The Evidence of Officer Woelfl
77Officer Woelfl's evidence is contained in his statement (Exhibit 6) and testimony in examination and cross examination (TR 11/7/12 pp 37-106; TR 12/7/12 pp 185-187).
78Officer Woelfl commenced employment with the Department in April 1986. He was awarded the Exemplary Conduct Medal for bravery on 11 January 1990 after being stabbed seven times by an inmate. This occurred at Parklea Gaol when an inmate presented himself at the medical centre seeking an unscheduled appointment with the doctor. On being advised by Officer Woelfl that he was not on the list for medical attention the inmate stabbed Officer Woelfl with a sharpened bread and butter knife. Officer Woelfl deposed that during the attack other inmates gathered, shouting "kill the screw dog".
79Officer Woelfl's evidence is that he was subject to other incidents of violence.
80He received a broken nose and black eye when an inmate at Grafton Gaol reacted in a violent manner when informed by Officer Woelfl that he could no longer be a supervisor as he had been caught stealing items from the kitchen.
81Officer Woelfl was on duty when riots occurred at Long Bay Gaol in 1986 and Parklea Gaol in 1988 and was required to extract an inmate from a cell in 2007 when one of two occupants lit a fire.
82Officer Woelfl deposed that he was aware of the risks of entering a cell, recounting an event in 2005 when a senior officer entered a cell on day shift to converse with an inmate and was attacked, as were the officers who came to his aid.
83Officer Woelfl requested and was transferred to Grafton Gaol in 1990 where he has worked from that time with the exception of the period from 1995 to 2002 when he was in the Transport and Court Escort Security Unit in Grafton.
84Officer Woelfl graduated from the Correctional Services Academy in 1986 and completed recall training in 1987. His evidence is that he has been offered limited formal training since that time, limited to normal weapons training and some first aid and relevant on the job training, but only two days training in Classification Case Management in 2008 and one hour in the Incident Reporting Management (IRM) System in 2009.
85Since 2006 Officer Woelfl has been regularly rostered as the night shift senior, which is the most senior officer until a command officer commences work in the morning. He has acted as Assistant Superintendent and Senior Assistant Superintendent on numerous occasions.
86In addressing his general approach to inmates Officer Woelfl deposed (Exhibit 6, paras 17-19) :
17. Correctional officers as a general practice treat all inmates as if they have the potential for violence, and all inmates like they potentially have AIDS and hepatitis C. A lot of the time an officer may not be aware of the circumstances of a particular inmate, including their offences or propensity for violence.
18. From my personal experience I have found that it is often better not to know the offences of the inmate because it may affect how you treat the inmate, for example if their offence is particularly heinous. Also if an inmate is in gaol for a relatively minor or non-violent offence and the officer is aware of this fact they may let their guard down when dealing with the inmate and potentially put themselves and others in danger. The most paramount concerns for any officer is their safety and security, the safety and security of others and the safety and security of the gaol. As a Night Senior I take my responsibilities for the safety of the staff and inmates, and the gaol and myself very seriously.
19. As a correctional officer, in accordance with procedures, I maintain a professional distance from inmates. I have always treated all inmates humanely and equally and dealt with them on a strictly professional basis. In my experience it is important to maintain an emotional detachment from inmates whilst still dealing with them in a professional and fair manner.
87Officer Woelfl deposed that he had devoted his life to being a professional and dedicated correctional officer and followed all Departmental procedures as required.
88Officer Woelfl's evidence described an event early in his career when an inmate called for assistance claiming he was sick, then when removed from the cell he declared that he was pretending as he wanted to get out of the cell.
89Officer Woelfl put that he was sorry that Mr Klum had died and expressed sympathy for the loss suffered by Mr Klum's family.
90Officer Woelfl's evidence sets out the devastating physical, emotional and financial effects upon him and his family as a consequence of his suspension and threat of dismissal.
91The service record and good character of Officer Woelfl is supported by evidence of Mr Michael Carter, an Ambulance Station Officer and Intensive Care Paramedic (exhibit 8); and Mr Pavlovic, a correctional officer of 28 years service, recently retired as General Manager Mid North Coast Correctional Centre (exhibit 9). This evidence was not subject to challenge.
