Fair Work Act 2009

s 394 - Unfair dismissal

• [1] Mr Rodney Donnini (the Applicant) has made an unfair dismissal application under s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) regarding his dismissal as a Court Security Manager (CSM) with Ventia (Australia) Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

• [2] The Respondent provides court security and custody services to the State Government of Western Australia under the Court Security and Custodial Services Contract (CS&CS Contract). The Department of Justice is responsible for all justice related policy and services provided across Western Australia, including the management of most court locations and support of correction facilities. Under the CS&CS Contract, the Respondent is responsible for the delivery of court security services at every permanent courthouse in Western Australia, other than the Central Law Courts and District Court in Perth. In addition, the Respondent is responsible for supervising and securely escorting any person in custody (PIC) to various activities including court hearings.

• [3] Part of the Respondent's discharge of its service to the Department of Justice is through the employment of Care and Custody Officers (CCO) and CSMs, who supervise the CCOs at various court locations.[1]

• [4] On 9 October 2024, an incident occurred at the Midland Magistrates Court in Western Australia (Court). A PIC was transferred from the Perth Watch House (Watch House) to the Court, and having appeared before the Magistrate, the PIC was subsequently released to freedom at a time when by Arrest Warrant the PIC was to be remanded in custody. The Applicant was on duty as the CSM at the relevant time. He subsequently faced a disciplinary process, which culminated in his dismissal.

• [5] According to the Respondent, the circumstances giving rise to the incident occurred due to the Applicant's omissions in not properly reviewing, verifying or questioning the basis on which the PIC was to be released.[2] The Respondent alleged that in failing to carry out his duty, the Applicant, in his capacity of CSM, processed and released an individual whose parole order had been suspended. The Respondent pressed that as the party responsible under the CS&CS Contract, it was fined $25,000 and time, effort and resources were expended in correcting the situation.[3]

• [6] For his part, the Applicant acknowledged that he was responsible for the Respondent's employees working at the Court and that his role included ensuring that CCOs at security checkpoints within the Court were doing their jobs, monitoring the situation in the Court and its precinct, monitoring persons being held in the Court's custody centre, and ensuring that the necessary checks were made before a person was released from custody.[4]

• [7] On the day in question, the Applicant said that the relevant PIC had been transported to the Court by Transport Officers who had then handed over the PIC's file to the CCO.[5] The CCO supervised the PIC's transfer from the transport vehicle to the custody area. The information in the PIC's file was entered into the 'ePEMS system' (Electronic Programs System[6]) by the Control Officer.[7] The Applicant stated that, to the best of his knowledge, the PIC's file included: (a) a Custody Handover Sheet; (b) Warrant of Committal; (c) Arrest Warrant; (d) Form 5 (authority to hold); and (e) Property Sheet. The Applicant noted that the file received for the PIC did not include the usual brightly coloured document that indicates the PIC is required to be taken to prison.[8]

• [8] The Applicant gave evidence that having reviewed the file, he saw that the PIC had been arrested on an Arrest Warrant that directed the police to take him to prison.[9] However, this was the first occasion that he had seen this type of arrest warrant since working for the Respondent.[10]

• [9] Briefly stated, the Applicant asserted:

• a) the Police Prosecutor, the Judicial Support Officer (JSO), and the Magistrate had the information in relation to each PIC (which was the PIC's file that had been received when the PIC was brought to the custody area - inclusive of the Arrest Warrant);[11]
• b) the Duty Lawyer was provided with a copy of the brief regarding the PIC - inclusive of the Arrest Warrant;[12]
• c) that neither the Police Prosecutor nor the JSO brought the matter of the Arrest Warrant to the Magistrate's attention;[13]
• d) there is always a Community Corrections Officer present in the Court to assist the Court with matters relating to community service orders and parole matters - that person should have been aware of the suspension of the PIC's parole, and could have brought that matter to the attention of the Magistrate;[14]
• e) he saw the Arrest Warrant regarding the PIC in question, but noticed that it was directed to the police and assumed that the police would be waiting for the PIC when he left the Court (something which, the Applicant stated, happens from time to time);[15]
• f) each morning the Respondent's Control Centre sends through to CSMs information regarding the persons who had been arrested overnight and who are due to appear in Court that day - whilst the Applicant reviewed that list on 9 October 2024, there was nothing flagged regarding the PIC, particularly about the PIC having to be transported to prison;[16]
• g) the Magistrate granted the PIC bail and said to the PIC words to the effect of, 'Once you have signed the paperwork, you are free to go';[17]

h) as the PIC was bailed by the Magistrate, he started his process for the PIC's release from custody on the basis that he had no authority to keep the PIC in custody given bail had been granted;

• i) he asked Tahlia Coad (Coad), Control Officer for that day, to assist him with the Release from Custody Process for the PIC (a process that requires two of the Respondent's Officers to, amongst other things, check ePEMs and the PIC's file to see if there is a Return to Prison Order or some other order that requires the PIC to remain in custody);[18] and
• j) having taken all the required steps in the Release from Custody Process, Coad and the Applicant were satisfied that there was no reason to keep the PIC in custody and both signed the Release from Custody checklist and proceeded to release the PIC.[19]

• [10] Before deciding the merits of the application, s 396 of the Act requires that I decide four matters. First, whether the application was made within the 21-day period required by s 394(2) of the Act. Second, whether the Applicant was a person protected from unfair dismissal, as he had served the minimum employment period and earned less than the high income threshold. Third, whether the dismissal was a case of genuine redundancy. Fourth, whether the Respondent is a small business employer, rendering the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code relevant to this matter. The Applicant made his application in the requisite timeframe and was protected from unfair dismissal. The Respondent is not a small business employer and there is no claim that the Applicant's position was made redundant rendering these preliminary considerations of no further relevance.

• [11] However, having considered the evidence before me, I am of the view, on balance, that the Applicant's dismissal was not unfair. The Applicant's application for an unfair dismissal remedy is therefore dismissed and an Order[20] issues concurrently with this decision.

• [13] The broader context and background to the matter is structured in accordance with the evidence of the witnesses.

• [14] In support of his case the Applicant gave evidence, and, in addition, relied upon the evidence of Coad and Fergus Carrol (Carrol), a Trainer with the Respondent under the CS&CS Contract with the Government. The Respondent relied on the evidence of Daniel Green (Green), Assistant Director - Business Support, and Linda Laiseni (Laiseni), Assistant Director - Central - Court Security and Custodial Services.

• [15] Before broaching the evidence of the witnesses, it is timely to outline the responsibilities and duties that the Applicant held within his former workplace, in addition to providing further context about the work environment and some of the documentation relied upon by the parties.

• [16] The Applicant was initially employed by the Respondent in the role of CCO commencing employment on or around 16 January 2023.[21] It was uncontroversial that the Applicant held that position for approximately six to seven months.

• [17] On 23 October 2023, the Respondent offered the Applicant the full-time position of CSM commencing on 21 August 2023. The position was a permanent role within the company and attracted an annual total fixed remuneration of $90,864.00 inclusive of superannuation at 11% of ordinary time earnings.[22] Whilst it appears that the Applicant may not have signed that particular contract, he agreed, when asked, that it regulated his employment.[23]

• [18] Clause 15 of the Applicant's employment contract for the position of CSM set out that the Applicant was required to abide by any applicable Code of Conduct and all other policies and procedures that applied to his employment, as amended, replaced or varied from time to time by the Respondent.[24]

• [19] A position description for the role of CSM, which the Applicant asserted in cross examination that he had not seen, outlined the following in respect of the purpose of the Applicant's position and his key accountabilities:

This position is responsible for the delivery of the operational objectives of the Courthouse, as well as providing line management responsibilities to direct reports.

• Deputy Court Security Manager
• Court & Custody Officers

• Liaise with Court Officials in the area to ensure contractual requirements are met.
• Ensure suitable and sufficient resources are available in the Court and Custody areas.
• Inspect and monitor court operations and ensure compliance with contractual entitlements
• Deliver a high standard of service delivery whilst constantly maintaining staff and PiC welfare and safety.
• Ensure the safety, security and handling of PiCs is in line with documented procedures.
• Ensure all warrants are checked in line with documented procedures.

• • ...Carry out all duties in line with Company policies and procedures as amended from time to time.[25]

• [20] When further questioned in cross examination about the duties and responsibilities of his role, the abovementioned position description did not depart from the Applicant's general understanding of his responsibilities as a CSM.[26] The Applicant further acknowledged that as a CSM he had responsibilities under the Court Security and Custodial Services Act 1999.[27]

• [21] The Respondent's 'Release and Return to Prison Order Procedures' (Release Procedure) found at Annexure LL-4 to the witness statement of Laiseni, details specific requirements concerning: (a) surrendering to the Courthouse from bail and being granted bail by the Court; (b) release procedures and checks required; and (c) return to prison orders. This version of the Release Procedure was in place until it was amended in August 2024.

