof times back when I was in the prison hospital for doctorsconsultations and so on and that was it. We sat down, wetalked for about an hour and he was happy at that stage.He saw it as a misunderstanding, he wasn't aware it was todo with his security rating and placement plan, he wasn'ttold that. I said that I had attempted on three occasionsand we agreed to disagree. It didn't change the outcome ofthe report, it still was maximum, still Casuarina, but hewas able to express his concerns to me and I took that onboard.

5/8/05 HENDERSON, M.R. 1268

37/1/nal OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

QUINLAN, MR: That was in the first half of 1998?---That'sright. It would have been March-ish, April, because I wason leave sort of early that year and it was something I didnot want before going on leave, hence the time - the remarkthat when I came back off leave I actually went and talkedto him about it. He made me very aware at that point thathe felt that the problems he had had with the sex offenderprogram inhibited his opportunity to be released at his SRDand he didn't want any hiccups along the way and he felt myremarks were a hiccup. I didn't change the remarksincidentally. If you accessed that report you wouldprobably find it's still in there.

So if we look for a report about March 1998?---Yeah. Itwould have been a security rating and placement done atCasuarina Prison.

We got to that - I asked you about whether you were awareof his attitude and what steps he had taken to bringoutside agencies in in relation to the review that you weredoing in 2001 and you've told us about that, which I takeis your first part of the answer concerning your previouscontact with him?---Albeit a fairly longish response withme, saying that I was aware he was anxious that nothingsabotage his opportunity to be released at SRD even thoughhe had been told by, among others, myself that and SRD is areview date, it's not a release date. We emphasised thatpoint with some regularity, especially in Casuarina wherewe had a good deal of the 200 or so life sentences in thatprison but they sometimes take away from those meetingswhat they want to hear rather than what they've been told.

Was there something more specific or more immediate in 2001that you were made aware of in terms of - - -?---When Idrove to Albany to see him I was, I guess, in Albany Prisonfor something to the tune of about four hours. I think Iset off at about 6.00 in the morning because I drove down,did the interview then stayed down there overnight. I gotto the prison around 10.00, 10.30, checked in with Mr Parkethen went to the interview and I was with him till lateafternoon, upwards of 3.00, 3.30. The last sort of halfhour of that he vented his feelings towards effectively thesystem. He felt that he was being disadvantaged. Hereiterated to me - or iterated to me a number of times hewas taking legal advice on the way his assessment had beenhandled, the way his progress was being handled; inhibitedas he saw it et cetera. He didn't specifically say whatlegal advice or from whom, he just used that term a numberof times.

What about complaints that he had made at that time?---Hemade some complaints about - basically he felt that he hadjumped through a hoop by completing a sex offender programand was - - -

5/8/05 HENDERSON, M.R. 12693.15

37/2/nal OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

I'm sorry, complaints that he had made to authorities inrelation to his situation?---He told me that he hadcomplained to the ombudsman and I'm not sure why but I wasaware of that as well; that he had asked the ombudsman'soffice to investigate the process as well.

Anyone else?---I believe - my memory of the time isreasonable and I believe he also mentioned he had - he wascomplaining to the office of the inspector of custodialservices as well, which was a relatively new office at thatpoint.

So all of these things were, if you like, being brought tobear as part of the context in which this review's beingdone?---Yeah, they would have been interested parties but,I mean, I had no involvement with any of thoseorganisations, it didn't extend down to a level like mine.

Was there a reason other than simply getting him on theAIPR system that you were asked to go and review the - redothe IMP?---That was the only reason I was given, both byMr Bandy and Mrs Tang.

What about expressions of peoples dissatisfaction with whatappeared in the original IMP, or the IMP that had been doneby Mr Glassborow in October 2001?---I had heard that Mr LesHarrison wasn't happy about a quote in Mr Glassborow'sreport that was out of his 65-page psych report. I hadheard that but I - it was never given to me as a reason todo the review.

Where did you hear that from?---I heard it in the meetingwith Mrs Tang. She said that he had expressed a concern.

