Police v Keir

[2025] ACTMC 3

MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Police v Keir

Citation: 

[2025] ACTMC 3

Hearing Dates: 

12 November 2024, 10 January 2025, 24 January 2025

Decision Date: 

28 January 2025

Before:

Special Magistrate Hassall

Decision: 

The application for a permanent stay of proceedings is granted.

Catchwords: 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – Stay of proceedings – Application for permanent stay – Alleged assault of corrections officer by detainee – Defendant and other detainees involved in melee at detention centre – Defendant unintentionally but possibly recklessly struck corrections officer – Defendant and other detainees disciplined for “fighting” – Whether prosecution barred by s 155 Corrections Management Act 2007 (ACT) – Whether defendant disciplined only for interaction with other detainees – Fighting with other detainees inextricably linked with unintended striking of corrections officer – Prosecution barred by s 155 due to previous administrative penalty– Stay application granted.

Legislation Cited: 

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 26A

Corrections Management Act 2007 (ACT) s 90, s 152(k), s 155(1), s 155(2)

Parties: 

Branko Tadic (Informant)

Annette Lea Keir ( Defendant)

Representation: 

Counsel

T Kelliher (ACT Director of Public Prosecutions)

S Jackson ( Defendant)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

In Private Law (Defendant)

File Numbers:

CAN 5206 of 2023

SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HASSALL:

Introduction

1․The defendant, Ms Annette Keir, is charged with a single offence contrary to s 26A of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), alleging that on 28 April 2023, at about 3.00 pm, she assaulted a frontline community service provider. The prosecution does not rely on the statutory alternative of common assault. An offence contrary to s 26A is punishable by a maximum of two years' imprisonment and is therefore summary by nature.

2․The defendant entered a plea of not guilty to the charge on 17 July 2023 and the matter proceeded by way of hearing before me on 12 November 2024 and 10 January this year.  The matter was then adjourned to today for decision.

3․The prosecution case is that during a short confrontation and melee between the defendant and two other female detainees in the women's accommodation compound at the Alexander Maconochie Centre (AMC) on 28 April 2023, the defendant recklessly struck the complainant, Corrections Officer Michelle Chalker, on the left side of her face around the area of her eye, which caused subsequent red marks, swelling and bruising.

4․Evidence relating to the alleged offence is in several forms. First, the prosecution tendered CCTV footage of the relevant area of the women's accommodation compound which showed the lead-up to and part of the alleged assault. The prosecution provided a zoomed-in version of the incident, although as it happens, as I will refer to in due course, even that zoomed-in version was unable to capture what was perhaps the critical moment.

5․The prosecution also relied on photos of the injury sustained by Corrections Officer Chalker, which were not objected to, and which established beyond any doubt that she was injured. The dispute from the defendant's perspective, amongst other things, was as to the mechanism of injury.

6․Oral evidence was given by Corrections Officer Chalker, who responded to the incident with another Corrections Officer, Craig Whittle. Evidence was given by the other two detainees involved in the melee, Ms Lila Walto, and Ms Hayley John. Evidence was also given by Ms Cindy, Botha, who I understood to be the director of women's accommodation at the AMC. Ms Botha was not an eyewitness but was involved in the aftermath of the incident and in the making of decisions about what to do with the detainees who were involved.

7․Finally, evidence was given by Corrections Officer Owen Hawkins, who was the acting area manager for the relevant part of the accommodation on the day.  His evidence was to the effect that he proposed a particular form of disciplinary action against the three detainees which was approved by Ms Botha.

8․It is fair to say that at its highest, the prosecution case was that the defendant recklessly, rather than intentionally, assaulted Corrections Officer Chalker. Mr Kelliher, who appeared for the prosecution, made it clear that the prosecution case was put on that basis.

9․Corrections Officer Whittle, who was an eyewitness to the alleged assault, gave evidence to the effect that in his opinion, the defendant had not intended to strike Corrections Officer Chalker.  Although he did not say so, it seems implicit that the opinion of Corrections Officer Whittle was that the defendant was attempting to strike one of the other female detainees, Ms Walto. That interpretation is supported by CCTV footage, the details of which I will return to in due course.

10․The prosecution tendered paperwork relating to the disciplinary action taken against the defendant and the two other female detainees. On the day of the alleged assault, being 28 April 2023, each detainee was issued with a charge notice alleging a disciplinary breach within the meaning of s 152 of the Corrections Management Act2007 (ACT), namely “fighting”, contrary to para 152(k).