• [22] The General Release and Bail Principles outlined in the pre-August 2024 Release Procedures stated:

• In every case before a PIC is released from the courthouse, a check will be made to ensure the PIC's hardcopy paperwork and ePEMS has not been marked 'Return to Prison Order'.
• Checks must be made by a Ventia officer completing the PIC Pre-Release Checklist (P004DSDSI-1446598682-16764) with a final check and sign-off completed by the CSM/DCSM.
• Where the court has released the PIC from custody and there is no other legal justification for detention, a PIC must be released without delay.

• [23] Regarding the return of persons in custody to prison, the pre-August 2024 Release Procedures stated:

a) Upon completion of a PIC's court proceedings and the receipt of the court outcome(s), Ventia officers shall compare the court outcome(s) against the prison confirmation provided by cross-checking charge number(s) against the Court List provided via email, to ascertain whether all matters have or have not been dealt with by the court. If not all charges on the list are contained within the court outcome documents, this should be raised and clarified with the court to determine if there has been an administrative oversight. Where not all matters have been dealt with by the court, confirmation should be sought from the prison on a RTPO.

• b) In the event that all matters have not been dealt with by the court and the PIC is to be retained in custody, then the PIC is to be returned to prison.[28]

• [24] In respect of the release from custody of a person in custody, the pre-August 2024 Release Procedure stated:

When a sentenced PIC is to be released, the CSM will ensure:

(a) The facility from which the PIC was produced is contacted via email to advise of the court outcome and to request written confirmation that there is no outstanding matter that prevents a PICs release.

(b) Once the discharging authority (facility) have responded with confirmation, record the time, date, and name of person from the discharging authority who responded to ensure a comprehensive set of notes are available to reflect what has occurred. These notes will be captured on the PICs profile in ePEMS.

(c) The necessary release authority has been received for the PIC and is made available to the CSM or deputy CSM providing authority for the release procedure to take place. ePEMS will be updated to reflect the outcome of the court appearance.

(d) All property is checked in front of the PIC, sealed, and signed by the PIC before being handed over. This will be recorded in the Record of Events in ePEMS.

In the event that all matters have been dealt with by the court and the PIC is to be released and no formal updates have been received since the PIC's transport to court, which places the PIC on a return order, then the PIC is to be processed for release.

Upon completion of a PIC's court proceedings and the receipt of the court outcome(s), checks must be made by Ventia who shall compare the court outcome(s) against the prison confirmation provided, by cross-checking charge number(s) in order to ascertain whether all matters have or have not been dealt with by the court.

When a PIC has received a non-custodial sentence, the PIC will be detained until a copy of the order or, conditional discharge has been received, or the conditions applicable to the payment of any fine imposed are verified as having been complied with. Where personal bail applies, CCOs will liaise with the associate, Judicial Officer or judicial support officer to have appropriate paperwork completed.

A PIC will not be release if a suspended sentence is passes, a conditional discharge order is made, or a fine is imposed until the PIC has been given a copy of the order made and signed all required paperwork. A record of the outcome and time the PIC was handed the order, and by which CCO, will be recorded in the PIC Record of Events in ePEMs.

Ventia Officers must complete the PIC Pre-Release Checklist...along with checking TOMS and all relevant documentation to ensure there are no matters that prevent release.

• A completed, signed copy of the PIC Pre-Release Checklist must be emailed to cscsdocuments@ventia.com
• The subject line of them email must read "PIC Pre-Release Checklist" and include the PICs Full Name, e.g., "PIC Pre-Release Checklist - John Allan Smith".
• The email itself must contain the name of the officer sending the form (via a signature block or otherwise typed in the email)
• A notation must be entered on the PIC Escort (PER) inclusive of ePEMS action notes filed that the PIC Pre-Release checklist has been completed...

• [25] It is uncontroversial that in early August 2024, the Respondent directed CSMs to conduct toolbox talks with CCOs regarding unauthorised releases which had resulted in the Respondent incurring financial penalties.[29] This was followed by the Respondent issuing to CSMs an updated version of the Pre-Release Checklist and the Release Procedure (for the purpose of those toolbox talks). The Applicant was a recipient of those documents, as evinced by the email from Laiseni (formerly Zampogna) titled 'Pre-Release Toolbox',[30] and, when asked at hearing, recalled those documents.[31]

• [26] Laiseni's witness statement attaches a template 'PIC Pre-Release Checklist' at Annexure LL-6 (Pre-Release Checklist). The Pre-Release Checklist included, amongst other questions, the question:

Is there any other documentation or information available to direct that the PIC must not be released? If the answer is Yes, DO NOT RELEASE (DNR)

• [27] A completed version of the PIC Pre-Release Checklist (Completed Checklist) can be found at Annexure LL-8 of Laiseni's witness statement. That Completed Checklist is signed by the Applicant and Coad. It is dated 9 October 2024. It indicates 'No', in respect of the question

Is there any other documentation or information available to direct that the PIC must not be released? If the answer is Yes, DO NOT RELEASE (DNR)

• [28] Annexure LL-6 also contained the updated version of the Release Procedure. The Release Procedure set out, amongst other things:

• In every case before a PIC is released from the courthouse, a check will be made to ensure the PIC's hardcopy paperwork and ePEMS has not been marked 'Return to Prison Order'.
• Checks must be made by a Ventia officer completing the PIC Pre-Release Checklist... with a final check and sign-off completed by the CSM/DCSM.
• Where the court has released the PIC from custody and there is no other legal justification for detention, a PIC must be released without delay.

If an order authorising a PICs continued custody is received by the prison following the PICs transport to court, the superintendent is required to immediately provide to Ventia:

1. PIC already on a return order - an updated Offender Movement Information (OMI) and a copy of the order(s) received requiring the continued custody of the PIC; or
2. PIC not already on a return order - an updated Transfer and Discharge (T&D) placing the PIC on a return order, OMI and a copy of the order(s) received requiring the continued custody of the PIC.

Upon completion of a PIC's court proceedings and the receipt of the court outcome(s), Ventia officers shall compare the court outcome(s) against the prison confirmation provided by cross-checking charge number(s) against the Court List provided via email, to ascertain whether all matters have or have not been dealt with by the court. If not all charges on the list are contained within the court outcome documents, this should be raised and clarified with the court to determine if there has been an administrative oversight. Where not all matters have been dealt with by the court, confirmation should be sought from the prison on a RTPO.

In the event that all matters have not been dealt with by the court and the PIC is to be retained in custody, then the PIC is to be returned to prison.

When a sentenced PIC is to be released, the CSM will ensure:

1. The facility from which the PIC was produced is contacted via email to advise of the court outcome and to request written confirmation that there is no outstanding matter that prevents a PICs release.
2. Once the discharging authority (facility) have responded with confirmation, record the time, date, and name of person from the discharging authority who responded to ensure a comprehensive set of notes are available to reflect what has occurred. These notes will be captured on the PICs profile in ePEMS.
3. The necessary release authority has been received for the PIC and is made available to the CSM or deputy CSM providing authority for the release procedure to take place. ePEMS will be updated to reflect the outcome of the court appearance.
4. All property is checked in front of the PIC, sealed, and signed by the PIC before being handed over. This will be recorded in the Record of Events in ePEMS.

In the event that all matters have been dealt with by the court and the PIC is to be released and no formal updates have been received since the PIC's transport to court, which places the PIC on a return order, then the PIC is to be processed for release.

Upon completion of a PIC's court proceedings and the receipt of the court outcome(s), checks must be made by Ventia who shall compare the court outcome(s) against the prison confirmation provided, by cross-checking charge number(s) in order to ascertain whether all matters have or have not been dealt with by the court.

When a PIC has received a non-custodial sentence, the PIC will be detained until a copy of the order or, conditional discharge has been received, or the conditions applicable to the payment of any fine imposed are verified as having been complied with. Where personal bail applies, CCOs will liaise with the associate, Judicial Officer or judicial support officer to have appropriate paperwork completed.

A PIC will not be released if a suspended sentence is passed, a conditional discharge order is made, or a fine is imposed until the PIC has been given a copy of the order made and signed all required paperwork. A record of the outcome and time the PIC was handed the order, and by which CCO, will be recorded in the PIC Record of Events in ePEMS.

Ventia officers must complete the PIC Pre- Release Checklist (PMSDSI-1446598682-16764) along with checking TOMS and all relevant documentation to ensure there are no matters that prevent release...

• [29] Regarding the Arrest Warrant relevant to these proceedings, a redacted version of that document is located at Attachment 1 to these reasons for decision. However, for the purpose of this decision, the following extract from the Arrest Warrant is relevant and relied upon by the Respondent:

This warrant authorises and commands you to arrest this prisoner and to take the prisoner to the nearest prison in Western Australia.

And to all persons authorised to exercise a power set out in clause 2 of Schedule 2 to the Court Security and Custodial Services Act 1999.

This warrant authorises and commands you to take the prisoner to the nearest prison in Western Australia...

Official Title: Director Adult Community Corrections

• [30] Part of the Applicant's evidence has been traversed in the introductory paragraphs of this decision. Whilst I do not intend to repeat that which has already been recorded, set out below is additional context relevant to the Applicant's case.

