Halliwell v Department for Correctional Services [2025] SAET 45

Paul Halliwell called; he has issues with his knee. Injured himself at work. He is booking off sick leave for the rest of his run; trying to see a doctor tomorrow. He said he will call you during the day.[1]

1. Mr Halliwell said the on the next day he attempted to see his GP, Dr Schoff, but he was not available until 8 May 2023. He said that in the meantime, he took Panadol and limited his movements. He said that when he saw Dr Shroff, he was told to give it a few days for the swelling to go down. Dr Shroff's notes confirm that he consulted with Mr Halliwell that day, but they make no mention of any knee problems. There is, however, a report of injury form completed by Mr Halliwell on 8 May 2023.[2] It records that time and date of the injury as being 3.30 pm on 5 May 2023. It identifies the location as being; "Barrier door - Bluebush 4 Port Augusta Prison". It describes the event as: "Walking from office to barrier door - opened door and felt pain in knee".
2. Dr Shroff saw Mr Halliwell on 11 May 2023. Dr Shroff's notes record: "On 3 May 2023 knee gave way arm (sic). Paul believes that the first injury which was 5 March 22 was due to restraining a prisoner had lingered on". It also noted that on examination there was tenderness on flexion and extension.[3] Dr Shroff referred him for an X-Ray which he had the same day. At a consultation four days later Dr Shroff recorded that on examination flexion was very painful and particularly weight bearing".[4] Mr Halliwell said that he was told that the X-Ray did not show anything, and that he was referred for an MRI, which took place on 18 May 2023. The report of the radiologist who examined the results of the MRI scan stated:

Suspected chronic/subacute ACL tear

Lateral meniscus displaced bucket handle tear.

Radial tear at the junction posterior horn posterior root medial meniscus with only a very few remnant posterior root fibres intact. This communicates with an oblique vertical longitudinal tear of the posterior horn contacting the inferior surface.[5]

1. Mr Halliwell said that he was later told that he needed surgery to repair the damage to his left knee.
2. On 3 June 2023, Mr Halliwell sent an email to a work colleague, Angela Skounos.[6] It read as follows:

On Wednesday 3rd May at approximately 1500 hours, I was exiting blue bush unit 4 office with my fellow officers in order to enter the unit wing.

As I walked out of the office I turned to the right hand side, my weight was on my left lg and as I turned, there was a popping feeling and a quick sharp pain to me left knee.

I did continue with my duties for the remainder of the shift, however the knee was sore and I was limping, when has never been quite right since my original injury that I sustained in April 2022.

Around 8 pm that might, the pain had increased dramatically and I was unable to bend my knee. Which is when I rang work to book off the next day.

On the following day I tried to make a doctor's appointment, but he was in Adelaide and would not be back till Monday, and appointment was then made.