11․Separate confinement authorities for each detainee were signed by Ms Botha. Those documents together indicated that the punishment imposed on each of the three detainees was separate confinement for a period of 28 days. The wording of the charges differed slightly as between the detainees. The charge notice against Ms Walto, which was Exhibit P6, alleged that, “Detainee was involved in a fight within her accommodation area”, whereas the charge notices addressed to the defendant and Ms John alleged that each was involved in “fighting with other detainees within your accommodation area”, as recorded in Exhibits P7 and P11.

12․None of the three detainees sought to contest either the charge or the sanction of 28 days’ separate confinement. The evidence is to the effect that each served the relevant period of confinement in 2023.

Genesis of the stay application

13․During the hearing, it emerged that there was an issue as to the potential operation of s 155 of the Corrections Management Act2007 (ACT). That section applies if a detainee “engages, or is alleged to have engaged, in conduct that is both a disciplinary breach; and an offence against territory law”.  In such circumstances, in accordance with subs 155(2), “The detainee must not be prosecuted for the criminal offence if an administrative penalty has been imposed on the detainee because of the disciplinary breach.”

14․Section 155 at least arguably applies in the present case because, after the melee to which I referred, and as I have noted, the defendant and each of the other two detainees who were involved were subject to a disciplinary process which resulted in the imposition of an administrative penalty, being in each case 28 days’ separate confinement. As I have noted, none of the detainees contested the relevant charge or sanction and the 28 days’ confinement was served.

15․The prosecution's position in respect of s 155 was that the penalty to which I have referred was imposed on each detainee specifically and only for the conduct of fighting with each other and that no sanction was imposed on the defendant for the conduct of assaulting Corrections Officer Chalker, meaning that there is no bar to the prosecution of the defendant in respect of that conduct.

16․By comparison, the position of the defendant, at least by the end of the hearing, was that the conduct for which the defendant was punished included the alleged striking of Corrections Officer Chalker, that the injury to Corrections Officer Chalker informed the relative seriousness of the administrative penalty which was imposed – being 28 days separate confinement – and that there had been specific discussion of this issue at the time the detainees were served with the disciplinary paperwork or perhaps at some earlier time. The defendant alleged, for example, that she heard Hayley John query Ms Botha as to why the penalty of 28 days separate confinement was so long, to which Ms Botha had responded, “Because a Corrections officer was injured”.  I will return to the evidence relating to that alleged discussion.

17․At the time final submissions were made by the parties on 10 January this year, the parties approached s 155 on the basis that it provided a defence to a prosecution of the present kind. In response to queries from me, the parties in effect submitted that there was an evidentiary onus on the defendant to show that s 155 was in play; then, it was for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the prosecution was not barred by s 155. That understanding was one which I shared at the time.

18․After I reserved my decision, however, I informed the parties that I had formed a different view, namely, that s 155 does not provide a defence to a prosecution but might provide a basis for a stay application. This issue was ventilated with the parties briefly in court last Friday, 24 January 2025. Ultimately, the parties agreed that it was appropriate for the court to regard the defendant as having made an informal application for a stay which could be determined by reference to the evidence adduced in prosecution proceedings.

19․The parties each agreed that the stay application should be determined as a preliminary matter followed, if necessary, by a determination of the defendant's guilt or innocence of the substantive assault charge. The parties each also agreed and accepted that they had received procedural fairness in relation to what was to be treated as a stay application and that neither sought to adduce any additional evidence nor make any further submissions in the circumstances. I proceeded in that manner.

Corrections Management Act 2007, s 155

20․I turn then to s 155, the terms of which I have already described. I have been unable to find any jurisprudence in the ACT regarding the application or interpretation of the provision. It seems to me, however, that when one is considering the potential application of s 155 in a context like the present, two matters fall for determination:

1.First, is this a case where the defendant has “engaged, or is alleged to have engaged, in conduct that is both a disciplinary breach; and an offence against territory law”? In other words, does the section apply, that being the test created by subs 155(1)?

2.Secondly, if the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, has an administrative penalty been imposed on the defendant “because of” the disciplinary breach, that being the question asked by subs 155(2)?

21․If the second question is also answered in the affirmative, it seems to me that the prohibition on prosecution is enlivened.