• [31] Prior to working for the Respondent, the Applicant was a prison officer for a period of six years. On commencement with the Respondent in or about January 2023, the Applicant occupied the role of CCO at the Armadale Magistrates Court in Western Australia. In June 2023, the Applicant was appointed to a Deputy Court Security Manager (DCSM) position at the Court, and in late 2023, the Acting CSM at the Court resigned, and the Respondent offered the Applicant the CSM role, which he accepted - commencing in the role in January 2024.

• [32] The Applicant explained that he received training from the Respondent in the form of a six-week training course.[32] The Applicant said that the course 'included a brief overview of warrants, but did not go into much detail',[33] and clarified that the training did not include anything about warrants for the arrest of a person for breach of parole.[34]

• [33] In addition to this initial training, the Applicant completed a Certificate III in Correctional Practice, a qualification, which according to the Applicant, was required by the Respondent to advance to more senior roles within the company.[35] Again, the Applicant noted that the course did not cover anything about warrants.[36]

• [34] In respect of training for the CSM role, the Applicant said that learning about the role occurred via on-the-job experience and mentoring by the CSM whilst working as a DCSM.[37] The Applicant noted that he was in the role as DCSM for about six months and during that time there was an Acting CSM at the Court, who, said the Applicant, did not mentor him.[38]

• [35] The Applicant stated that every morning the Respondent's Control Centre sent the CSMs information about the persons who were arrested overnight and were due to appear in Court that day - the information having been extracted from an arrest list that was provided to the Central Control Centre from the Watch House. The list sent to the CSMs was said to include the number of persons that would be transported to the Court from the Watch House and the reason why those same persons were arrested.

• [36] As noted , the relevant PIC was transported to the Court from the Watch House.[39] Once the information in the PIC's file was entered into the ePEMS system by the Control Officer,[40] the files of the persons in custody were handed to the Applicant.[41] The Applicant said he saw that the PIC had been arrested on an Arrest Warrant that directed the police to take the PIC to prison. The Applicant expressed that this was the first occasion he had seen this type of Arrest Warrant since working for the Respondent,[42] and at a latter point in his witness statement, the Applicant added that it was 'the first time since I started working for Ventia that I had seen an arrest warrant of this type which directed that a person be arrested and taken to prison'.[43]

• [37] Whilst he was not in the Court when the PIC came up before the Magistrate, to the best of the Applicant's information and belief, the matter of the Arrest Warrant was not raised with the Magistrate when the relevant PIC appeared before the Magistrate.[44]

• [38] In giving his evidence in cross examination, the Applicant said that he understood that the PIC was not before the Magistrate for the PIC's breach of parole but for other charges that the PIC was facing.[45] The following dialogue unfolded during cross examination:

And do you recognise this document? This is the arrest warrant in relation to the Person In Custody?‑‑‑Yes.

And that's the document that you referred to in your witness statement at various integers, but paragraph 20, for instance, of your witness statement refers to having cited this arrest warrant?‑‑‑Yes.

And this was part of the information that had been supplied when Person In Custody was received into custody at Midland Court from Perth Watch House?‑‑‑Yes.

Yes. And halfway down that page, next to the heading, 'Reason For Issue of Warrant', we can see there that the box at the top marked 'Parole Order Suspended' is checked?‑‑‑Mm-hm.

And that would be the reason that this issue of this warrant has been actually issued against Person In Custody; would you agree with that?‑‑‑Yes. Yes.

Yes. And underneath that, there's some details of early release orders, and we can see that the date of order was the 7th of the 11th 2023?‑‑‑Yes.

And the date of release of Person In Custody was the 30th of the 11th 2023. And presumably those relate to the parole release for the charges on which he was paroled for in 2023?‑‑‑Mm-hm.

And in relation to the matters that had been brought before the magistrate on 9 October, those were for incidents that took place the day before, on 8 October, which is why he had come from Perth Watch House into the Midland Magistrates Court. Would you agree with that?‑‑‑I do agree with it, but technically he shouldn't have come to Midland - to the courthouse. If you have a look at the top, under 'Command', it says WA police officers - they should have taken him to Hakea, not to the courthouse. Then he should have appeared by video link.

Yes. But that didn't happen on this day, did it?‑‑‑No. It didn't happen. No.

No. And then in relation to Person In Custody and his appearance before the magistrate, he is granted bail in relation to the aggravated assault charge?‑‑‑Yes.

But the court doesn't deal with the suspended parole issue, does it?‑‑‑No.

And your evidence at paragraph 17 of your first witness statement is that the matter of the arrest warrant was not raised with the magistrate, and that was the police prosecutor, the court support officers - no one had raised that there was an outstanding warrant for Person In Custody?‑‑‑No.

Yes. So the court had not dealt with all of the PIC's circumstances on that particular day, had they?‑‑‑No.

No. And that can be quite common in Ventia's operations; that a court might not deal with all of the circumstances for a relevant person in custody?‑‑‑Not really. They appear for whatever charges that they're appearing on.

Yes?‑‑‑This other - this parole violation - he wasn't due to - he wasn't appearing for that charge.

Yes?‑‑‑He was appearing for the other charges which he was paroled on.

Yes. That's right?‑‑‑So - and the reason - when he was paroled, that gave me no authority to hold him, because he wasn't remanded in custody.[46]

• [39] Regarding the list that the Applicant reviewed on the morning of 9 October 2024, the Applicant said it did not have anything flagged regarding the relevant PIC and it did not mention that the PIC had to be transported to prison.[47]

• [40] The Applicant said that he did not believe that he needed to check the matter of the Arrest Warrant with the Assistant Director, who was his supervisor, but even if he did decide to check on the warrant, it would have been extremely unlikely that he would have reached her, as she does not answer her phone.[48]

• [41] Once the bail paperwork regarding the PIC had been completed, a copy of that paperwork was, according to the Applicant, given to the Respondent's Officers for the Respondent's records.[49] The Applicant said that because the PIC was bailed by the Magistrate, he started the process for his release from custody based on his understanding that he had no authority to keep the PIC in custody because the Magistrate had granted him bail.[50] The Applicant said he asked Coad to assist him with the Release from Custody process for the PIC.[51]

• [42] The Applicant explained that the Release from Custody process requires two of the Respondent's Officers to check the ePEMS and the PIC's file to see if there is a Return to Prison Order or some order that requires the PIC to be kept in custody, and if there is nothing to prevent the PIC's release, the Pre-Release Checklist is completed and then signed by two of the Respondent's Officers, and the PIC is then released.[52]

• [43] In respect of the PIC in question, the Applicant stated that all required steps were taken, including checking ePEMS and the PIC's file, and that both he and Coad were satisfied there was no reason to keep the PIC in custody - both signed the Pre-Release Checklist and proceeded to release the PIC.[53]

• [44] Regarding the Applicant's understanding that he did not have authority to keep the PIC in custody, in his witness statement dated 23 May 2025, the Applicant stated he did see the Arrest Warrant but it was directed to the police and he assumed that the police would be waiting for the PIC when the PIC left Court, which, stated the Applicant, happened from time to time.[54] In cross examination the Applicant responded to questions asked about his understanding of the Arrest Warrant:

To all police officers, this warrant authorises and commands you to arrest this prisoner and take the prisoner to the nearest prison in Western Australia.

To all persons authorised, to exercise a power set out in clause 2 of schedule 2 of the Court Security and Custodial Services Act 1999, this warrant authorises and commands you to take the prisoner to the nearest prison in Western Australia.

Yes. And you're part of the court security and custody function; is that correct?‑‑‑Mm-hm.

And part of your role is to process the release or return to custody of a person in custody?‑‑‑That's right. Yes.

Yes. And would you agree that that's a power you possess as a court security manager?‑‑‑Yes.

And you would agree that this arrest warrant is not just addressed to the police, but it's also addressed to you in your capacity as a court security and custody manager?‑‑‑Yes.

Yes. But you assumed that the police would arrest the PIC upon you processing this particular release?‑‑‑Well, yes. Because he was bailed, and he was - his bail was signed. If he was meant to be remanded in custody, and stayed in custody, his bail paperwork would never have been signed. If his bail paper would have went with him to Hakea, and then he would have had to work on his bail from there.

But he was bailed in relation to the aggravated assault charge?‑‑‑That's right.

And we have dealt with the fact that the court hasn't dealt with the outstanding parole violation?‑‑‑That's right.

Yes. And the assumption that the police would pick him up out the front - - -?‑‑‑Which happens quite regularly.

But that's based on your understanding that the arrest warrant is an active warrant and the police would follow through with it?‑‑‑Well, I thought the warrant had been executed, because the police officers should have done the job to start with.

Yes?‑‑‑Not just - it doesn't fall back - it shouldn't have fallen back on to me, because he was appearing on other charges, not breach of parole.

Yes. But the arrest warrant does command you as a court security and custodial services operator to also facilitate this arrest warrant as well. That's what is in the 'Command' section?‑‑‑Well, yes. But, see, this is lack of training from Ventia's side, because I never ever seen this warrant before. I have never seen a copy of this type of warrant ever.