So is it fair to say that at the time that you were beingasked to go it wasn't a technical matter of putting thedocuments in place or just a technical matter of puttingthe documents in place but that you had also been toldpeople on the SOMC committee aren't happy with the contentof the individual management plan that's there?---Iwouldn't say it's fair to say that. The reason I was givento go down there was to bring everything into line with thenew process as it was then. The context in which theMr Harrison remark was made in Ms Tang advised me to readhis report in-depth. Basically she said to me, "Read thatpsych report," and, you know, prior to - as a matter ofpractice any good assessment officer, and I would putmyself and Mr Glassborow into that thing, would always readall the supporting documents available to us for anassessment, but she reiterated that I needed to read itin-depth.

5/8/05 HENDERSON, M.R. 1270

38/1/khb OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

Okay. Now, you went down there only to do the one case, Itake it?---That's correct. There was a reason - I don'tknow if I mentioned this earlier. The reason that Ispecifically was sent was a matter of resources for want ofa better term. They got double the bang for their buck inthat I could do both the assessment officer stuff because Iwas experienced in that and had been in the assessmentcentre, and I could do the treatment assessments. Inanother context you would have had to have sent two peopleto do that, so that's the reason I went - that I waspersonally selected. The reason I went was to bring hisinto line with the AIPR process. I gather all the peoplethat were being reviewed by SOMC were being done, but thatwas the only one that wasn't in Perth.

Now, you said that as an assessment person you would readthe available documentation. I take it that you readMr Glassborow's individual management plan that he hadprepared in October?---Yes, I did read that as backgroundreading.

That was, as you said, an individual management plan thatwas in the format of the old 2B plan?---That's correct.

It was quite comprehensive in terms of what it included?---That's correct.

Document 533, page 7, do you recall reading the summarythat Mr Glassborow made of the incident involving Ms X in1998 and then an incident involving the 2000 incident thatappears further down that page in the year 2000?---I dorecall reading both those and I can see them here on thescreen as well.

Now, the first step you take in relation to a matter or anassessment such as this, I take it, is to do theclassification review itself. Is that correct?---Thatwould normally be the first step, yep.

I think in terms of the timing at which these things aredone, if we look at document 479, that's a copy of theclassification review carried out by you at Albany on17 December 2001?---Yes, it is.

At 11.52, so that would be relatively soon after you hadgot there?---That probably wasn't performed then. Iwould've looked at that on the computer at that point andthat'd be the last time I looked at while it was still anopen document, if you know what I mean.

Okay?---I probably did some of that in Hakea before I left.

Right. It would have been completed at that timeeffectively?---I did about a week of research prior goingto Albany, not five whole days but through that time I read

5/8/05 HENDERSON, M.R. 12713.21

38/2/khb OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

files, read documents, pursued documents et cetera.

Just taking us through some of the questions that are askedthere, Escape History, it has got, "None all more than fiveyears ago," and the comments was:

He has an escape history. However, his most recentescape was 1984.

Then:

What offences were committed at large? Use the mostserious offence only.

It has got, "Not applicable." Comments:

He does have convictions for offences whilst atlarge. However, this was greater than five years.

Just reading the question there, number 3, "What offenceswere committed at large?" doesn't appear to put a timeframe on - - -?---On the offences committed at large.

- - - offences committed at large. Can you tell us whatthe principle to be applied is in relation to that?---Well,my interpretation of that is it's asking about escapeswithin the last five years, so logically the next questionis about offences at large within the next five years orwithin those escapes. I was just making the point that hedoes have convictions whilst at large but the escape hasn'tbeen within the last five years.

Mr Glassborow's classification review on the AIPR systemthat was performed in October, which is document 463, hehas put:

Violent offences whilst committed at large during theprevious five years -

which I don't think - well, as you say, is not reflectingthe escape history going to 1984, but then in the commentssection he includes the detail:

The offences including indecent assault, rape,stealing, sodomy, deprivation of liberty, unlawfuluse of a motor vehicle and break and enter.

Is there a reason why you didn't put in the commentssection at least in relation to question 3 what theseriousness of those offences whilst committed at largewere?---Why I didn't put it in there? Is that what you'reasking?