22․As with all stay applications, the defendant as applicant bears the onus of proof in respect of each of the above matters. I understand that the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. 

Evidence and findings of fact

23․It is not possible in my assessment to answer the two above questions that I have identified above without examining the evidence and making findings of fact. I will deal first with the evidence regarding the alleged assault and then set out my findings of fact, at least to the extent necessary at this point, in relation to the alleged assault. I will then turn to the evidence relating to the disciplinary action taken against the defendant and other detainees and then set out my findings of fact relating to that disciplinary action.

Evidence – assault

24․As I have noted, the evidence relating to the alleged assault includes CCTV footage which became Exhibit P5. That footage indicates that at almost exactly 3.00 pm on 28 April 2023, there was a short melee in the women's accommodation area of the AMC involving three detainees and two Corrections Officers. I will refer to parts of the CCTV by reference to the time markings which appeared on the footage.

25․At 05:16, detainee Hayley John becomes visible in the women's accommodation area.  She can be seen exchanging words in an animated fashion with another detainee who is off-screen, apparently in a living area to the left of the camera view.

26․At 05:24, Ms Lila Walto, who is considerably larger in stature than Ms John, can be seen walking aggressively towards Ms John, apparently in response to the verbal exchanges between them. She then stands over and squares off against Ms John.

27․Some three seconds later, approximately, at 05:27, the defendant can be seen entering the accommodation area from the left of the screen. She approaches Ms Walto from behind and outside the range of vision of Ms Walto. She then pushes Ms Walto hard in the middle area of her back from behind, causing Ms Walto to lose her balance momentarily and stagger round a corner. It is apparent that, although there is no audio for the CCTV footage, the defendant had overheard the verbal altercation between Ms John and Ms Walto and was seeking to come to the assistance of Ms John.

28․At 05:31, Corrections Officer Whittle enters the area from the same direction the defendant had come, closely followed by Corrections Officer Chalker who can be seen speaking into a radio.  They both move towards the detainees and can be seen issuing what I infer to have been verbal commands for the detainees to cease and desist.

29․In response to having been shoved by the defendant, Ms Walto attempts to advance aggressively towards the defendant but is pulled back initially by Ms John. Shortly afterwards, Corrections Officers Whittle and Chalker arrive in the kitchen area of the accommodation block where the three detainees are. Corrections Officer Whittle moves towards Ms John, whilst Corrections Officer Chalker stands next to Ms Walto.

30․At one point, Ms Walto breaks free of the hold Ms John has on her and advances aggressively towards the defendant, apparently seeking to retaliate to the push which had caused Ms Walto to stagger. Ms Walto lunges at the defendant and commences throwing punches whilst the defendant backs away through the kitchen area to the left of the screen.

31․Corrections Officer Chalker attempts to restrain Ms Walto as Ms Walto lunges towards the defendant. As Ms Chalker explained in her oral evidence, she placed Ms Walto in a seatbelt hold over Ms Walto's right shoulder and then successfully took Ms Walto to the ground. In the course of doing so, both Corrections Officer Chalker and Ms Walto can be seen falling to the ground. Corrections Officer Chalker appears to fall with her back towards the pantry in the kitchen.

32․The defendant can be seen then making two quick blows. It is not possible to see with whom or with what, if anything, those blows connected because the view is impeded by a kitchen island between the CCTV camera and the relevant participants. It is tolerably clear though, in my view, as Corrections Officer Whittle explained in his oral evidence, that the defendant was attempting to punch Ms Walto in retaliation for the lunging and attempted punches by Ms Walto and that the defendant was not seeking to strike Corrections Officer Chalker.

33․Shortly after the defendant's blows or attempted blows, a third Corrections Officer arrives at the scene and both the defendant and Ms John leave. The melee at that point is effectively over.

34․As I have said, the CCTV footage does not disclose what is perhaps the critical part of the interaction, being the alleged striking of Corrections Officer Chalker by the defendant.  All that can be seen is the defendant apparently attempting two blows and it is not clear with whom or with what, if anything, they connected, at least from the CCTV footage.

35․The next item of evidence to which I refer is the photographs showing a mark on Corrections Officer Chalker's back consistent with her having come into contact with something hard whilst falling, and secondly, significant reddening and the onset of bruising in the area on the left-hand side of her face below and around her left eye.