1. Mr Halliwell said that he returned to work on 20 June 2023 and performed light duties for about three weeks. He said that on 5 July 2023, when he was packing away groceries at work, he caught his left leg and again twisted his left knee. He ceased work and has not returned to work since.
2. The Department's lawyers referred Mr Halliwell to Associate Professor Mark Clayer and he examined Mr Halliwell on 28 August 2023. In a report dated 31 August 2023,[7] Associate Professor Clayer stated that based on his assessment of the MRI scan, he confirmed that Mr Halliwell had a chronic tear of his left ACL and a minor tear of the posterior horn of his medial meniscus. He stated that he disagreed with the diagnosis of a bucket handle tear of the lateral meniscus. He thought the MRI scan of the lateral meniscus looked normal. He stated that he thought the ACL deficiency was longstanding. He said that he thought that the injury of May 2023 may have been an exacerbation of the ACL deficiency.
3. Mr Halliwell's lawyers referred him to Associate Professor David Martin and he examined Mr Halliwell on 5 September 2023. In a report dated 16 September 2023,[8] Associate Professor Martin stated that in his opinion Mr Halliwell had bilateral meniscal tears and a chronic rupture of his ACL. He thought he may have suffered a meniscal tear in March 2022 and a tear of his lateral meniscus with a displaced fragment in the May 2023 incident. He described this tear as a bucket tear and stated that it warranted arthroscopic surgery to remove the displaced fragment. In his oral evidence, he said that common symptoms of a bucket handle tear are clicking, catching, locking and giving way. He said that sometimes the locking of the knee can develop later on.[9]
4. Following the provision of this report, the Department's lawyers sought comment from Associate Professor Clayer. In a report dated 20 January 2025,[10] Associate Professor Clayer confirmed that he was not convinced that there was a bucket handle tear of Mr Halliwell's lateral meniscus, adding that MRIs are not 100% reliable. He said that he thought that the significant source of Mr Halliwell's problems was his chronic ACL deficiency. He stated that his history of his knee locking was not consistent with a bucket handle tear.
5. Having stated that he did not consider that knee surgery was necessary, Associate Professor Clayer did say that it would be appropriate because it would provide the definitive answer as to whether Mr Halliwell does in fact have a bucket handle tear in his lateral meniscus.
6. At trial, I viewed the CCTV footage of the alleged incident of 3 May 2023. I also viewed a still photograph taken from that footage. The photo and the footage reflect what might be expected of a prison. On the left hand side of the photo are a series of doors that obviously lead into cells. In the middle of the photo towards the back, a large structure comprising of prison bars can be seen. It that separates the area containing the cells from other parts of the prison. The prison bar structure contains a sliding section that permits access and egress from the cell area to the other parts of the prison. Immediately behind this structure on the left hand side of the photo is a small office that contains a window about a metre off the ground facing into the cell area. This is where Mr Halliwell says he injured his left knee.
7. The CCTV footage shows Mr Halliwell seated in that office looking into the cell area. It then shows him standing and moving to his left out of the office before passing through the prison bar structure into the cell area. It was not possible to see Mr Halliwell's legs as he stood up from the chair inside the office and turned left. He identified the point at which the injury allegedly occurred at the left hand side of the office immediately adjacent to the door out of which he exited, before proceeding through the prison bar structure. Inside the area on the other side of the prison bar structure, about eight or so prisoners can be seen.
8. Mr Halliwell was asked why he had continued to walk from the office area into the cell area if his knee was sore. He said he did so because his fellow prison officers needed help.[11] When it was put to him that there was no security issue at the time he said: "And how do you know that was going - not going to change within three seconds?"[12] Having said this, he agreed that there were three other prison officers in the immediate vicinity and that there was a system in place where other prison officers from within the prison would come to assist if an incident occurred. He added that he was more interested in helping his fellow colleagues and getting the day finished.
9. Mr Halliwell is then seen to be accompanied by a female prison officer walking between prisoners in the cell area. When he was shown the CCTV footage, Mr Halliwell claimed that it showed that he was not "waking real quick down there" and that he was limping a bit.[13] He agreed that the female prison officer walking with him was moving at about the same speed as he was.[14] When it was suggested that this was the typical speed that he would walk through the cell area, he initially said that there was some urgency in getting the prisoners back into their cells, before agreeing that he and the female prison officer were not showing any signs of urgency, and that they were both casually walking down the corridor.[15]
10. Mr Halliwell then identified a frame in the CCTV footage where he slowed down and he said that "I reckon that's where I start limping".[16] It was then put to him that he slowed because he was chatting to one of the prisoners. He agreed, saying that he was telling the prisoner to get off the phone because it was lock-up time.
11. It was then suggested to him that following this, he picked up pace and caught up with the female prison officer who had walked ahead. He agreed.[17] When it was suggested that what was depicted in the CCTV footage was consistent with a typical stroll through the cell area that he might have undertaken thousands of times in his work he said: "Except for my knee".[18]
12. The next section of CCTV footage shows Mr Halliwell walking back from the cell area. He agreed that he was walking faster that two female prison officers who also featured. When it was put to him that this was his normal speed, he said that he normally walked "a lot faster than that".[19] When it was put to him that he showed no signs of discomfort, he said that he was limping a bit.
13. The final section of CCTV footage showed Mr Halliwell letting prisoners out of their cells to get medication. When it was pointed out to him that in connection with this, he had earlier stated that as he would approach a cell door, he would use it as something to lean on to move his left knee and take weight of it, he agreed that none of this was seen on the footage. He said: "because I was the one letting them out of the cells to go and get medication - you don't make it obvious, but you're just resting your foot on the ground to give it a rest".[20] It then put to him that he appeared to be quite comfortable moving in and amongst the prisoners . He agreed, saying that he had a good rapport with 99% of the prisoners When this was pursued, he said: "It's a thing of - I don't show them - they don't show me they're hurting".[21]
14. Associate Professor Martin was shown the point at which Mr Halliwell said he hurt his knee. He said that what he observed was; "not consistent with the history he gave me of the injury occurring when he stood up from a chair which is not visible to me on that... I don't see anything in keeping with an injury".[22] He said that he would have expected Mr Halliwell to have flinched or otherwise to have shown some sign that something happened to his knee. He said that the CCTV footage was not consistent with the history that Mr Halliwell gave him as to when the injury occurred.
15. That said, earlier in his evidence Associate Professor Martin did add that there is a wide variation in the way in which people with injuries present and that more severe pain can come on later.[23]
16. When he was asked about the balance of the video, he noted that Mr Halliwell said that "he felt that he was limping immediately afterwards". Associate Professors Martin then said: "His gait does not look particularly abnormal. His gait does not look unexpected for a 54‑year‑old man of his body habitus in that situation".[24]
17. In connection with the CCTV footage, Associate Professor Clayer said:

...so the history that he gave me was that, you know, 'I had a sudden injury and then it continued on'. When I looked at the video, he didn't look like someone who'd had an injury... I couldn't see any evidence that he actually sustained an injury like he said he did.[25]

1. Mr Halliwell's counsel, Ms Bosboom, submitted that I should find him to be a credible witness. She accepted that the CCTV footage seemed to suggest that Mr Halliwell moved smoothly through the doorway and pivot around, without stopping. She also acknowledged that Associate Professors Martin and Clayer suggested that somebody who suffered a bucket handle meniscal tear would react in some way. But she submitted that in evaluating this, I needed to bear in in mind that Mr Halliwell had sustained an ACL ligament tear at some stage earlier and either knew nothing about it or simply put up with it. She submitted that I could infer from this that he might be more stoic than the average person. She also noted that Associate Professor Dr Martin gave evidence that the pain can come on immediately, or it can come on later. She said that this was consistent with Mr Halliwell's evidence which was that the knee pain was not particularly debilitating at the time coupled with the fact that he was keen to complete his shift and not let his work colleagues down and that his knee became much worse later that evening.
2. Ms Bosboom submitted that I should accept Mr Halliwell's evidence that he did not want to show any physical vulnerability because of the nature of the prison environment.
3. Ms Bosboom submitted that something did occur on 3 May 2023 and that for me to find otherwise, would require me to find that Mr Halliwell's contemporaneous reporting were lies. She noted that this was never directly put to Mr Halliwell.
4. Next, she said that there is a great deal of contemporaneous evidence to corroborate Mr Halliwell's consistent reporting of the date and time of the injury and the circumstances in which it occurred. She pointed to the phone call he had with an officer of the Department to let them know that he was not coming in on the next working day. She then referred to his report of his knee injury on 7 May 2023 and the completion of a workers compensation claim form a few days later, and the attendance upon Dr Shroff and the subsequent X-Ray and MRI scan.
5. Ms Bosboom submitted that the final piece of contemporaneous evidence is the email from Mr Halliwell to Ms Skounos, which also confirmed that the incident occurred on the 3rd of May 2023 at approximately 1500 hours as he was exiting Bluebush Unit 4 office with his fellow officers in order to enter the unit wing. She submitted that everything in that email is entirely consistent with the rest of Mr Halliwell's evidence and is entirely consistent with the CCTV footage which Mr Halliwell did not have access to until mid‑2024.
6. As I understood her, Ms Bosboom contended that I should not be overly concerned by the apparent differences in the medical evidence regarding the presence or otherwise of a bucket handle tear. She accepted that I might well find there were some pre-existing degenerative changes in Mr Halliwell's knee prior to 3 May 2023, or some other injuries, things like the ACL tear and the meniscal tear. She submitted that what was important was that as a result of Mr Halliwell performing a twisting motion at work on the 3 May 2023, as he pivoted around the door, something happened which resulted in his knee swelling that night and then symptoms of locking and giving way, that now require an arthroscopic debridement. She submitted that his claim should be accepted and that he is entitled to weekly payments from the 3 May 2023 onwards, and that he is also entitled to the cost of arthroscopic debridement.
7. Mr Ambrose, counsel for the Department, submitted that the only issue before the Court is whether Mr Halliwell has a bucket handle tear to his left meniscus caused by his work in the Bluebush Unit at the Port Augusta Prison on 3 May 2023. He submitted that the evidence of the medical experts made it clear that Mr Halliwell's median meniscal tear occurred in March 2022, and that this is not the subject of the claim for compensation now before the Court.
8. Mr Ambrose submitted that both experts gave evidence that the typical presentation when a bucket handle tear occurs is an immediate pain response. He pointed to Associate Professor Clayer's evidence where he spoke of a typical person to stopping and potentially sitting down, to give their knee a wiggle, and to expect them to go ouch. Having accepted that people do not always behave as might be predicted, he submitted that it was striking that Mr Halliwell did not display any signs of discomfort following the alleged incident. I understood him to submit that I should have serious doubts about Mr Halliwell's evidence that he hurt himself as he alleged.
9. Next, he submitted that the differing opinions as to the existence of a bucket handle tear were both open and as there is no way to prefer one over the other, I cannot be satisfied to the requisite degree that there is such a tear and that the claim fails for want of proof.
10. For these reasons he submitted that I should uphold the Department's rejection of Mr Halliwell's claim.

