Court hears the deputy superintendent of the detention facility, James Sizeland, saw ‘no issue’ with using teargas on people in confined spaces

This article is more than 3 years old

This article is more than 3 years old

The staff member in charge of operations at the Don Dale youth detention centre on the day of an August 2014 disturbance had no specific training for working with juveniles, and saw “no issue” with the use of teargas on people in confined spaces, the NT supreme court has heard.

James Sizeland, deputy superintendent of the Don Dale youth detention facility, was appearing as a witness in a civil case brought by four former juvenile detainees against the Northern Territory government.

They are claiming damages for assault and battery over the use of teargas, handcuffs, spithoods, ankle shackles, and for the transfer to an adult prison and the treatment they received there, after a disturbance on 21 August 2014 when a detainee got out of his cell in the isolated behavioural management unit (BMU) and began causing damage.

The NT government has conceded the use of spithoods and ankle shackles were “excessive under the circumstances” but is defending the other claims.

Don Dale detainee 'unfairly punished' with teargas for actions of others, court told Read more

Sizeland told the court he had worked in corrections for about 20 years, but had received no specific training, experience or qualifications in the juvenile system.

He arrived at Don Dale some three hours after the disturbance began, and delegated a youth justice officer to negotiate with the escaped youth after the youth “didn’t respond well” to his attempts.

He said the youth justice officer had a good rapport with the boys, was seen “like an older brother” by many, and had de-escalated situations before.

However, he had no training as a negotiator and was given no advice by Sizeland, who had been trained.

The immediate action team (IAT) was called in to assist, and teargas was deployed against the youths, five of whom were still locked in their cells and affected by the gas for up to eight minutes.

Asked about health and safety concerns regarding the use of teargas in confined spaces, Sizeland he believed it was “actually not an issue”. He said using the gas in a cell “is an approved response depending on the situation”.

When he recommended the use of teargas on the young detainees during the disturbance, Sizeland had no specific knowledge about the risks or medical impact of it on young people, the court heard.

He said he was unaware that at the time an article used to deploy the gas was considered a prohibited weapon under NT law, but he was aware that youth justice officers had no provision to use it like prison officers.

He disputed a suggestion that teargas was not authorised for any use at all in youth detention facilities.

The plaintiffs are alleging the use of teargas, restraints and spithoods was unauthorised, unreasonable, and unnecessary, and that the teargas may have constituted a breach of the Weapons Control Act.

The NT government’s lawyers have indicated they would be arguing the use was, in fact, authorised and that it was also self-defence on the part of the authorities, based on the volatile situation and the known history of the “difficult and sometimes dangerous detainees”.

Earlier on Wednesday the court heard from three adult prisoners who witnessed the four juvenile detainees were moved around inside the adult prison at Berrimah, before they were transferred to the maximum security adult facility at Holtze.

One, Ronald Kelly, said when the group was brought through he yelled out to one boy he recognised to ask if he was all right.

“They’re still juveniles but they’re in a man’s prison where they didn’t know what’s going to happen to them,” Kelly said. “They would have been scared for their lives.”

The plaintiffs have alleged that during transfers they were not just covered in spithoods and shackled but also handcuffed behind their backs and forcibly bent forward while they were led through the prison yard.

Inmates Kelly and Eric Robertson said they saw the boys with their hands cuffed behind their backs while being moved on 22 August.



Kelly demonstrated to the court how he saw the boys being “dragged through” the yard and said guards had their hands on the back of the young detainees’ heads, pushing them down as they walked.

One plaintiff alleged on Tuesday it happened on at least two dates but his account appeared to be disputed by footage shown to the court of the second.

Teargassing of teenagers at Don Dale was unnecessary and unauthorised, court told Read more

In the footage, filmed by corrections staff on 24 August when the boys were transferred to Holtze, the boys are placed in spithoods, shackles and handcuffed at the front of their bodies. They are walking upright.

Kelly was shown the footage and the lawyer acting for the NT government, Trevor Moses, suggested to Kelly that this showed the same manner of treatment as he said he witnessed two days earlier.

“No, that wasn’t rough like it was before, with their heads down,” he said.

Moses suggested it was, in fact, the same.

“No, it was worse,” Kelly said. “It was [different], what I saw. They were getting forced … It’s still wrong what they’ve done, leg shackles on young fellas.”

Kelly’s evidence was contradicted by Graham Cowan, also a current inmate.

Cowan was also shown the video and said there was “not really” any difference between the video of 24 August and what he had seen two days earlier.

On Tuesday the court heard from three of the four defendants, including one who said he felt he was being “unfairly punished” for the actions of others, and alleged he was denied a Panadol for a headache after the teargassing and was hung up on by a guard when he told the guard he wanted to harm himself.



The detainee told the court he fashioned a noose out of a pillow slip while he was inside the adult cell.

Another, who had no involvement in the disturbance other than being in that wing at the time and subjected to the guards’ response, said he was not a spitter and felt “ashamed and abused” when put in a spithood.