36․The defence also tendered a report of Dr Johan Duflou. Dr Duflou is a consulting forensic pathologist who was asked to express an opinion regarding the way in which the injury, particularly to Corrections Officer Chalker's face, could have been sustained. Dr Duflou opined that the relevant injury could have been caused by a blow by the defendant of the type alleged by the prosecution, but equally could have been caused, in his opinion, by Corrections Officer Chalker impacting a door or door handle in the course of falling.  Dr Duflou expressed the view that these scenarios were equally plausible as mechanisms by which the injury around Corrections Officer Chalker's eye could have been sustained. I note that Dr Duflou was provided with the CCTV footage to which I referred.

37․I turn then to the oral evidence of Corrections Officer Chalker, which is to the effect that she was hit on the left side of her face by the defendant as she was falling.  She denied that it was possible that the injury to her face had been caused by hitting a door or door handle, pointing out that she had been facing the other way and falling away to her right, meaning that the left upper area of her face was exposed. She thought the defendant had probably struck her with her right arm but was unsure whether it was with an open or closed fist.

38․I found Corrections Officer Chalker to be a generally reliable witness. I have no doubt that she was focused principally on controlling Ms Walto, but it seems to me she is nevertheless likely to have been able to tell, if not see, whether an injury to her face was caused by a blow from the defendant as opposed to hitting something while she was falling.  She did not display any uncertainty about her opinion that the injury to her facial area was caused by the defendant.

39․Corrections Officer Whittle gave evidence to the effect that he saw the defendant throw a couple of punches. His evidence was to the effect that, at least as he perceived it, the defendant had not intended to hit Corrections Officer Chalker but one of her punches did in fact connect. He thought that the defendant had struck Corrections Officer Chalker to the right side of her face with a clenched fist.

40․I found Corrections Officer Whittle as generally reliable and credible. He had what seems to have been a close, unimpeded view and was not himself physically involved in controlling a particular detainee at the time of his observations.

41․He was clearly incorrect as to which side of Corrections Officer Chalker's face was injured, otherwise, however, I regard his evidence as reliable. In particular, I accept his evidence that one of the defendant's punches connected with Corrections Officer Chalker but also accept his evidence that he did not believe the defendant was intending to hit Corrections Officer Chalker. That obviously leaves open the question of recklessness.

42․Detainees Ms Walto and Ms John also gave evidence which ultimately, in my assessment at least, was not particularly helpful. Ms Walto initially gave evidence to the effect that she thought she had not been struck at all.  After watching the CCTV footage, however, she agreed she had been struck in the head but was not sure by whom and she did not at any time see any strikes to anyone. Her evidence ultimately did not assist the court.

43․Ms John claimed that she saw the defendant strike Ms Walto once but did not see any blow by the defendant which connected with Corrections Officer Chalker.  I am not satisfied that Ms John had an unimpeded view of the incident given that Corrections Officer Whittle was standing between her and the defendant, Ms Walto and Corrections Officer Chalker. The relevant part of the melee happened very quickly several metres from her.

44․In my view, her evidence was tainted, not necessarily consciously, by a desire to be loyal to the defendant who had come to her aid in her confrontation with Ms Walto.  Ultimately, I regarded her evidence as not being of particular assistance to the court and as unreliable.

Findings of Fact – Assault

45․I turn then to my findings of fact regarding the alleged assault. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the injury to the left side of Corrections Officer Chalker's face around her eye was caused by a blow by the defendant. I am also satisfied that the defendant did not intend to strike Corrections Officer Chalker. I am satisfied she was attempting to strike Ms Walto who had just been lunging and throwing punches at her.

46․The entire melee lasted no more than 30 seconds and the part involving the defendant attempting to strike Ms Walto whilst Ms Walto was being taken to the ground by Corrections Officer Chalker a mere second. The defendant and the other two detainees each had roughly equal levels of involvement in the melee. The verbal stoush and some initial pushing and shoving was initiated by Ms John. Ms Walto then responded aggressively initially towards Ms John, although without involving physical contact, and then towards the defendant after she had been shoved by the defendant, including lunging aggressively at and attempting to strike the defendant.

47․The defendant came to the assistance of Ms John but shoved Ms Walto with possibly excessive force. The defendant then continued on with the melee by attempting to strike Ms Walto as, and notwithstanding, Ms Walto was being taken to ground by Corrections Officer Chalker.

