Territory Stories

Annual Report 2017-2018 OmbudsmanNT



Annual Report 2017-2018 OmbudsmanNT

Other title

Tabled paper 934


Tabled Papers for 13th Assembly 2016 - 2020; Tabled Papers; ParliamentNT






Made available by the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory under Standing Order 240. Where copyright subsists with a third party it remains with the original owner and permission may be required to reuse the material.




Tabled papers

File type




Copyright owner

See publication



Parent handle


Citation address


Page content

72 The investigating officer made a similar finding in relation to use of force, including use of ASR. They determined that the arrest was lawful and the behaviour of the complainant and the circumstances of the case justified the force used. The investigating officer also determined that notwithstanding a ten minute delay in providing aftercare in respect of the ASR (the time it took to get to the watchhouse) it was commenced as soon as practicable in the circumstances. However, they concluded that being placed and left in a cell in wet and contaminated clothes was a failure in duty of care to the complainant. Remedial advice was recommended for all watchhouse staff on that point. Case 6 - Domestic Violence NT Police received a complaint from a protected person under a domestic violence order (DVO) that they had been assaulted by the person subject to the order (the complainant). They attended the home of the protected person and found the complainant with the protected person. They proceeded to arrest the complainant for breach of the DVO. The complainant had been under a full non-contact order for some time. However, four days earlier the DVO had been varied to require non-contact only if the complainant was under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Both the complainant and the protected person advised the officers that the order had changed. Further enquiries were made with the police station and checks with the court computer system (IJIS) appeared to confirm that the full non-contact order remained in place. Police continued with the arrest. The complainant remained in custody for approximately 26 hours before the existence of the new (more limited) order was confirmed. The NT police investigating officer concluded that the actions of the individual officers involved in the arrest were reasonable as they were acting in line with the information currently on available systems. However, the investigating officer determined that the arresting officers should have made their own checks of both the police system (PROMIS) and IJIS (although it would not have resulted in a different outcome in this case). The investigating officer concluded that the investigation of the reported assault by the complainant on the protected person was inadequate in certain respects (although noting that the protected person indicated she did not wish to pursue the matter). It was recommended that officers be given remedial advice and training in relation to that aspect and remedial advice regarding the need to conduct comprehensive searches. Case 7 - Youth and bail checks A 14 year old was on bail in relation to a number of charges. He was originally bailed to stay at a specified residence at night time but the residence was varied three days later. There were a number of subsequent orders in relation to bail and court and police systems essentially became confused as to which residence he was ordered to stay at. The youth was subject to 45 bail checks within the space of a month, spread over both residences. On the occasion in question, he was located in the front yard of one residence (which ultimately proved to be the correct residence) but a search by the officer conducting the check indicated that he should be at the other residence. Family members at both residences indicated that there had been an order changing the address and that they had relevant paperwork (although they did not provide it).