Prison guard tells inquest into Indigenous death in custody that he was worried about the ‘security of the centre’

A prison guard sought extra sedation for the cell transfer of David Dungay because he was worried about the “security of the centre”, despite the procedure being expected to take only a few minutes.

The guard, referred to as Officer G for legal reasons, told an inquest into Dungay’s death that he had based his fear on one interaction with Dungay several years ago.

Dungay died during the transfer procedure, after he was restrained face-down by five guards and injected with a sedative. He said 12 times during the eight-minute ordeal – footage of which has been released – that he could not breathe but an observing senior officer told the court on Tuesday he had thought Dungay was faking it.

Guard tells inquest he thought David Dungay was faking inability to breathe Read more

Corrections officers have told the court Justice Health staff sought the transfer because Dungay, who suffered from mental illness and type-one diabetes, was refusing to stop eating biscuits and they feared it would upset his blood sugar levels.

On the day of the transfer, Officer G was on shift as a “night senior”, tasked with maintaining security and managing staff. He told the inquest he had sought out nurses to ask if they were going to give Dungay a sedative for the transfer, to which they said yes.

He then asked if a second one would be used – meaning Dungay would be sedated for more than an hour, despite the distance between the two cells being less than 100m.

On Wednesday the court heard a nurse had called a doctor to order a second sedative while Officer G yelled to a colleague to have the immediate action team (IAT) keep restraining Dungay in anticipation of it.

He agreed at that point there was no order for or any guarantee of additional sedatives.

Officer G had no knowledge of Dungay’s behaviour while in the mental health ward of Long Bay jail, having only had one security-based incident with him some years before.

Play Video 1:31 Introducing Breathless: the death of David Dungay Jr podcast – video

That incident, which occurred in November 2012, involved an aggressive and “elevated” Dungay shattering glass on his cell door. A “cell extraction” was conducted, without any resistance from Dungay, and he was transferred to G ward some days later, the court heard.

He inquired after the extra sedation on the basis of his recollection of this incident, the court heard.

Counsel assisting the inquest, Paul Downing, suggested Officer G had “no good reason” to believe that in an hour’s time Dungay wouldn’t be secure in his cell.

“My concern was that Mr Dungay had effectively breached a cell on a prior occasion. Taking into consideration the level of aggression … I believe I had good cause to be concerned about a potential breach of the cell he was being moved to,” Officer G replied.

Officer G said his concern was about the security of the cell, not the IAT personnel, who would have left by the time the Midazolam wore off, leaving Officer G without enough staff to deal with a potential cell breach.

Under questioning Officer G conceded Dungay did not get out of his cell on the previous occasion but said he “easily” could have if he’d been allowed to smash the glass more than he did.

Officer G’s colleagues earlier testified that the Dungay transfer was “purely medical”.

Key disputes are emerging between Corrections and Justice Health over who decided Dungay needed to be moved to another cell, and who ordered the sedative injections. The court is yet to hear from medical staff but legal representatives have already disputed some testimony from officers.

Both Officer F – the acting assistant superintendent on the day – and Officer E – a senior officer who has since been promoted – were adamant the incident was a medical incident, not a security one, and as such the transfer was requested by Justice Health staff.

However, under questioning Officer F conceded that a medical incident was not an allowable justification for engaging the IAT and it was against operational protocols, and Officer E conceded there were other options that could have been taken instead of a cell transfer.

Officer E’s assessment was that it was purely a medical incident. No nurse or doctor was asked to speak to Dungay to try to get him to give up the biscuits and no doctor was asked to consult.

“In my experience the doctors and nurses only inflame the inmates more than they help,” he told the court.

Monday’s hearing heard Corrective Services NSW has since updated its policies, including those around the use of force, and now reflect that it “is a misconception that a restrained person who can talk must be able to breathe”.

However, an officer referred to as Officer D, who appeared via videolink, said she did not know what “positional asphyxiation” meant, and she had still not yet received any training about the risk of incorrectly restraining someone.