48․I am satisfied that Ms Walto and the defendant each ignored verbal commands from the Corrections Officers to cease and desist.  In a general sense, in my view, all three detainees were responsible for the melee that resulted in the injury to Corrections Officer Chalker and it was in the course of the detainees fighting with each other, rather than because of any separate interaction with Corrections Officer Chalker, that Corrections Officer Chalker's facial injury was sustained.

Evidence – Disciplinary Action

49․I turn then to the evidence relating to the disciplinary action taken against the three detainees. I have already referred to the charge sheets and separate confinement authorities for each detainee which were admitted into evidence.

50․There was also something called a “Notice of Incident Referral' dated 30 April 2023, which indicates that the defendant was at that time referred to ACT Policing for investigation in relation to a possible assault of Corrections Officer Chalker.  I infer from the date of the document that the decision was made to refer the defendant to ACT Police in respect of a possible assault some two days after an initial decision was made about disciplinary action against the defendant and the other detainees.

51․There is next an email from Corrections Officer Dean Smith dated 23 May 2023, some four weeks after the alleged assault, which become Exhibit P3, which is addressed to the informant and states:

I can confirm that the three detainees, being Ms Keir, Lila Walto and Hayley Johns(sic), were all disciplined in relation to their involvement in a physical altercation with each other and Ms Keir did not receive additional penalty/disciplinary action in relation to the assault of CO2 Chalker. [original emphasis]

52․There was then some oral evidence of the detainee Ms  John asserting that, in the aftermath of the melee, during a conversation with Ms Botha and with the defendant and two other Corrections Officers also present in the room in which she was being detained at that time, there was specific mention of the fact that the punishment would be 28 days’ separate confinement.  Ms John had then stated words to the effect, “Why? That was our first fight,” to which, according to Ms John, Ms Botha had responded, “A corrections officer was hurt.”

53․It should be noted that Ms Botha denied having been present during any conversation with any of the three detainees at which a specific length of punishment was discussed. 

54․Ms John gave evidence that other detainees sometimes only got 7 days’ separate confinement for being involved in fights.

55․Corrections Officer Hawkins gave evidence that the penalty of 28 days’ separate confinement was proposed by him and imposed within hours of the incident on the same night.  He stated that he proposed that penalty and Ms Botha approved it.  He explained that primarily his concerns at the time were with maintaining order.  He stated that there had been a period of poor behaviour relating to the three detainees which preceded this incident, and his view was that stern action needed to be taken in order to restore order.

56․He stated that he and Ms Botha had visited each of the detainees who had been placed in separate cells after the incident. He stated that Ms Botha had stated to at least one of the detainees that she was disappointed and “one of our officers has been hurt.”

57․Corrections Officer Hawkins stated that at the time he proposed the penalty which he nominated, he was unaware of any allegation that Corrections Officer Chalker had been injured or assaulted by a particular detainee.  He accepted that 28 days was at the upper end of the scale in terms of punishment for fighting.  He stated that he could not recall any conversation with any of the detainees where it had been explained that the length of punishment was because a Corrections Officer had been hurt.

58․Ms Botha gave evidence that she had approved the penalty proposed by Corrections Officer Hawkins of 28 days’ separate confinement.  She stated that she had mentioned to both Ms Walto and the defendant that a Corrections Officer had been injured.  Ms Walto, according to Ms Botha, became upset and was crying to the extent that she was later seen by medical staff.  She stated that the defendant reacted in a different way.

59․Ms Botha denied being present when there was any conversation regarding penalty with the detainees and denied, in particular, the version of events about which Ms John had given evidence, namely, that there was a specific conversation regarding 28 days being a long period of confinement and the explanation being that a Corrections Officer was injured.  As I said, however, she confirmed that she did mention to at least two of the detainees that an officer had been injured.

Findings of Fact – Disciplinary Action

60․The relevant findings of fact I make in relation to the disciplinary action taken against the detainees are as follows. At the time Corrections Officer Hawkins proposed the administrative penalty of 28 days’ separate confinement for each detainee and Ms Botha approved that sanction, each of them was aware in general terms of the details of the melee and also that a Corrections Officer had been injured as a result of the melee.  Corrections Officer Hawkins explained that he had, amongst other things, reviewed the CCTV footage.  The ultimate decision-maker in relation to the administrative penalty was Ms Botha because, as I understood it, a sanction involving separate confinement required her approval.