1. I remind myself at the outset that whilst the onus of proof lies with Mr Halliwell, he will have discharged that onus by proving his case to the civil standard. That standard does not require proof to absolute or near certainty. A fact will be proven, if the trier of fact is persuaded of the truth of that fact on the balance of probabilities.[26]
2. I also remind myself that when considering medical evidence that calls into doubt the existence of a fact, there is a major difference between proof of a fact on the balance of probabilities for the purposes of a civil trial, and proof of a fact for scientific purposes to the satisfaction of those expert in the particular field of science.[27]
3. With these matters in mind, I now turn to consider the evidence.
4. I commence by observing that I found Mr Halliwell to be a generally reliable witness. I say "generally", because I thought that there were some elements of exaggeration and reconstruction in his evidence.
5. On any view of it, the CCTV footage does not obviously demonstrate a discrete event when Mr Halliwell injured his knee, nor does it show him to be in any obvious discomfort thereafter. Indeed, I could not detect that Mr Halliwell was grimacing or showing any signs of pain as entered the cell area or as he walked through the cell area. I am fortified in expressing this opinion about the CCTV by the opinions of Associate Professors Martin and Clayer which were to like effect.
6. As such, I approach some of Mr Halliwell's evidence with caution. I have doubts about his evidence of the need to continue with his work after the incident because it was two hours before his shift ended and there was no one to replace him. I do not accept his evidence of the need to have something to lean on to take the weight of his left knee when he entered the cells, nor do I accept his evidence of hiding his discomfort because he did not want the inmates to observe that he had issues with his leg.
7. That said, it does not follow that he was not telling the truth when he said that he felt something happen to his left knee when he got up of a chair, turned and began to walk through the prison bars towards the cells. There is no doubt that that as of early May 2023, Mr Halliwell had a problem with his left knee. Dr Shroff's note of his consultation of 11 May 2023 that flexion and weight bearing on Mr Halliwell's left knee was very painful establishes this. As for what caused this, I think Ms Bosboom is right to submit that if nothing happened at work that could have caused this, I would have to find that Mr Halliwell deliberately lied when he rang Ms Tardieu on 7 May 2023, when he described the circumstances of his injury to Dr Shroff on 11 May 2023, and when he emailed Ms Skounos on 3 June 2023. I do not discount this as a possibility. But it does not seem very likely, especially given that at this stage, there was no reason to think that this was a serious injury.
8. That is not to say that I do not have my doubts about this case. If the medical evidence did not support a finding of a bucket handle tear, this might tip the balance leading me to conclude that Mr Halliwell has not discharged his onus of proof.
9. Although the medical evidence casts some doubt about this, in my opinion it does not point decisively against Mr Halliwell.
10. This is not a case of preferring once eminent orthopaedic surgeon over another. Having carefully reflected upon his evidence, I did not get the sense that Associate Professor Clayer positively ruled out the possibility that Mr Halliwell has a bucket handle tear in the lateral meniscus in his left knee. My impression was that whilst he regarded this as a possibility, by reference to the rigour and demand for certainty that science, as opposed to the law, commands, based only upon what he regarded as an inconclusive MRI and absent findings from an arthroscopy, he was not prepared to make that finding. For scientific purposes this is an entirely reasonable position to take. But looked at through the prism of the law as opposed to that of science, which is the lens that I must apply, I am persuaded by Associate Professor Martin's evidence that for legal purposes, Mr Halliwell does have a bucket tear in his left meniscus.
11. When I add to this the fact of relatively contemporaneous reports of injury, notwithstanding the doubt that the CCTV footage raises, by reference to the civil standard of proof that I must apply, on balance I think that the burden of proof has been discharged.
12. I therefore set aside the rejection of Mr Halliwell's claim for compensation, and in lieu thereof I determine that on 3 May 2023, he sustained a bucket handle tear to his left medial meniscus that has resulted in an incapacity for work and the incurring of medical expenses. Mr Halliwell is also entitled to an order for costs.
13. I shall hear from counsel as to the precise form of the orders that ought to follow.

[26] Briginshaw v. Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336.

[27] State of New South Wales trading as New South Wales Department of Agricultural v Allen [2000] NSWCA 141 at [3] per Priestly JA.