The events of 10 June 2010
92Officer Woelfl's evidence is (Exhibit 6, paras 28, 33, 38, 42, 43 45, 48):
Night Shift and Night Senior Work
28. As far as I am aware as of June 2010 there was no procedure or protocol specifying when an officer should or should not enter an occupied cell. As a general precaution, to avoid placing themselves or other officers in danger, an officer would only enter a cell whilst an inmate is present if it is absolutely necessary to do so. An example of when an officer may decide it is necessary to enter an occupied cell is to undertake a cell extraction if an inmate refuses to leave the cell. Any cell extraction must be video recorded. Other circumstances include if a critical incident has occurred, or an inmate is physically unable to leave the cell, for example if they are unconscious, or dead, or a fire had occurred in the cell.
... ...
33. I also conduct a perimeter check of the wall. During my shift I conduct a check of the external areas of the gaol. I then check that the main security doors into the common area in the wings are secured and do a visual check of the landings in the mains section. I usually conduct this check on two occasions once at the start of the shift. and once through my shift. The Night Senior on C Watch physically checks that every lock and bolt on the cell doors in the wings are secure. The general procedure in 2010 was that officers did not enter the wings during the B Watch unless it was to attend a knock up call because entering the wings is a potential security risk. The common area in the wings is also covered by the CCTV. I also supervise the other officers who conduct a general patrol every hour or so of "the moat" (which is the sterile zone between the perimeter wall and the wing) and check the security doors and conducts a visual check of the landings.
... ...
10 June 2010
38. On 10 June 2010 the three rover correctional officers were Matthew Barnett, Louise Gilbert, and I. Mr Pearcey was stationed in the detox area in the clinic, but was available for post duties if required. The officer stationed in the monitor room was Richard Woods.
... ...
42. When I attended cell 219 on 10 June 2010 at around 2:20am I made observations of the inside of the cell to the extent possible from outside the cell grill door. The cell grill door is to protect officers that attend the cell, and gives a full view of the inside of the cell and the inmates inside the cell, without the officer having to go into the cell.
43. The light from the outside common area is very bright and shines into the cell, this allowed me to see into the cell and observe: .
(a) Inmate Johnson lying on his bunk, apparently in bed;
(b) Inmate Klum towards the back of the cell where his bed was located, fully dressed and with his shoes on, and carrying a jumper.
44. To the best of my recollection I had not met Inmate Johnson before the incident. I had only very minimal previous contact with Inmate Klum prior to the incident. To the best of my recollection this was limited to a few occasions when I escorted him, with another officer, down to the clinic to receive his medication at around 7:00am and 8:00pm on a night shift.
45. I asked the inmates generally what had occurred. Inmate Johnson answered that Inmate Klum had grabbed him whilst Inmate Johnson was lying in bed and tried to choke him and that he had pushed Inmate Klum away. (Answer 38 on page 7 of my 11 June 2010 record of interview). When Inmate Klum came to the grill door I noticed he had a small amount of dried blood around his nose, but otherwise showed no sign of injury.
46. Based on the information I had I decided to move Inmate Klum from cell 219.
(ii) Assessing Medical Assistance
47. Based on my observations and my assessment of the situation I formed the view that it was a minor push and shove type incident between two inmates.
48. Although Mr Klum showed no signs of obvious injury and did not contradict Inmate Johnson's version of events he did have a small amount of dried blood under his nose. He also:
(a) complained of a headache at the door of cell 219;
(b) walked from the back of the cell to the front of the cell and then lowered himself to the ground at the door of the cell; and
(c) shrugged off Officer Barnett's assistance and crawled across the floor to cell 225.
93Officer Woelfl deposed that none of these factors separately suggested to him that Mr Klum was seriously ill, however, taken all together he formed a decision to seek a medical assessment and he immediately made arrangements for the nurse to attend.
94In cross examination Officer Woelfl could not recall whether he held Mr Klum in his vision the whole time Mr Klum crawled from cell 219 to cell 225 (TR 11/7/12 p 38). Officer Woelfl did not accept the proposition put to him by Mr Murphy that, having regard to the security or safety risks, he would have taken his eyes off Mr Klum knowing that Officers Pearcey and Barnett had their backs to him (TR 11/7/12 p 39).
95Officer Woelfl insisted that he had not acted incorrectly and that he had done nothing wrong.
96Officer Woelfl confirmed that on arrival at cell 219 he observed Mr Klum sitting on the floor alongside his bunk with one arm resting upon it. He asked Mr Klum to come to the cell door, which he initially said he could not do, then stood up and walked a distance a little less than 4.9 metres, then within 30 cm of the door Mr Klum slowly went down to the floor.
97Officer Woelfl held that he told the investigators that when he first saw Mr Klum he concluded that he was suffering some trauma to his face but was not of the view that Mr Klum had been punched in the face and he did not contemplate the possibility that Mr Klum had a broken nose until the nurse informed him that it was a possibility. Officer Woelfl held that he did not contemplate that Mr Klum was the victim of an assault until about an hour after removing Mr Klum from cell 219 when Officer Pearcey informed him that Mr Klum requested Police action in the matter (TR 11/7/12 p 48).
98In later cross examination Officer Woelfl confirmed that, when he had telephoned the Nurse Manager in Sydney whilst Mr Klum was in cell 225, he informed that there had been an assault and that he wanted: "this guy checked out for head trauma because he is a bit sluggish on his feet" (TR 11/7/12 p 50).
99Officer Woelfl put that he had not formed a conclusive view as he was assessing the information given to him by Mr Johnson; he had a view that something had happened and he needed to act on the information he had at the time.
100Officer Woelfl maintained the view that cell 225 should have been processed as a crime scene as he believed Mr Klum had self harmed whilst there. Officer Woelfl put that following Mr Klum's removal to observation he went back to cell 225 to investigate and found three drops of blood on the floor next to the bed. He did not believe, until he was informed of Mr Klum's condition at about 1.30 pm on 10 June 2011, that cell 219 should have been treated as a crime scene as all of the indications suggested only a minor incident (TR 11/7/12 p 50).
101The decision to check cell 225 further was based on what Officer Woelfl observed as an additional injury to Mr Klum in that cell and the blood observed on his jumper when removed. Officer Woelfl considered the prospect of self harm by Mr Klum in cell 225 more serious than the events in cell 219, which he had concluded was just a minor push.
102Officer Woelfl maintained that he could see clearly into cell 219 and did not need to turn on the internal lights, though accepting that it could be done.
103Officer Woelfl put that he believed that the drops of blood on the floor at the door of cell 219 came from a bleeding nose when Mr Klum made the knock up call.
104Officer Woelfl asserted that Officer Pearcey was wrong when he made the following entry in the Incident Report, which he completed on 11 July 2010 (exhibit 28 vol 3 at p1716), stating that Mr Klum was not moving:
Inmate Klum was instructed to get up from the floor and come to the cell door. Inmate Klum was moaning and saying he could not do this.
105Officer Woelfl maintained that he inspected Mr Klum for injuries, checked his clothing, and did not see any bloodstains. Officer Woelfl put that it was only after Mr Klum was removed from cell 225 that he noted blood on Mr Klum's jumper.
106Officer Woelfl confirmed that he told Officer Barnett not to touch or pick up Mr Klum on the belief that he did not want assistance, deposing that he gained this belief from Mr Klum's actions.
107Officer Woelfl maintained that had he inspected cell 219 further and observed the amount of blood loss he would have taken Mr Klum directly to observation, but he would not have called an ambulance, he would have called the nurse to asses Mr Klum, as he did.
108Officer Woelfl accepted that had Mr Klum not washed and cleaned himself before presenting at the cell door, decreasing the visibility of blood, after the knock up call he would have investigated further and possibly acted differently including entering the cell. However, his assessment of Mr Klum as he presented gave no cause to consider the events as anything but minor.
109In re-examination Officer Woelfl confirmed that he observed Nurse White attend to Mr Klum and that there was no obvious injury once the blood had been cleaned away from around his mouth and nose, consistent with Officer Woelfl's assessment of the events as minor.
110At around 4.30 am, Nurse White informed Officer Woelfl that Mr Klum had a sharp indent in the bridge of his nose and that swelling was becoming evident. Officer Woelfl formed the view that this injury had occurred in cell 225.