5/8/05 HENDERSON, M.R. 1272

39/1/glj OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

Yes?---Because when you submit your portfolio for caseconference, criminal history sheet, judges sentencingremarks and so on are all attached; these things aren'tread in isolation, so rather than, you know, writing a longprecis of that stuff, whoever sits on case conference wouldhave read all that stuff in the criminal history sheet andthe judge's sentencing remarks, which gives a much morecomprehensive understanding of it than a line or so in abox on a scoring instrument.

So it would be in the case conference report that you wouldbe - - -?---No, no. When you submit all of these documentsfor case conference, you include all the supportingdocuments; like when I put this in there would have beenattached after the AIPR documents a copy of his criminalhistory sheet, judge's sentencing remarks for the varioustimes he's been sentenced and certainly the more recentones. There would have been a copy of any coursecompletion reports, any course noncompletion reports, anyspecialist psych reports such as Mr Harrison's; that wouldhave been included. In fact when that went up to caseconference, the portfolio would have been a good inch or sodeep, and those people sitting at case conference, or thedeciding authorities if you like, would read all that stuffin detail.

But in terms of, as you said, the audit trail that has beenput together for the AIPR system, wouldn't it beappropriate that when one is looking at classificationreview that the document itself alerts the reader to thekinds of issues that might be involved, for example, inrelation to a recommendation or whether an override shouldbe exercised?---You could say that, yes; however, the lineI would take is - and in my current capacity I sit as chairof case conferences - a line saying there is escapes atlarge would trigger me to go back and have a read of thejudge's sentencing remarks for that era and the criminalhistory sheet; all of which were in the folder.

Now, the answer that is then given to the next question -this is again on document 479 - is, "A history ofinstitutional violence. Is there any history ofinstitutional violence? State the most serious incidentagainst staff, visitors or other offenders for the previousfive years?" and the answer is, "No previous institutionalviolence. He has convictions for institutional violencebut none within the last five years," and the conviction Itake it you are referring to there, amongst other things,would be a reference to the offences he committed against aprison officer in Casuarina in 1992?---That's correct.

That refers to incidents against staff, visitors and otheroffenders. Is there a reason why the incident involvingMs X when she was subjected to threats by Mr Keating is notincluded as institutional violence for the purposes of

5/8/05 HENDERSON, M.R. 12733.27

39/2/glj OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

question 4.1?---Yes, there is. To start with, if you goback a notch. When you look at 4.1 on an open document asopposed to a closed one like this, the next twoalternatives you've got three choices and they're radiobuttons, to put it in computer terms. The first one says,"No previous institutional violence." The next one downsays, "From memory, an assault; not including the use of aweapon, or serious injury," and the third option is, "Anassault including the use of a weapon, or a seriousinjury." So with that in mind, when I did some research onthe incident of Ms X I couldn't find a clear piece ofevidence that told me exactly what happened in the Ms Xincident. Certainly it never went to a prison charge andbefore the prison judiciary, and/or investigated by thepolice prisons unit and an outside court. I couldn't evenfind a clear incident report on the subject. I didn'tspeak to Ms X because, if memory serves, she was onmaternity leave or had transferred to Albany by that point.I did speak to others; I spoke to other people, and I gotvery - I didn't get a clear breakdown of that event that Ifelt was evidence enough to put in there to meet one ofthose criteria; one of those two criteria other than thefirst one. Bearing in mind, we are taught to take a veryobjective view of these things.

Looking at document 490?---Is that the one on the screen atthe moment?

5/8/05 HENDERSON, M.R. 1274

40/1/slh OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

No, no. I will ask for document 490 to be put - this is anincident report by Ms X of 14 January 1998. Did you nothave access to that report?---I've not seen that document,no.

You have not seen that document?---No, I haven't.

You weren't able to locate that in the preparation that youdid in the five days prior to going to Albany?---No, Iwasn't. I read his unit file at Casuarina, his assessmentsfile as Casuarina. I was given access to his programs filefrom Milligan Street head office. I looked at the otherstaff that was available that Mark Glassborow put togetherbut I've never seen this document. Just looking at thatdocument now, that appears to be the sort of documentthat's put together by security and given to Intel. Mysubstantive rank in those days was first-class prisonofficer. I wouldn't have had the security clearance forthat.