Yes. And on that point, in relation to the fact that you have never seen the warrant before, you have made an assumption on this document that the police will take steps to facilitate the warrant; that they will pick him up out the front after you process the release. That's what's in paragraph 20 of your statement?‑‑‑Yes. That's - yes. That's what usually happens.[55]

• [45] On 21 October 2024, the Applicant received a letter from the Respondent, informing him that the Respondent had received serious concerns about his conduct in the workplace in relation to his failing in his duties as a CSM and that the Respondent was undertaking an investigation into the matters.[56] The Applicant was further informed that he was suspended on base pay.[57]

• [46] The Applicant said he met with Green on 11 November 2024. Referring to that meeting, the Applicant stated he did not recall acknowledging that he should have questioned the significance of the Arrest Warrant Parole Order Suspension and believes it unlikely that he did.[58] However, the Applicant did recall the following:

• a) he explained that prior to releasing the PIC he had checked the PIC's paperwork, he had also checked ePEMS, and had confirmed that there was no Return to Prison Order in either ePEMS or the PIC's paperwork;[59]
• b) no Return to Prison Order had been made in relation to the PIC on either 9 October 2024 or at any time to that day which was in force on 9 October 2024;[60]
• c) he explained that Coad had gone through the Pre-Release Checklist and Coad did not see any reference to a Return to Prison Order or any Warrant directing that the PIC be kept in custody either on ePEMS or in the PIC's paperwork. Coad had also confirmed that the PIC be released from custody and then signed the Pre-Release Checklist;[61] and
• d) concerning the Arrest Warrant, he informed Green that he considered it to be a normal arrest warrant, and if the warrant for the PIC's arrest had been overridden by the Magistrate's Order that the PIC be released on bail, then there were other persons who were also responsible for the PIC being released including: (i) the Police Officer who arrested the PIC who took him to the Watch House rather than a prison as directed by the Arrest Warrant; and (ii) the Police Prosecutor and the Judicial Support Officer who had the information about the Arrest Warrant that had been issued in relation to the PIC - directing that the PIC be taken to a prison, and who did not appear to bring that Arrest Warrant to the attention of the presiding Magistrate.[62]

• [47] The Applicant noted that at the conclusion of the meeting the Respondent asked that he provide a letter about the circumstances surrounding the release of the PIC, which the Applicant did.[63] The Applicant further noted that whilst he said at the meeting he had made a mistake, and also pointed that out in the letter he provided to the Respondent, after having thought further about the matter, he considered he had not made a mistake.[64]

• [48] The Applicant said that because the PIC had been granted bail by the Magistrate (in addition to the Arrest Warrant being directed to the police), he considered that the Arrest Warrant had been executed.

• [49] Regarding the actions of Coad, the Applicant stated that Coad had informed him that she had not been spoken to about the PIC matter. The Applicant added that the Respondent's management had not interviewed any other CCOs who had dealings with the PIC on 9 October 2024 during their investigation and that Coad had not be disciplined in respect of the matter.

• [50] Carrol commenced working for the Respondent in March 2022 as a DCSM of the Secure Unit at Fiona Stanley Hospital.[65] Carrol noted that although he had experience in CS&CS work (having previously worked for G4S and Serco - ten years under CS&CS Contract[66]) he did the initial six-week training course for new employees with the Respondent. Carrol said that the course included a brief overview of the different types of warrants that employees were likely to come across in their work, including arrest warrants, committal warrants, and remand warrants.[67]

• [51] In respect of the transition to a CSM, Carrol stated that the Respondent did not provide additional training for officers appointed to that role and that the only training that CSMs received, was the knowledge and experience gained through working as a CCO and particularly, working as a DCSM.[68] It was Carrol's view that it was particularly helpful to a DCSM to work with an experienced CSM who was prepared to put in the time and effort to mentor the DCSM, and to explain to them the various aspects of the CSM role.

• [52] Carrol gave evidence as to his understanding of when an officer of the Respondent can keep a person in custody who has been before the Magistrate.[69] He explained that the only circumstances were where the Magistrate has made a Remand Order, or a Return to Prison Order. Carrol clarified that if a Magistrate grants a person, personal bail, and that person has signed the necessary bail paperwork, then there are no grounds for a CCO to keep that person in custody, unless there was an outstanding warrant that is noted in the ePEMS system, or if there is a direction that the PIC must be returned to prison.[70]

• [53] Carrol provided an assessment of the Applicant's work performance whilst in the role, having been instructed by the Respondent to spend two weeks with the Applicant to assist him as a CSM.[71] Carrol considered that the Applicant was both inexperienced and needed additional training to be able to properly carry out the CSM duties[72] - he informed the Respondent's Metropolitan Coordinator of his assessment, but noted that to the best of his knowledge his recommendation was not acted upon.[73]

• [54] In giving his evidence at hearing, Carrol acknowledged that in his second witness statement dated 18 June 2025, he had outlined other occasions where unauthorised releases had occurred and yet, the CSM remained employed.[74] Carrol clarified, when asked, that those cases concerned bail paperwork release cases - where someone is granted bail, they are at liberty to go, but they have not filled in their paperwork to process that.[75]

• [55] As to Carrol's views in respect of the 9 October 2024 incident, an abridged version of his evidence is stated as follows:

• (a) when the arresting officers arrived at the Watch House, it should have been noted in the system that the PIC had to be taken to prison;[76]
• (b) when the PIC was sent by the Watch House to the Court, the paperwork that accompanied the PIC should have included a very visible document stating that the PIC had to be taken to prison;[77]
• (c) the list of all persons arrested overnight that is sent by the Watch House to the Respondent's Control Centre should have included information that the PIC was arrested on a warrant that directed the arresting officer to take the PIC to a prison upon being arrested;[78] and
• (d) when the officers at the Respondent's Control Centre reviewed the Watch House arrest list for 9 October 2024, they should have noticed that the PIC had been arrested because his parole was suspended and that should have alerted the Control Officers that the PIC had to be returned to prison, and they should have flagged this on ePEMS.[79]

• [56] In cross examination Carrol was asked the following question:

You outline that if a magistrate grants a person bail and the person has signed the necessary bail paperwork, there are no grounds for Ventia officers to keep that person in custody unless there is an outstanding warrant that is noted in the ePEMS system, or if there is a direction that the person in custody must be returned to prison?‑‑‑[80]

• [57] Carrol responded to the question by stating 'Yes. That's correct.'[81]

• [58] The follow up question that was asked was whether a hard copy arrest warrant would be a type of direction that might suggest that someone should not be released, to which Carrol responded, 'Yes. It could be. Yes'.[82]

• [59] Coad has worked for the Respondent since February 2024.

• [60] In respect of the 9 October 2024 incident, Coad stated that she was given the files of persons brought into the Court's custody area and she entered the information that was in those files into the ePEMs system, including in relation to the PIC in question.[83] Coad stated that she then provided the files to the Applicant.[84]

• [61] Coad said that later on (presumedly on that same day), the Applicant asked her to assist with the release process regarding the PIC.[85] Coad said she made sure the paperwork was in order, checked the ePEMS and saw there was nothing in the system about the PIC having to go to prison, and while she saw the Arrest Warrant, she did not read it as she was unaware that there were different types of arrest warrants.[86]

• [62] Coad noted that the Applicant completed his checks (presumedly of the paperwork) and signed the Pre-Release Checklist, which Coad said she signed as well.[87] Coad said that shortly after that the PIC was released from custody.[88]

• [63] Coad acknowledged that she was not interviewed as part of the investigation into the incident - noting that she was at work during October and November 2024, but was on light duties,[89] and had not had any disciplinary action taken against her.[90]

• [64] Laiseni gave evidence that she had more than 19 years of experience working under the CS&CS Contract in various operational and leadership roles.[91] Those roles had included DCSM at the Armadale Courthouse in 2015, CSM at the Armadale Courthouse from 2017 to 2020, CSM at the Rockingham Courthouse in 2020, Operational Support Manager in 2021 and later in that year Court Group Manager, and in 2024 - Assistant Director / Central - CS&CS.[92]

• [65] As the Assistant Director / Central - CS&CS, Laiseni is responsible for liaison with stakeholders, overseeing the performance of CCOs across six locations, including the Court, and managing operational issues beyond the scope of the CSM, including matters involving incidents and employee misconduct.[93]

• [66] Laiseni stated that the Applicant received training in the form of the Initial Training Course and a Certificate III in Corrective Practice.[94]

• [67] Regarding the Initial Training Course, Laiseni said that it was a six week course that equipped CCOs with basic skills and knowledge required to perform their roles in the court system, and whilst not focused on the interpretation of arrest warrants, it covered essential skills that the CCOs require, to understand legal documents and courtroom processes.[95] Laiseni added that during the training, CCOs are repeatedly advised that if any issue arises, or if they are unsure about a particular process, they should contact the Control Centre to escalate their query to the appropriate person.[96]

• [68] According to Laiseni, the Certificate III was a qualification which equipped CCOs with the knowledge and skills to read, interpret and act upon legal documents.[97]

• [69] In cross examination, Laiseni stated that the training provided to CCOs may have changed because it had been three to four years since she had undertaken the training as a CSM, although (presumedly as a CSM) she had continued to train her officers on site.[98] In respect of what the training included and whether it would allow a CCO to recognise a warrant regarding breach of parole, Laiseni responded, in part, as follows:

But would that training include - allow a CCO to recognise a warrant regarding breach of parole?‑‑‑Okay. So, sorry, I should have went into a bit more detail. So we will provide training in regards to taking in a custody - a person into custody from Ventia's side. So this would include completing a handover summary from the police, or whether we take them from the back of court and we process the paperwork that way. In regards to warrants, yes, we show them warrants, but those warrants change all the time. And again, they're not our paperwork, so we can't always provide them with every type of warrant that they have or any updated warrants. But they are shown warrants.[99]

.... Because as I said, the documents always change. When it comes to Ventia, our documents don't change, but we will get different documents from different departments, but that's where we encourage the CCOs that - when you do not see - like, you don't recognise this paperwork, you ask your CSM. And if your CSM doesn't know, then they go down there avenues to find out what it is.[100]

• [70] As to the process for the transportation of persons in custody from the Watch House to the court, Laiseni said that upon transfer, a file is provided by police to the Respondent in relation to each PIC. The PIC file typically includes the following documents:

(a) a Form F5 holding document;

(b) a custody handover sheet summarising the PIC's personal information;

(c) a property sheet outlining the PICs belongings;

(d) arrest warrants; and

• (e) request to take charge (when receiving from Western Australian Police).[101]

• [71] Laiseni's evidence was that occasionally the police may include a coloured document or coloured strip on particular documents which indicated that the PIC is to be taken to prison following their court appearance.[102] Laiseni stated that this was not a standardised process and was inconsistently applied across police departments - therefore, making it not a reliable method for determining whether a PIC should be taken to prison.[103] Laiseni further stated that it was for this reason that it was incumbent on personnel, such as CSMs, to carefully review the PIC file to assess the PIC (presumedly status of the PIC).[104]

• [72] It was Laiseni's evidence that the Release Procedure applies to all the Respondent's staff performing duties under the CS&CS contract in CS&CS operational areas.[105] The procedures are said to have been designed to mitigate key operational risks, including the unauthorised release of PICs.[106]

• [73] Laiseni said that she had reviewed the investigation report (prepared by Green - see paragraphs [82] to [92] below) and the Respondent's records regarding the incident on 9 October 2024. Briefly stated, Laiseni observed, amongst other matters, that:

(a) prior to the PIC's release, the Applicant and Coad were responsible for:

1. cross checking the paperwork from the PIC's file;
2. completing the Pre-Release Checklist;
3. ascertaining whether all matters had been or had not been dealt with by the court; and
4. where not all matter had been dealt with by the Court, confirming whether any return to prison orders, such as the Arrest Warrant, were active;

(b) as the CSM, the Applicant was ultimately responsible for ensuring the Release Procedures were followed and that the Pre-Release Checklist was correctly completed; and

• (c) when completing the Pre-Release Checklist, the Applicant and Coad failed to properly cross-check whether all maters in relation to the PIC had been dealt with by the court and did not properly consider the significance of the Arrest Warrant - consequently 'No' was checked in response to items 1 and 6 in the Pre-Release Checklist and as a result the PIC was unlawfully released from custody.[107]

• [74] According to Laiseni, where the Applicant was uncertain about the significance of the Arrest Warrant, there were several escalation pathways available to him, including contacting the Respondent's Control Centre, engaging with the Registrar at the Court to confirm whether the Arrest Warrant was active and whether the PIC was required to be held in custody, and posting a query on CSM Teams chat.[108]

• [75] Laiseni said that the Applicant did not utilise any of these escalation options and instead proceeded on the assumption that police would be present to arrest the PIC upon his release from Court.[109] Laiseni added that while it was occasionally the case that police officers were present to arrest individuals outside the court in connection with unrelated matters not dealt with during court proceedings, this only occurred where the police have notified the Respondent in advance.[110]

• [76] As a result of the investigation findings, Laiseni emailed a letter to the Applicant inviting him to attend a disciplinary meeting on 22 January 2025.[111] The Applicant attended the meeting with his support person, an Organiser from the Transport Workers' Union (TWU). Laiseni said that the Applicant acknowledged he had made a mistake and admitted that he did not read the Arrest Warrant - also stating that he was unfamiliar with the type of arrest warrant which requires a PIC to be returned to prison.[112]

• [77] Laiseni explained that having considered the Applicant's responses in the disciplinary meeting, she determined that termination of employment was the appropriate outcome as responsibility for the incident primarily rested with the Applicant for the following reasons:

(a) as CSM, the Applicant held ultimate accountability for ensuring that the Release Procedures were strictly followed and the Pre-Release Checklist was properly completed;

(b) despite having received updated Release Procedures and having facilitated a toolbox talk on unauthorised releases, the Applicant failed to perform the relevant checks when reviewing the PIC's documentation;

(c) the Applicant failed to utilise any of the established escalation pathways available to him;

(d) his assumption that police officers would arrest the PIC following the PIC's release was inappropriate, particularly given that no advance notice of such action had been received;

• (e) in proceeding to release the PIC without taking adequate steps to confirm his legal status, the Applicant exposed the Respondent to significant operational, reputational and contractual risk.[113]

• [78] On 7 February 2025, the Applicant was invited by the Respondent to a further meeting to show cause why his employment should not be terminated and was offered the opportunity to also provide his response in writing.[114] That written response was received by the Respondent on 13 February 2025.

• [79] Laiseni highlighted that the Applicant's written response outlined that various parties contributed to the events of the PIC's release including:

(a) the police officers at the Watch House who had failed to adequately communicate the significance of the Arrest Warrant and did not make it clear that the PIC was to be returned to prison;

(b) police prosecutors, court staff and the Magistrate, who did not alert the Respondent to any outstanding matters or concerns during the PIC's court proceedings; and

• (c) the Applicant's colleagues who did not highlight the Arrest Warrant in ePEMS.[115]

• [80] The show cause meeting was re-scheduled due to the unavailability of the TWU and a revised show cause letter was issued on 18 February 2025. Laiseni said that the Applicant largely reiterated the explanations he had provided at the disciplinary meeting and in his written response and while she had considered those explanations, she held the view that the explanations did not significantly mitigate the Applicant's breach of the Release Procedures or the breach of the Respondent's Code of Conduct.[116] Laiseni consequently recommended to the Respondent's Director of Court Security and Custodial Services, Mr Craig Moody (Moody), the dismissal of the Applicant, which was escalated to the Contract Director for final endorsement.

• [81] The Applicant's employment was terminated on 26 February 2025.[117]

• [82] Green gave evidence that the Respondent received a phone call from the Department of Justice Operations Centre advising that the relevant PIC had been released in error following his appearance at the Court on 9 October 2024.[118]

• [83] Green said that following the call, a notifiable incident report was prepared (not by Green)[119] and submitted to a group email address which included Moody.

• [84] Green said that Moody instructed him to conduct an investigation into the incident.[120]

• [85] As part of that investigation Green interviewed the Applicant on 11 November 2024.[121] According to Green, the Applicant informed him of the following:

(a) he was aware of the Release Procedure;

(b) while familiar with the return to prison paperwork and bring-up orders, he did not recognise the Arrest Warrant in the PIC's file as a document requiring return to custody; and

(c) he acknowledged he should have questioned the Arrest Warrant's significance and made further inquiries prior to authorising the PIC's release from custody.

• [86] In addition to the Applicant, Green interviewed the relevant DCSM and Coad.

• [87] Regarding the DCSM's involvement in the events that unfolded on 9 October 2024, Green noted that the Arrest Warrant had not been identified and recorded in the ePEMS during the PIC's intake, and the ePEMS entries appeared to have been entered under the credentials of the DCSM rather than Coad, who was responsible for the intake of the PIC.[122] On further investigation Green identified that the DCSM had shared her login credentials, including her password, with CCOs at the Court.[123] The DCSM confirmed that Coad had used her login to enter information into ePEMs in relation to the PIC's intake.[124]

• [88] Coad was not interviewed during the investigation, as, according to Green, Moody determined that it would not be appropriate to require her to participate due to her Coad's health and wellbeing.[125]

• [89] Green said he reviewed the documents provided to the Respondent's Control Centre by police officers at the Watch House.[126] He stated that where a PIC is scheduled to appear in court but is required to remain in custody, this information should be recorded on the Facility Custody Status Report, with the PIC's name presenting in dark grey.[127] Green explained that this indicated that the individual must be returned to prison regardless of the court outcome relating to the arresting offence.[128]

• [90] The investigation report prepared by Green is found at Annexure DG-4 to his witness statement. In the investigation report, Green observed that in respect of the Detailed Facility Custody Status Report, the PIC was not listed under the Hakea heading nor greyed out. Green further observed:

...in the section headed holding documents the Form F5 was listed under the heading Midland Court, If the Facility Custody Status Report had been correct under the Hakea heading holding status it should have listed Arrest Warrant parole order suspended - (document no.2 ). This would have clearly indicated that the PIC had more than on holding status.[129]

• [91] Further, the report referenced the interview with the Applicant and stated, among other things, the following:

• the Applicant is familiar with return to prison paperwork form bring up orders but not from arrest (police), the Applicant made submissions that he didn't question the arrest warrant and takes responsibility for that;
• the Applicant stated he had never seen an example of the arrest warrant previously;
• the Applicant and Coad did cross check the paperwork from the PIC's court appearance and the listings and then completed the Ventia Pre-Release Checklist;
• the Applicant confirmed his signature on the Ventia Pre-Release Checklist;

• • the Applicant advised that he hadn't submitted an incident report as he went on annual leave the day after the incident then stood down from duties immediately on return.[130]

• [92] Green's analysis of the incident included the following:

At 1306hrs (document 4) - Ventia Pre Release Check list is completed by the Applicant and Coad. This document is checked in every box that there is clearance and is counter signed and date [sic] by both parties. Listed below are the questions that relate to the Arrest Warrant, parole order suspended (document 2)

• Is any documentation related to the PIC marked as 'return to prison' if answer is yes DO NOT RELASE DNR.
• Is there any other documentation or information available to direct that the PIC must not be released if answer is yes DO NOT RELEASE DNR.