61․The sanction which was the same for all three detainees was proposed by Corrections Officer Hawkins and approved by Ms Botha based on an operational assessment of the overall seriousness of the melee, which included the fact that it had resulted in a Corrections Officer being injured notwithstanding details of the mechanism of injury were not yet apparent.

62․It was, of course, open to Corrections Officer Hawkins and Ms Botha to have elected not to take any disciplinary action against any of the three detainees if they wanted unambiguously to preserve the option of prosecution.  Alternatively, they could have elected not to take any such action against the defendant for the same purpose.

63․I note further that under the Corrections Management Act2007, s 90, it is open to those who administer the AMC to segregate detainees for “safety and security” reasons rather than as a disciplinary penalty.  Again, if this course had been taken, this would unambiguously have preserved the option of prosecution of the defendant.

64․My assessment is that neither Corrections Officer Hawkins nor Ms Botha intended to exclude from the punishment which was imposed any part of the melee which gave rise to that punishment.  It was imposed in respect of the melee and the consequences of the melee as a whole. In my assessment, it was for that reason that each of the detainees was given an equal punishment in circumstances where, as I have observed, each of them had some responsibility for the event.

Determination

65․I turn then to answering the two questions which I identified as critical in terms of s 155. First, is this a case where the defendant has engaged or is alleged to have engaged in conduct that is both a disciplinary breach and an offence against territory law within the meaning of subs 155(1)? The conduct in which the defendant was alleged to have engaged for the purposes of the disciplinary action, according to the charge sheet relating to her, was “fighting” contrary to para 152(k), of the Corrections Management Act, and more specifically, “fighting with other detainees in her accommodation area”.'

66․On the evidence, I am satisfied that this was a general reference to the melee in which the defendant, Ms John and Ms Walto were involved, which included the unintentional striking of Corrections Officer Chalker whilst the defendant was trying to strike Ms Walto.  The conduct in which the defendant is alleged to have engaged, for the purposes of the prosecution proceedings, comprises one component of the melee, namely, the striking by the defendant of Corrections Officer Chalker whilst attempting to strike Ms Walto, which the prosecution says was reckless, notwithstanding that it may not have been intentional.

67․In my assessment, on the balance of probabilities, s 155 therefore applies. The unintended striking of Corrections Officer Chalker formed part of the conduct which constituted a disciplinary breach, namely, fighting with other detainees, and is also alleged to constitute the offence of reckless assault of a frontline community service provider, being Ms Chalker.

68․The next question required to be considered for the purposes of s 155 is whether an administrative penalty has been imposed on the defendant “because of” the disciplinary breach. Again, in my opinion, on the balance of probabilities the answer to this question is yes. Although the alleged reckless assault of Corrections Officer Chalker was not the sole focus of the administrative penalty imposed on the defendant and other detainees, my assessment of the evidence is that it was one of the factors taken into account in deciding on the period of 28 days’ separate confinement for each detainee.

69․Neither Corrections Officer Hawkins nor Ms Botha, in my assessment, intended to exclude any part of the conduct constituting the melee, including that part of it which they were aware at the time had resulted in a Corrections Officer being injured. It follows, therefore, that the 28‑day separate confinement administrative penalty was imposed “because of” one component of the relevant disciplinary breach.

70․The conclusion, in my view, is that the defendant was the subject of an administrative penalty of 28 days’ separate confinement in respect of a disciplinary breach comprising conduct which included the unintentional striking and injuring Corrections Officer Chalker. The defendant did not challenge the charge or penalty and served the 28 days’ separate confinement in 2023.

71․As I have noted, the authorities at the AMC could have elected not to take disciplinary action against the defendant in order, unambiguously, to preserve the option of prosecution, or could have elected to segregate her under other powers conferred by the Corrections Management Act but did not do so.

72․The defendant is now the subject of attempted prosecution action for an ingredient of the conduct constituting the disciplinary breach, being the unintended striking of Corrections Officer Chalker. In the circumstances, in my assessment, the defendant has established on the balance of probabilities that the prosecution action against her is barred by section 155 of the Corrections Management Act 2007, and I therefore uphold the application for a permanent stay of the prosecution proceedings against her.

I certify that the preceding seventy-two [72] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of his Honour Special Magistrate Hassall.

Associate: Vishanee Allaire & Lucy James

Date: 18/02/2025