You did have Mr Glassborow's individual management planthat he prepared; document 533, page - - -?---Yes, I did.

If we look at that it has:

Keating became aggressive and adopted a threateningdemeanour towards her. He disclosed to her he hadbeen planning to take her hostage and subject her tohours of brutality and assault. He wanted to inflictmaximum pain by cutting her up slowly with a view tokilling her. He stated had she been in the unit onthe previous day he would have carried out his plan.

That appears a fairly unambiguous description of theseriousness of that incident. Would that not be enough tocause you to score him for institutional violence underquestion 4?---If I could prove that information. Afterreading that - and I asked at Casuarina where thatinformation came from - I couldn't find an incident report- which you've just shown me but I've never seen thatdocument - or anything. There was no prison charge. If hehad a prison charge I would've seen the - I would've beenable to see the charge that was presented and what thevisiting justice said. If he'd gone outside to an outsidecourt I would've been able to access the judge's sentencingremarks or at the very least a statement of material factsproduced by the police. I could find no such document. Iwill say that I was in Casuarina when this occurred and Iwas aware because I'd heard that it had occurred but Icouldn't find evidence to prove that it had occurred, ifyou get the distinction there.

Except that this was written by Mr Glassborow two monthsbefore you doing your review, because he did his inOctober, and he has presumably been able to reach that

5/8/05 HENDERSON, M.R. 12753.33

40/2/slh OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

conclusion. We have heard evidence from both of he andMs X that he spoke to her about it. Would that not beenough to confirm for you that here had been an incidentinvolving threats which were of a serious variety?---I hadno doubt there was a threat of a serious variety, I had noevidence to prove it.

Do you need evidence to prove it though when you arecarrying out a classification review and answering thequestions in relation to institutional violence?---I needsomething to work with, certainly.

Isn't this enough to work with?---This is just anotherperson's opinion. I needed something like a statement ofmaterial facts. That incident report you showed me amoment ago would've been wonderful if I'd had access to it;a prison charge perhaps, something like that; even ajudge's sentencing remarks if it had gone to an outsidecourt.

But you wouldn't need a charge in order for something to beclassified as an incident of violence, would you?---But ifyou have a look at the three questions that are askedthere, it asks me if within the last five years there hasbeen an assault not including a weapon or serious injury,an assault including a weapon or serious injury or noevent. I didn't think that I could prove at an objectivelevel that this met those two ladder criteria.

MAHONEY, MR: The term "assault" means putting a person infear?---Yes, it does.

Battery is the term defined for striking?---Yes, physical,yes.

Doesn't this indicate that he put her in fear?---I have nodoubt she was put in fear by this incident but in theabsence of that document I was shown before, the incidentreport that gives me a full breakdown, a lot of what I'dheard about this incident was prison talk. I'd never seenan incident report, I'd never seen it go to a charge. Inmy view, something this serious perhaps should have gone toa prison charge and/or externally to be investigated by thepolice and presented to an outside court.

You are going to recommend that he be reclassified insecurity. Didn't you think the danger of this being rightshould be taken into account?---I just tried to approach itfrom as objective a point of view as I could. I don't liketo put into any report - and I still write reports -anything I've got no actual evidence of. I hasten to add Iwasn't able to speak to Ms X. I can't recall exactly why Iwasn't able to speak to her but I wasn't able to speak toher.

5/8/05 HENDERSON, M.R. 1276

40/3/slh OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

Yes?---Just to finish off on that point, if I'd had accessto the incident report that I was shown a few moments ago,I would've scored this in the middle category; the assaultnot including a weapon or serious injury, if I'd had accessto that and I knew what fully happened.

5/8/05 HENDERSON, M.R. 1277

41/1/nal OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

QUINLAN, MR: What's the difference between that reportand what Mr Glassborow reported in his which makes thedifference between it scoring as institutional violence andscoring as nothing?---I wasn't sure where Mr Glassborow gothis information from. My inquiries at Casuarina weren't -didn't give me a clear answer on that and I don't recallwhether or not he was a witness to the event, so I didn'tknow if this was a witness - him writing as a witness orhim writing - I didn't know where he got the information,that's probably the - - -

You had seen the treatment report from Ms X of June 1998,had you not?---Yes, I had.