Both above have been checked as No, document 2: Arrest Warrant, parole order suspended states in bold text:

• This warrant authorises and command you to arrest this prisoner and to take the prisoner to the nearest prison in Western Australia
• And to all persons authorised to exercise a power set out in clause 2 of Schedule 2 to the Court Security and Custodial Services Act 1999
• This warrant authorises and commands you to take the prisoner to the nearest prison in Western Australia

The above extract is cause to check both the listed boxes on the Ventia Pre Release Checklist as Yes then indicating DO NOT RELEASE DNR ...

During the interview of the Applicant that took place at Ventia base of operations Canning Vale on 11.11.2024. the Applicant stated: He had never seen: Arrest Warrant parole order suspended - (document no.2) and did not recognise it as a return to prison document. Rodney further stated that he should have questioned its significance and takes full responsibility for not questioning the warrant and granting clearance to his team to release the PIC.[131]

• The Applicant and Coad failed to correctly cross check the holding documents provided on intake from Perth Watch House when completing the Ventia Pre Release Checklist (document 4)
• The incorrect completion of the Ventia Pre-Release Check list... breaching Ventia Standard Operating Procedure...

4.1.4 Check must be made by two Ventia officers completing the Ventia Pre-Release checklist .. by both officers prior to release.[132]

• [94] In cases relating to alleged misconduct, the Commission must make a finding on the evidence provided as to whether, on the balance of probabilities, the conduct occurred.[133]

• [95] First, I find, as acknowledged by the Applicant, that as a CSM, the Applicant had responsibilities under the Court Security and Custodial Services Act 1999 (WA).[134] Under that same legislation a contractor worker who provides court security or court custodial services is taken to be an officer of the court,[135] and, as such, must obey the directions of the person presiding in the courtroom and the chief judicial officer of the court concerned.[136]

• [96] There is incontrovertible evidence that the Applicant was aware of both the pre-August 2024 Release Procedure[137] and the subsequent amended Release Procedure.[138] That Release Procedure set out the principle that '[C]hecks must be made by a Ventia officer completing the PIC Pre-Release Checklist... with a final check and sign-off completed by the CSM/DCSM'.

• [97] The evidence further supports the finding that the Applicant was aware that prior to the release of a PIC, he was required to comply with the Release Procedure which involved the completion of the Pre-Release Checklist. The Applicant, in giving his evidence, had explained that the release from custody process required two of the Respondent's Officers to check the ePEMS and the PIC's file, to see if there was a Return to Prison Order or some order that required the PIC to be kept in custody. The Applicant had acknowledged that if there was nothing to prevent the PIC's release, the Pre-Release Checklist was completed and signed by two of the Respondent's Officers, and the PIC would be released.[139]

• [98] It is an indubitable fact that the Arrest Warrant formed part of the documentation that was provided to the Applicant. Further, that same Arrest Warrant set out the following command, a command which the Applicant had the opportunity to read prior to the release of the PIC:

This warrant authorises and commands you to arrest this prisoner and to take the prisoner to the nearest prison in Western Australia.

And to all persons authorised to exercise a power set out in clause 2 of Schedule 2 to the Court Security and Custodial Services Act 1999.

This warrant authorises and commands you to take the prisoner to the nearest prison in Western Australia

• [99] Whether the Applicant read the Arrest Warrant at the relevant time is a matter of some controversy. The Applicant gave evidence that he saw the Arrest Warrant regarding the PIC in question but noticed that it was directed to the police and assumed the police would be waiting for the PIC when the PIC left court. Laiseni gave evidence that in the disciplinary meeting on 22 January 2025, the Applicant admitted that he had not read the Arrest Warrant, stating that he was unfamiliar with the type of arrest warrant. In my view the evidence supports the finding that the Applicant read part of the Arrest Warrant, namely the direction to the police, and thereafter failed to apply the level of scrutiny required of his position to interrogate the document more closely - particularly in circumstances where, as he states, he was unfamiliar with the type of arrest warrant and he understood from what had been communicated to him that the Magistrate had said that the PIC was free to go.

• [100] In respect of the PIC in question, the Applicant stated that all required steps were taken, including checking ePEMS and the PIC's file, and that both he and Coad were satisfied there was no reason to keep the PIC in custody - both signed the Pre-Release Checklist and proceeded to release the PIC.[140]

• [101] For the following reasons I find that the Applicant fell into error by completing the Pre-Release Checklist at checks 1 and 6 by marking them with 'no' and was non-compliant with the Pre-Release Procedure.

• [102] As was identified in Green's investigation, the Applicant and Coad checked every box, and the document was counter signed and dated by both. However, the following two questions were answered 'no' when it was evident that the Arrest Warrant commanded that the PIC was to be taken to the nearest prison:

• Is any documentation related to the PIC marked as 'return to prison' if answer is yes DO NOT RELASE DNR.
• Is there any other documentation or information available to direct that the PIC must not be released if answer is yes DO NOT RELEASE DNR.

• [103] To explain the findings further, in cross examination, the Applicant said he understood that the PIC was not before the Magistrate for the PIC's breach of parole but for other charges that the PIC was facing.[141] The Applicant acknowledged:

a) that the Arrest Warrant was marked 'Parole Order Suspended' and it had been issued against the PIC;

b) the matters brought before the Magistrate on 9 October, were for incidents that took place the day before, on 8 October, which was why the PIC had come from the Watch House into the Court;

c) the PIC had appeared before the Magistrate on a charge unrelated to the Arrest Warrant and was granted bail in relation to those unrelated charges; and

d) the Court had not dealt with the suspended parole issue.

• [104] The Applicant gave evidence that technically the PIC should not have come to Court and should have been taken to Hakea (a prison) and appeared by videolink. That is, the PIC, because of the Arrest Warrant, should have been remanded in custody. However, it is open to find that such evidence reinforces that the PIC, because of the Arrest Warrant, was required to be remanded in custody notwithstanding having been granted personal bail for unrelated charges.

• [105] Whilst appreciative that the evidence supports a finding that the Arrest Warrant was not 'flagged' in the PIC's hardcopy documents, and it had not been raised with the Magistrate by the Police Prosecutor or the Court Support or Judicial Officers, it was nevertheless the case that there was hard copy documentation in the PIC's file, namely the Arrest Warrant, that would require the Applicant to check boxes 1 and 6 on the Pre-Release Checklist with 'no'.

• [106] What was perplexing about the Applicant's evidence was his concession that he was unfamiliar with the type of Arrest Warrant and had, in addition, formed an assumption about how the Arrest Warrant be dealt with. In giving his evidence, the Applicant stated that the Arrest Warrant was of a type that he had not seen, and he did not recognise it as a 'return to prison document'. As observed, the Applicant further admitted that he had seen the Arrest Warrant but because it was directed to the police, he assumed, as noted, that the police would be waiting for the PIC when the PIC left the Magistrates Court.[142]

• [107] In cross examination the Applicant agreed with the proposition that if the PIC was granted bail, which was the case, and there was the Arrest Warrant which the Applicant had assumed might result in the police picking the PIC up out of the front of the Magistrates Court, then there were two possible pathways: (a) the Arrest Warrant is discharged and the PIC was free to go; or (b) the police were going to deal with the Arrest Warrant. However, the Applicant further agreed there was a third possible outcome, which was that the Arrest Warrant required the ongoing detention of the PIC. When the Applicant was asked whether it would be reasonable to make enquiries as to the status of the Arrest Warrant before processing the PIC's release given it was the first time the Applicant had seen this type of Arrest Warrant, the Applicant stated, 'No'.[143]

• [108] The Applicant acknowledged that notwithstanding the fact that the parole issue had not been dealt with, and he had made assumptions that: (a) the police were going to deal with the parole issue; and (b) he did not have the authority to continue to hold the PIC in custody, he still processed the release of the PIC in those circumstances.[144] When it was proposed to the Applicant that the assumptions he had made were a serious set of assumptions in light of the Arrest Warrant before him, the Applicant responded, that if he had received the actual training to be a CSM, he would have been taught what to look for.[145]

• [109] Leaving aside that the Arrest Warrant is clear in its terms and the Applicant's reliance on deficiencies in his training, to release the PIC to freedom in circumstances where the Applicant had not seen an arrest warrant of the type in question, had formed an assumption about the significance of the Arrest Warrant such that he assumed the police would be waiting for the PIC when the PIC left the Court, had not checked with the police before processing the PIC's release, and had not raised enquiry with his Manager, the Court Registrar, or a Court Support Officer about the Arrest Warrant, was, in my view, to engage in behaviour contrary to that required by the Release Procedure.

