James Goodman and Secretary of the Treasury on behalf of Department of Attorney General and Justice (Corrective Services NSW) [2014] NSWIRComm 1026

Industrial Relations Commission New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: James Goodman and Secretary of the Treasury on behalf of Department of Attorney General and Justice (Corrective Services NSW) [2014] NSWIRComm 1026 Hearing dates: 15 April 2014 Decision date: 30 September 2014 Jurisdiction: Industrial Relations Commission Before: Tabbaa C AM Decision: Claim dismissed Catchwords: Appeal against fine - Disciplinary decision involved reprimand and fine of $200 - Alleged non-compliance with Use of Force Policy in that hand-held video camera not used to record the incident - Alleged unnecessary use of force - Use of Force Incident Report allegedly completed incorrectly and inaccurately - Failure to complete and submit an Inmate Misconduct Report - All allegations sustained by the evidence - Claim dismissed. Legislation Cited: Industrial Relations Act 1996 Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2008 Cases Cited: Lyle Young and Commissioner of Corrective Services (GREAT Appeal No 140 of 2004); Commissioner of Police v Donlan and Hanson (Court of Appeal: Clarke, Handley and Powell JJA, 8.8.95 unreported) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Mr James Goodman (Appellant) Mr S Cosgrove - Solicitor, Professional Standards Branch (Respondent) File Number(s): IRC 1063 of 2013

DECISION

Overview 1Mr James Goodman (the Appellant) was employed by the Secretary of the Treasury on behalf of Department of Attorney General and Justice (Corrective Services NSW) (CSNSW) as a First Class Correctional Officer at the Metropolitan Remand and Reception Centre (MRRC) when, on 26 April 2012, an incident occurred during which he used force on an inmate. 2The Appellant and another Officer, Singh, entered a cell to conduct a routine regulation strip search of inmate "K". The Appellant noticed that K was wearing a gold ring on his finger. As it posed a risk of self-harm, he requested inmate K to hold out his hand so that he could see if the ring could be removed but the inmate pulled his hand away. The Appellant grasped the inmate's hand. The inmate clenched his fist. The Appellant interpreted the inmate's reaction as a hostile action. The Appellant engaged in the use of force by taking hold of K's hand and bringing him to the ground. The ring could not be removed. K stood up and the strip search continued without further incident. K sustained minor abrasions to his left arm and to the left side of his face. 3On review of the CCTV footage, the Professional Standards Committee (the PSC) found that the level of force used was unjustified and that the Appellant had failed to consider other alternatives to using force. The PSC recommended that the matter be referred to the Investigation branch for formal investigation of the following five allegations of misconduct: (a)On 26 April 2012, the Appellant failed to follow the Use of Force Policy in that he did not use a hand held video camera, the use the force was unreasonable, and he did not complete the Use of Force Incident Report correctly and accurately; and (b)The Appellant failed to submit the required documentation in relation to the Use of Force incident on 26 April 2012, including the Inmate Misconduct Report. 4The Appellant said he attended the first interview to gain an insight into the allegations against him. 5Thereafter, he refused to participate in a formal interview but did submit an Officer Report Form regarding the incident. 6The investigation report found that four out of the five allegations were sustained. 7The Appellant received a reprimand and a fine of $200 for his conduct during that incident. These proceedings constitute an appeal against the imposition of the fine.