If we look at that, document 384, page 4, again we have inthis - the bottom paragraph on that screen:

Mr Keating disclosed that he had been planning totake Ms X hostage and subject her to hours ofbrutality and assault. He further claimed that hewanted to inflict maximum pain by cutting her upslowly with a view to killing her. He claimed hewanted to do this because he was angry. He alsostated that had she been in the unit the previous dayhe would have carried out his plan. In spite ofbeing shocked and horrified Mr Keating was confrontedby Ms X over his fantasy -

et cetera. That again seems to be a fairly explicitdescription of the events as they are described by Ms X inthis treatment report. Would not that cause you to regardthis as an incident which should be factored into thescoring of the classification review score?---Certainlywhen I read it I thought that and I looked for the incidentreports at the time, I also looked for prison charges andso on and that's where I became quite frustrated, Icouldn't find - it was referred to there but - - -

Why do you need an incident report when this is a treatmentreport written by - signed by the person that it happenedto? Isn't this equivalent to an incident report?---Isuppose you could say that, yes. I can't remember my exactthinking at the time but my thinking at the time may havebeen focused on the word "assault" it may have been a lotof things but I had read this but I couldn't find - I guesswhere the frustration came from was I was unclear as to whyit never went to a charge and/or to an outside court.

Because it appears to be something that should have gone toa charge, doesn't it?---In my view, yes. In fact, in myview it perhaps should have been investigated by thepolice.

All the more reason that it ought to be referred to as partof the classification review in relation to the prisoner?

5/8/05 HENDERSON, M.R. 12783.39

41/2/nal OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

---You could say that, yes. As I say, it's upwards of fouryears ago. I can't remember my exact thinking at the time.It may have been around the word "assault." It may havebeen the absence of a conviction. I'm not 100 per centsure, I just - well, it's obvious I didn't use it.

Perhaps this might assist; at the time that this - not onthe same day but you prepared a case conference report aswell in relation to Keating?---If memory serves, I preparedthat off interview notes back at Hakea a little whilelater.

So if we go to document 478, this was performed on28 December 2001?---That would sound right, yeah.

Good to see somebody was at work between Christmas and NewYear. That was prepared back in Perth after you had beendown to Albany?---It had but oddly enough it says at Albanythere - I guess perhaps that's because the prisoner wasstill at Albany, I'm not sure. I was doing it on an Albanyprisoner by remote so as to speak.

Certainly you were only in Albany on the 17th?---For thatday only, yeah. I drove down in the morning conducted theinterviews, I did two of them - two interviews back toback, one for the assessments and one for the treatment andthen I stayed overnight and drove home the next morning.

If we look on page 5 of that document, question 16.2, it'sgot:

Are there any other factors yet to be covered whichmust be considered in management and/or placement?

And the bottom of that says - this is the second-last linewhere we refer to the events after September 1997:

He was unfortunately removed from this program inJanuary 1998 for a variety of reasons, thecircumstances of which are discussed at length in thereports by Mr L. Harrison and Ms S. Gianatti,attached.

Then it continues in relation to - - -?---They were thebest resources I had at the time because I submitted - whenyou submit this stuff to case conference Mr Harrison's andMs Gianatti's reports were attached, along with a number ofother documents.

5/8/05 HENDERSON, M.R. 1279

42/1/khb OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

MAHONEY, MR: Was Mr Glassborow's report attached?---Ibelieve it was, yeah. We normally put the previousassessment in when we put an assessment in.

You had seen his report obviously?---A number of -basically as soon as I was given the task to review this Iread what had been done on him previously and that's ageneral first step.

QUINLAN, MR: Except that you said that those reports werethe best material you had available at the time how is itthat they were better material than the report that you hadof Ms X's own account of the events?---That was a commentnow. I'm just saying that I had both those reports to putin, that's why I would've referred to it. I wasn't sayinghers wasn't better. It would've been attached as well, sowas the cause completion report from the second SOTP? Anysupporting document goes in into the case conference.

Would it be fair to say the report - so that a personpresumably reads the case conference report in order toknow where to go - - -?---Yep.

- - - what they might need to look into in moredetail - - -?---And that's why I mentioned Mr Harrison andMs Gianatti's reports, so I was referring them onto those.

So that the - - -?---From memory, and it's a long timesince I read it, Mr Harrison's report goes into it in somedetail. It's a 65-odd page report from memory.

Yes. Is it fair to say that that report concludes with theview that, and I'm not going to be inaccurate about this soI'm going to find a copy of it - I will stand to becorrected in relation to this reference, but concludes withthe view:

Whatever his motives for the events in question heshould receive credit for disclosing in the way thathe did?

---To be honest, I can't recall. I know those sorts ofthings have been said. I can't recall exactly whatMr Harrison concluded with.

MAHONEY, MR: Would you put up Mr Glassborow's report?

QUINLAN, MR: Yes. Mr Glassborow's report is documentnumber 533. Page 7 was the page we were looking at.

MAHONEY, MR: Yes. Can you scroll that down a bit?

Just see the paragraph there commencing, "The circumstancesof his removal," it says -

5/8/05 HENDERSON, M.R. 12803.45

42/2/khb OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

have been given extensive coverage in reports byHarrison and Gianatti. However, according to Ms X,refer report dated 23 June 98, Keating becameaggressive -

et cetera. Did you refer to that report?---No, I thinkthat's the one that the counsel assisting asked me - - -

I think it is?---Yeah. Yes, and - - -

If the reference was, "Refer to that report," why didn'tyou get it?---I read that report. That's the coursecompletion report.

Is it?---I had read it and I would've submitted that reportwith the package of documents for case conference.

Yes?---I just didn't refer to it in my revision.

5/8/05 HENDERSON, M.R. 1281

43/1/slh OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

I was correct in saying that the expression used in thereport was, "Credit all of disclosure." Going to the nextset of questions on document 479, under the heading(10) Family Relationships it has:

Good. Keating received social visits from aMr M. Lenny from Edith Cowan University and aMr K. Lerner from Prison Outreach Services whoaccording to Ms S. Gianatti from FCMT provide Keatingwith a family support-type structure. In addition hetelephones his brother who lives in Gosford, NewSouth Wales and writes occasional letters to friendsand associates.

Was that a correct description of his position inAlbany at the time you saw him?---No, that's not in Albany,that's looking back over the - basically, theclassification review technically should look over six or12 months. I just looked back over the last few months andhe had had reasonable visits in Casuarina before he left.He did maintain phone contact with his brother. We are avery isolated jurisdiction so we have to take intoconsideration things like telephone contact when we talkabout those - when we talk about family relationships.

I just notice that if we look at document 463, which isMr Glassborow's classification review, the same questionhas in essence - practically word for word the same answer:

Keating received social visits from Lenny, M.J. fromEdith Cowan University and Lerner, K. from PrisonOutreach Services who according to FCMT,Ms S. Gianatti, provides Keating with a familysupport-type structure. He telephones his brotherwho lives in Gosford, New South Wales and writesoccasional letters to friends.

It may be that it's difficult to remember but itlooks as if that particular answer in your classificationreview was adopted from Mr Glassborow's classificationreview?---It probably was. When you do a classificationreview, what you do is generally make a copy of theprevious one and then amend the areas that need to beamended. I would've asked Keating during the interview inAlbany, "Is that still the situation as you see it withyour family stuff," and if he still agreed I would've leftit there.

Presumably he wasn't getting visits from - when he was inAlbany from the people up in Perth or was that notsomething you were able to confirm?---I gather one or moreof those gentlemen had driven to Albany to visit him,Mr Lerner I believe, and he anticipated more visits. Healso had telephone contact with him and the gentleman fromEdith Cowan University.

5/8/05 HENDERSON, M.R. 12823.51

43/2/slh OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

See, the difficulty I'm having is that for an answer suchas that you are able to rely on what Mr Glassborow has putin his previous review but in relation to the seriousnessof the - the seriousness of institutional violence and thelike the answers have changed in such a way that thesecurity score has come down I think from 18 to 10?---To10, yes.

Is there - was there a sense at this time, given theexpectations, that medium was the rating that ultimatelyshould be achieved by the review that was being done inDecember?---No, there wasn't and I never approach anyassessment from a predetermined security rating. What Iwill say is that like all experienced assessment writers Igenerally have got in mind's eye what a person would comeup. In fact, in this case I thought he was going to comeup as max. If you want me to talk about why there was adifferent approach to that question 4, which is probablythe primary thing, call it ideological. I didn't want towrite something I couldn't prove and I didn't believe I hadenough evidence that event had happened, particularly giventhat for whatever reason it wasn't seen as serious enoughto proceed to a charge and/or an outside charge and a fullinvestigation.

It seems - that seems a real problem with the - - -?---Sorry, the problem is the ideological stand or the factit never went to a charge?

5/8/05 HENDERSON, M.R. 1283

44/1/glj OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

No, no, I will finish the question. That seems a problemwith the classification system that if an event such asthat, albeit that it may be serious to give rise to acharge doesn't give rise to a charge, there will be verylittle evidence of it?---Yes, then that is a problem. Ifthe system works appropriately, ie, an event like thatwhich was very clearly a chargeable event, if you like, orat least something worthy of investigation; if it doesn'tgo to that it makes it difficult two or so years down thetrack, as I was - I would have said but Mr Glassborow sawit slightly differently - to write it in there.

MAHONEY, MR: If you had accepted that Keating had donewhat Glassborow said he had done to Ms X, you would haveclassified him as maximum security, wouldn't you?---Thatwas what the score would have been. If I'd scored him thesame way, it would have. It's a matter of evidence: Iwasn't shown enough evidence of exactly the magnitude ofthe event, particularly in that it never went to a charge.

QUINLAN, MR: Would it be then, in that situation wouldthat not be a situation which would call in thosecircumstances for - let's take for example theclassification review, document 479. When you get to theend of it, if we go to the last page. I'm just looking atthe custody rating score is 10 there, and if it's 13 itwould be maximum. Is that right?---I think it's 14. Up to13 is medium and 14 and greater is max. Is that notcorrect?

It has got CSR - - -?---No, I stand corrected. Yeah,you're right.

- - - items 1 to 12, medium?---Yeah. I rather foolishlytried to work from memory there instead of reading it,sorry.

So effectively you would need to get an extra three to bemaximum security, and the ambiguity about this particularincident is an ambiguity which could be resolved in such away that it would make the difference between maximum andmedium. Would you agree with that?---Mm'hm. Yes, I would,but as I see that, that's a matter for an override and -yeah.

And you very well anticipate - - -?---And that would havebeen discussed at case conference, yeah.

Yes, really, would that not then be an appropriate case tosay in the conclusion, "Here's this incident about which Ihave tried but can't get enough supporting information, andit's something that we need to get to the bottom of becauseit might require that he stays at maximum"?---It could havebeen done that way, yeah.

5/8/05 HENDERSON, M.R. 12843.57

44/2/glj OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

Now, case conference is usually a conference involving theprisoner, is it not?---Prisoners generally attend theircase conference, yes.

Yes. So the individual management plan is prepared afterthe interviews with the prisoner and the classificationreview is done, and that individual management plan is thenthe plan that goes to case conference for consideration.Have I got that process correct?---Yeah, the whole packageof documents goes to case conference. The individualmanagement plan is technically the item being caseconferenced.

The individual management plan in this case isdocument 480, which again was prepared on 28 Decemberaround the same - well, on the same day at any rate as thecase conference report that we have seen?---Yep. In thatChristmas break.

Yes, and the recommendations there were placement atBunbury - "Keating is recommended for placement at BunburyRegional Prison in accordance with his classificationreview score and his stated preference," and I take it thatthat stated preference was the preference he expressed toyou on 17 December 2001?---It was. His primary concern atthat point - and there were others obviously - was tocontinue with his education, which he felt being in Albanyrestricted him doing. It's not the reason I recommendedBunbury incidentally, but that was his stated preference.

What was the reason that you recommended Bunbury?---Thealternatives as medium security placements, if he was to bemade medium security - bearing in mind I was making arecommendation; I'm certainly nowhere near the approvalauthority on something of this magnitude. The alternativeswere basically Greenough Regional Prison, which is south ofGeraldton; Acacia Prison, which was progressively beingopened near Wooroloo; and Bunbury. I sort of tookGreenough out of consideration early because it was equallyfar away from Perth as Albany and it didn't sort of achievehis stated aim to continue with his education. My concernsabout recommending Acacia were around the fact that it wasa new prison finding its feet. It wasn't staffed by peoplewho had a corporate knowledge of Paul Keating because itwas an all new staff, so I thought Bunbury where peopleknew who he was and understood the implications of someoneof his high profile coming was a better alternative thanAcacia. It really came down to those two in my thinking atthe time.

5/8/05 HENDERSON, M.R. 1285

45/1/khb OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

These documents, as you have said, the case conferencereport, the individual management plan, the classificationreview and any supporting documents would be what goes tocase conference?---That's correct.

Now, who would in the ordinary course attend such a caseconference?---If it was conducted in Hakea, it would be -it's normally chaired by one of the two coordinators orMr Bandy himself and there's a representative fromtreatment. They represent - like, one of the treatmentassessors, in other words, and one of the education,vocational training assessors and any other interestedparty. Sometimes people will attend, for instance, aprison-based community correction officer may attend.People like that.

Does the writer attend generally the case conference?---Notas a rule. If they want clarification, they'll call you upnormally. It could by coincidence be the writer that'sworking a case because - - -

That is the assessors - - -?--- - - - the uniformed writerscall the prisoners in and so on. We get rostered to thatposition. In an area the size of the assessment centre itcould by coincidence or normally if they wantclarification, they'll seek it beforehand. Mr Bandy is themanager, will read all of this stuff and if he disagrees,he'll call you in to or he'll call you up to talk it overand ask you to clarify what your thought process waset cetera, so normally a lot of the, shall we say, ironingout is done prior to case conference.

What was intended in relation to Keating, you having putthis process in train? Where was it going to go?---As inany case like this, as an assessment writer as I was inthis instance, I finished all the work, collected all thesupporting documents, put it - we use a file. We put thatall into a manila folder and it's submitted to one of thecoordinators to read it over for, I guess, qualityassurance reasons and then it goes to whoever the chair ofcase conference is and the others. What they do isnormally make three or four copies of all the documents andgive them to the people who'll be sitting on caseconference to read into it to see if anybody has any issuesor objections to it and there's also a copy of the actualIMP prepared for the prisoner as well because the prisonercan read that at case conference or he's talked through itat case conference, he or she is talked through it at caseconference.

Keating's case is somewhat unusual given that he is inAlbany and you have gone down to Albany, got theinformation and come back to Perth and prepared thismaterial. In this case where was it going to go? Was itgoing to go to Albany or stay up in Perth?---To be brutally

5/8/05 HENDERSON, M.R. 12864.03

45/2/khb OIC/05

Spark & Cannon

honest, once I'd finished it and submitted it I didn'tfollow it much after that. My understanding was it wouldperhaps be case conferenced in Albany. To be honest, Idon't know where it was case conferenced in the end.

That may be an appropriate time, sir. I thinkunfortunately Mr Henderson may need to come back on Mondaymorning.

MAHONEY, MR: Yes. We will adjourn until - - -

QUINLAN, MR: Can I just ask one matter?

The security rating review that you carried out in1998 - - -?---Yep.

- - - we will make efforts to find a copy, but two headsare better than one and if you were able to try and - - -?---Yes, I'll see if I can find it.

- - - access a copy as well?---Yep. Lots of those 2B-typedocuments, we're not able to access any more. They've beencentral records, so I suspect, but I'll see what I can doon Monday morning before I come in.

Yes, if it please you, sir.

MAHONEY, MR: We will adjourn until 10.30 on Mondaymorning.

AT 4.07 PM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED UNTILMONDAY, 8 AUGUST 2005

5/8/05 HENDERSON, M.R. 1287