• [110] The Release Procedure requires that when a sentenced PIC is to be released, the CSM will ensure the facility from which the PIC was produced is contacted via email to advise of the court outcome and to request written confirmation that there is no outstanding matter that prevents a PICs release. It is only when all matters have been dealt with by the court and no formal updates have been received since the PIC's transport to court, which places the PIC on a return order, that the PIC is to be processed for release. As was identified in the evidence of Carroll, a hard copy arrest warrant would be a type of direction that might suggest that someone should not be released,[146] and if there was a warrant, in his experience, he would follow up with the Registrar to ensure that the warrant was correct and that the PIC was going back to prison.[147]

• [111] For a dismissal to be unfair, the Commission must be satisfied that the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable (s 385(b) of the Act). The conduct which may fall within the phrase 'harsh, unjust or unreasonable' was explained in Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd; Frew v Australian Airlines Ltd by McHugh and Gummow JJ as follows:

.... It may be that the termination is harsh but not unjust or unreasonable, unjust but not harsh or unreasonable, or unreasonable but not harsh or unjust. In many cases the concepts will overlap. Thus, the one termination of employment may be unjust because the employee was not guilty of the misconduct on which the employer acted, may be unreasonable because it was decided upon inferences which could not reasonably have been drawn from the material before the employer, and may be harsh in its consequences for the personal and economic situation of the employee or because it is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct in respect of which the employer acted.[148]

• [112] Section 387 of the Act, which address the factors to be considered when determining whether a dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, contemplates that an overall assessment as to the nature of the dismissal will be undertaken and in so doing, the aforementioned factors must, where relevant, be weighed up in totality.

• [113] For the reasons that follow, the Applicant's case turns on whether there was a valid reason for his dismissal, and whether there were other matters of such relevancy that they render the Applicant's dismissal as harsh, unjust or unreasonable.

• [114] Regarding notification of a reason for dismissal (s 387(b) of the Act), it is accepted that before being dismissed for reasons related to conduct or performance, an employee must be made aware of the particular matter that places her or his job at risk.[149] It appears uncontroversial that the Applicant was notified of the valid reason for his dismissal as was evident in the show cause letters of 20 January 2025 and 18 February 2025.

• [115] The Applicant was provided with a 'Notification of invitation to meeting' letter of 20 January 2025 in which he was informed of the allegation concerning the incident on 9 October 2025 and that the same alleged conduct, if substantiated, constituted a breach of the Respondent's Code of Conduct and Release Procedures. The Applicant's meeting with Green on 1 November 2024 is also acknowledged. Furthermore, by letter of 18 February 2025, the Applicant was directed to show cause as to why his employment should not be terminated (in writing and at a meeting scheduled for 25 February 2025).[150]

• [116] In respect of an opportunity to respond as contemplated by s 387(c) of the Act, it is an opportunity to respond that has been proffered prior to the decision to dismiss an employee.[151] At a general level, the case law makes it plain that when it comes to providing an opportunity to respond, the process does not require any degree of formality and that the requirement is to be applied in a common sense and practical way in order to ensure that the employee is treated fairly.[152] Where the employee is aware of the precise nature of the employer's concern about his or her conduct or performance and has a full opportunity to respond to this concern, this is enough to satisfy the requirements of the section.[153]

• [117] The evidence supports a finding that the Applicant was provided with opportunities to respond to the reason for his dismissal, including his attendance at a disciplinary meeting on 22 January 2025, the provision of a written response dated 13 February 2025 (to the matters raised at the disciplinary meeting on 22 January 2025), and his attendance at a show cause meeting on 25 February 2025.

• [118] As observed in the background to this matter, the Applicant was accompanied to disciplinary meetings by his union representative. It follows that the Respondent did not refuse, unreasonably or otherwise, to allow the Applicant to have a support person present to assist in discussions relating to the dismissal.

• [119] If a dismissal relates to unsatisfactory performance, s 387(e) of the Act requires the Commission to consider whether the person has been warned about that unsatisfactory performance prior to dismissal. However, the Applicant's employment was not terminated for unsatisfactory performance, but for issues relating to his conduct.

• [120] The Commission is required to consider the degree to which the size of the employer's enterprise, and the degree to which the absence of dedicated human resources specialists or expertise in the enterprise, would be likely to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the dismissal (ss 387(f) and (g) of the Act). The Respondent is a large employer and has a dedicated human resources team. The procedures followed by the Respondent were appropriate having regard to the size of the Respondent's enterprise. I attribute little weight to these factors, given the specialist staff the Respondent has on hand. These particular factors do not affect my overall assessment.

• [121] When considering whether a dismissal is unfair, the Commission must consider the matters specified in s 387 of the Act, including whether there was a valid reason for dismissal and any other matters the Commission considers relevant.

• [122] The Commission does not stand in the shoes of the employer and determine what the Commission would have done if it had been in the employer's position.[154] The question the Commission must address is whether there was a valid reason for dismissal, in the sense there was a substantiated reason that was sound, defensible or well-founded.[155]

• [123] Neither party proposed that the Release Procedure constituted an unlawful or unreasonable instruction, and it appeared uncontroversial that the Applicant, by virtue of his employment contract, was obliged to comply with the Release Procedure. Furthermore, as was evident from Laiseni's evidence, the Applicant was familiar with the Release Procedure.

• [124] The Applicant was faced with a document that, at the very least, suggested that the PIC had an arrest warrant for suspended parole. The Applicant understood the PIC had been before a Magistrate on separate charges and granted bail. All matters had not been dealt with by the Magistrates Court, particularly that of the suspended parole order. By the Applicant's own evidence, two questions arose from that state of affairs: had bail been granted and liberty granted to the person in custody, or were the police going to attend to this Arrest Warrant and engage this person to be detained in custody further? Rather than check with the police, or confirm with court staff, or escalate with the Court Registrar and confirm the circumstances relating to the PIC, the Applicant decided, in circumstances where he himself acknowledged that he had not seen the particular type of document before, to release the PIC. The broader context being one where the Applicant alleged that he had not been trained in the very document type upon which he had made assumptions.

• [125] While the Applicant's assertion in respect of training is apt to be considered under 387(h) of the Act, given reference to it in the broader context of valid reason, it is timely to address the alleged deficiency now and that of the Arrest Warrant having not been flagged.

• [126] The Applicant readily identified his unfamiliarity with the type of arrest warrant in question, noting if it was not flagged in the usual way by the insertion of a tab by the police, he was not to know to take the steps as set out in the Release Procedure and make determinations. This was particularly so asserted the Applicant, when the Arrest Warrant was not flagged and he had not be trained in respect of that particular document.
• [127] It is uncontroversial that that the Arrest Warrant had not been flagged or tabbed in the file. However, even if flagged or tabbed in the PIC's file, it would have still proved necessary for the Applicant to fulsomely read the Arrest Warrant. Undoubtedly, the tab or flag may have drawn the Applicant's attention to the document such that the document needed to be considered, but it was not, in my view, a substitute for the function of actually reviewing the documents on the file, particularly one headed in bold print 'Arrest Warrant'. The lack of a tab or flag did not, in my view, excuse the Applicant's failure to interrogate the Arrest Warrant with the diligence required of his position.

• [128] Turning to the training on forms and documents. Laiseni gave evidence to the effect that training, insofar as she could recall, was not provided on particular police forms, because police forms or judicial forms may change over time. However, whilst the Applicant may not have received training in respect of the particular document in question, that is the Arrest Warrant, he had received training on the Release Procedure and the Pre-Release Checklist. The Arrest Warrant should have triggered a 'do not release' scenario in respect of two of the questions on the Pre-Release Checklist. Certainly, any shortcomings of training need to be weighed against the fact that the Applicant had seen the Arrest Warrant and was aware of the bail application that had taken place - the charge on the Arrest Warrant having not been dealt with by the Magistrate. Ultimately, however, the Applicant still elected to process the release of the PIC when there was a document with which he was unfamiliar. The Applicant did not escalate and query the document before making the decision to incorrectly release the PIC to freedom. In doing the Applicant failed to exercise the diligence required of his position as the final checking point prior to the release of a PIC.

• [129] In my opinion and for the reasons already given, the Applicant:

a) was familiar with, and had access to the Release Procedure and the Pre-Release Checklist;

b) did not comply with the Release Procedure to the extent that he completed the Pre-Release Checklist inaccurately when marking 'no' to checks 1 and 6; and

c) did not conduct himself in a manner which ensured an appropriate response when confronted with an Arrest Warrant of a type with which he was unfamiliar.

• [130] Accordingly, I find that the Applicant's conduct breached the Respondent's Release Procedure and as such constituted a valid reason for his dismissal.

5.2 Any other matters considered relevant (s 387(h))

• [131] There are certain further matters that I consider are relevant. First, I refer to those factors that were identified in Green's investigation into the unauthorised release of the PIC.

• [132] From all account there was an apparent failing of the police. Green gave evidence that he reviewed the documents provided to the Respondent's Control Centre by the police.[156] According to Green, whom I have no reason to disbelieve, where a PIC is scheduled to appear in court but is required to remain in custody, this information should be recorded on the Facility Custody Status Report, with the PIC's name presenting in dark grey.[157] In the Facility Custody Status Report, it was found that the PIC was not listed under the Hakea heading nor greyed out. Green noted that if the Facility Custody Status Report had been correct under the Hakea heading holding status, it should have listed the 'Arrest Warrant parole order suspended'. According to Green, this would have clearly indicated that the PIC had more than one holding status.[158]

• [133] As was identified by the Respondent, the police form part of the overall administration of the court custody function and, in my view, Green's investigation report disclosed failings of the police regarding the unauthorised release of the PIC by the Respondent. Further, it was unclear as to why the Police Prosecutor and Judicial and Court Support Officers did not draw the Magistrates attention to the Arrest Warrant. However, independent of that, the Respondent, and particularly its CSM had an important role. Ultimately, one of the safeguards of the system, or one of the guardrails in the process, is that there might be shortcomings from other actors in the justice system, but that did not abrogate or excuse the role of the Respondent, and particularly its CSM, to operate as a final check and balance in relation to the potential release of a PIC. Certainly, the Release Procedure contemplates that there may be administrative oversights in relation to the court process itself, and that triggers that someone, namely the CSM, is to confirm and otherwise enquire as to that before processing the release of a PIC.

• [134] It is further apparent that the Arrest Warrant had not been identified and recorded in the ePEMS during the PIC's intake, and the ePEMS entries entered under the credentials of the DCSM, were entered by Coad, who also signed the Pre-Release Checklist in error.

• [135] Whilst appreciative that the Arrest Warrant had not been recorded in ePEMS, at all relevant times the hardcopy Arrest Warrant remained in the PIC's file and had been sighted by the Applicant. It was not the case that the Applicant was oblivious to the information that the Arrest Warrant provided, and the Applicant was aware that the charge on the Arrest Warrant differed to that for which the PIC was before the Magistrate.

• [136] The Applicant was not the only employee of the Respondent who had conducted themselves contrary to the Release Procedure. Coad was a co-signatory to the Pre-Release Checklist and was treated inconsistently to the Applicant - seemingly having not participated in an interview or disciplinary process in respect of the conduct she engaged in or faced a disciplinary consequence. Evidence was given to the effect that the Respondent decided not to investigate Coad's involvement due to her ongoing well-being.

• [137] While not necessarily persuaded by the evidence that Coad's circumstances warranted the approach adopted by the Respondent, Coad's situation can be differentiated from that of the Applicant for the following reasons. Coad was relatively inexperienced in comparison to the Applicant and was subordinate to the Applicant within the organisational hierarchy. It is understandable that a higher expectation was placed upon the role of CSM, and therefore the Applicant, as the most senior officer at the facility on behalf of the Respondent. The Applicant's role was to ensure that the necessary checks, balances, steps and enquiries were undertaken prior to processing the release. Therefore, the difference in treatment between Coad and the Applicant, and for that matter the DCSM (who one may recall appears to have shared a password), can be rationally explained.

• [138] I accept the Respondent's submission that the exercise before the Commission in this case is a weighing exercise. That is the circumstances of the Applicant must be weighed against the allegations that there was a lack of training, that the Applicant was relatively inexperienced in the role of CSM and that there were shortcomings of other actors in the police and court system. The Respondent did not resile from the fact that there were particular shortcomings of actors other than the Applicant in this case, as evinced in Green's investigation report.

• [139] Green identified in the investigation report a recommendation that examples of all holding documents be compiled and distributed to all courts as a reference tool to train and cross-check paperwork with which the Respondent's staff may be unfamiliar.[159] The Applicant's unfamiliarity with the type of Arrest Warrant, in my view, speaks to why Green included the recommendation within his report. However, what weighs against the finding that training is a complete answer to this particular case is that the role of the CSM is one which requires them to check the source material, whether it be ePEMS or hard copy data. Clearly, if a CSM, such as the Applicant, is in doubt about a document that is an Arrest Warrant, there were numerous points of escalation and clarification that could have been exercised before proceeding to make a decision to release the PIC. I am unpersuaded by the evidence presented by the Applicant that escalation pathways were limited and that even if escalated to someone such as Laiseni, no response would have been forthcoming. Laiseni was not the only avenue for making relevant enquiries about the content of the Arrest Warrant.

• [140] In my opinion, the Applicant's dismissal was not unjust or unreasonable because there was a valid reason for the Applicant's dismissal and there was no tenable basis upon which his employment could have continued in light of that valid reason. The Applicant held a critical part in a process regarding whether to release the PIC to freedom. The Applicant's decision-making process in this case was premised upon an assumption in relation to the release of a PIC. The PIC was someone who had been charged that day and was before a Magistrate on aggravated assault charges, and who had a parole suspension order that had been issued on that same day. In those circumstances, the gravity of the decision-making process that was being undertaken by the Applicant was particularly high. It was high for the public. It was high for the Respondent in respect of its exposure to financial consequence in relation to its commercial contract with the Department of Justice. Ultimately, the Applicant engaged in misconduct when he assumed a state of affairs and failed to exercise due diligence. Circumstances and events should have been considered, verified and escalated when the Pre-Release Checklist was being completed.

• [141] The Applicant's employment was terminated with five weeks' payment in lieu of notice.[160] I have already referred to the seriousness of the Applicant's misconduct and find that his dismissal was a proportionate sanction in all the circumstances.

• [142] The Applicant relied, in part, on the Respondent's inconsistent approach to disciplinary outcomes afforded to others who had similarly occasioned an unauthorised release of a PIC. However, Carrol's evidence spoke to cases where a person had been granted bail and were at liberty to go, but the paperwork had not been completed by the person and processed. I am not satisfied that the unauthorised releases in the set of circumstances described by Carrol are analogous. Carrol refers to people who were otherwise free to go, however, the PIC was not. It is therefore not open to find that the Respondent afforded inconsistent treatment in like for like circumstances.

• [143] I am satisfied that there was a valid reason for the Applicant's dismissal. The dismissal was not disproportionate to the conduct. The circumstances of the Applicant and the Applicant's dismissal do not weigh in favour of a conclusion that the dismissal was harsh.

• [144] Taking into account all of the circumstances and the considerations in s 387 of the Act, I consider that the dismissal of the Applicant was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable and that accordingly his dismissal was not unfair.

[1] Exhibit R1 - Witness Statement of Linda Laiseni (Exhibit R1) [6].

[2] Ibid [39]; Exhibit R2 - Witness Statement of Daniel Green (Exhibit R2) [8]-[9], [16].

[4] Exhibit A3 - Witness Statement of Rodney Donnini (Exhibit A3) [5].

[6] Transcript of Proceedings, Donnini v Ventia (Australia) Pty Ltd (Fair Work Commission, U2025/3292, Beaumont DP, 26 June 2025) (Transcript), [PN180].

[20] PR789854.

[26] Transcript (n 6) [PN140]-[PN147].

[31] Transcript (n 6) [PN170]-[PN171].

[45] Transcript (n 6) [PN200]-[PN204].

[55] Transcript (n 6) [PN246]-[PN263].

[65] Exhibit A5 - Witness Statement of Fergus Carrol (Exhibit A5) [3].

[83] Exhibit A1 - Witness Statement of Tahlia Coad (Exhibit A1) [5].

[89] Exhibit A2 - Second Witness Statement of Tahlia Coad [4].

[133] Edwards v Giudice [1999] FCA 1836; (1999) 94 FCR 561, 564; King v Freshmore (Vic) Pty Ltd (Australian Industrial Relations Commission, Ross VP, Williams SDP, and Commissioner Hingley, 17 March 2000) [24].

[135] Court Security and Custodial Services Act 1999 (WA) s 40(1).

[136] Ibid s 40(2).

[137] Transcript (n 6) [PN153]-[PN154].

[141] Transcript (n 6) [PN200]-[PN204].

[149] Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology v Asher [2010] FWAFB 1200, [26] (Asher); Osman v Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Ltd PR948009; Gibson v Bosmac Pty Ltd [1995] IRCA 222; (1995) 60 IR 1, 7, cited in Selvachandran v Peterson Plastics Pty Ltd [1995] IRCA 333; (1995) 62 IR 371, 373 (Selvachandran).

[151] Crozier v Palazzo Corporation Pty Ltd (2000) 98 IR 137, 151 [73].

[154] Walton v Mermaid Dry Cleaners Pty Ltd [1996] IRCA 267; (1996) 142 ALR 681, 685.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer