Rigney, Mr R.G.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS (Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety) (14:20): I seek leave to make a ministerial statement on matters relating to Robert Gordon Rigney presenting at Yatala Labour Prison on Friday 15 July 2016.

Leave granted.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: The response to Mr Robert Gordon Rigney presenting himself to surrender at Yatala Labour Prison on 15 July was quite simply unacceptable. Both the Department for Correctional Services and South Australia Police have undertaken investigations in relation to the matter and have provided me with briefings detailing what happened and what is being done to ensure that a situation like this is never repeated. Before I continue, I would like to read you the relevant excerpt from Mr Rigney's bail agreement granted to him by the courts so that he could attend his sister's funeral:

[Robert Gordon Rigney] will be released from custody from Yatala Labour Prison on Monday 11 July by 12 noon and return to Yatala Labour Prison by Friday 15 July 2016 at 4pm.

I am sure that many people will be aware that that is exactly what Mr Rigney did. Mr Rigney presented to Yatala Labour Prison as per the conditions of his bail agreement accompanied by a program manager from the Aboriginal Sobriety Group, who was supporting him throughout the process. Mr Rigney did what he was supposed to do.

Regrettably, it seems that, while Mr Rigney did what he was supposed to do, the Department for Correctional Services failed to do what it was supposed to do, which was readmit Mr Rigney at the conclusion of his temporary period on bail. I can tell you that, as soon as this regrettable incident was brought to my attention, I immediately sought to be kept advised of the situation and was given an assurance that the acting chief executive was conducting an investigation and review into the matter.

I also made it clear that I viewed this matter as serious and that there is a requirement for accountability. The investigation into this incident has revealed that relevant staff involved in Mr Rigney's temporary release on bail failed to properly communicate these unusual arrangements to the relevant senior managers. As such, the relevant senior managers did not put in place appropriate arrangements for this man's return to custody. I have made it very clear that this situation is totally unacceptable.

While the conditions of Mr Rigney's temporary release on bail home detention were unusual, similar arrangements have been put in place in the past for offenders. It is reasonable to expect that appropriate arrangements would have been in place to facilitate Mr Rigney's return to custody. Of course, it is easy to say what should have happened. My priority is to make sure that every possible step is taken to ensure that this never happens again.

I would like to return to the management of Mr Rigney when he reported to reception at Yatala Labour Prison. I am advised that the supervisor on duty informed Mr Rigney and his support person that he was not satisfied that lawful authority existed for Mr Rigney to be taken into DCS's custody. The supervisor then sought managerial guidance on Mr Rigney's legal status.

Access control to a high security prison goes both ways. Those entering the prison are subject to as much scrutiny as those exiting a prison, and rightfully so. It stands to reason that Mr Rigney was asked to wait while the supervisor verified that he had lawful authority to take Mr Rigney into custody. What does not stand to reason is why he was not taken to a secure place while any paperwork issues were resolved. Had this happened I would not be here today providing this statement.

Mr Rigney and his support person left Yatala at 3.29pm en route to the Holden Hill Police Station. Here he again tried to hand himself in. SAPOL made inquiries with Yatala Labour Prison that confirmed that they would not permit Mr Rigney's return to prison—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: —as they were not satisfied that there was a legal authority—

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Point of order, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT: There is a point of order.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Due to the interjections of now several members I can barely hear the minister and I, for one, think this is very important.

The PRESIDENT: Minister, can you take note of that.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: Yes, Mr President. The police officer at the Holden Hill Police Station investigated alternative options to detain Mr Rigney which included checking for active warrants on the SAPOL systems. The police officer considered all the circumstances and available advice. The officer formed the view that he could not establish that Mr Rigney was unlawfully at large and the police officer allowed Mr Rigney to return to his bail address.

I would like to point out that it was not until Mr Rigney attended at Holden Hill, when Mr Rigney had departed Yatala, that the acting general manager was informed of the situation. The accommodation manager at Yatala formed the view that SAPOL would transport Mr Rigney to Yatala from Holden Hill. This was a serious misunderstanding on the part of the Department for Correctional Services. The misunderstanding that SAPOL would transfer Mr Rigney to Yatala from Holden Hill was communicated to the acting general manager at Yatala and no further action was taken to ensure Mr Rigney's return to prison. Eventually, the legal authority to imprison Mr Rigney was realised. SAPOL subsequently took action to locate Mr Rigney and these efforts continue.

To summarise, the investigation has raised four key issues: first, Corrections officers responsible for Mr Rigney's release and his subsequent supervision in the community did not take appropriate steps to plan for his return; secondly, when Mr Rigney did present to Yatala and then again at Holden Hill there was too much emphasis placed on paperwork and very little on the man standing in front of them trying to turn himself in; thirdly, there was a lack of command and control exercised at the prison, no follow-up, no actions taken—not good enough; fourthly, there was a lack of documentation about the process and procedure for this type of readmission. As I said, it is unusual but it is not unheard of. However, that there is no documented operating procedure to manage this type of situation is unacceptable.

In light of this, an action plan has been prepared by the Department for Correctional Services that includes the following immediate action items: first, an instruction has been issued directing general managers and staff about how to manage a prisoner returning from bail or surrendering themselves when unlawfully at large; secondly, the instruction will direct managers working in Community Corrections to ensure that appropriate communication and planning takes place between the supervising Community Corrections office and the prisons for these complex cases; and, finally, the instruction requires communication between DCS and SAPOL to take place at general manager level and an officer of appropriate rank within SAPOL for any related incident.

The standing operating procedures will be strengthened and updated to include the full and complete process for readmission. Training is to be provided to appropriate DCS staff to ensure a clear understanding of warrants and court documentation, and escalation processes are to be mapped to ensure that unusual occurrences are escalated to senior management immediately. Finally, the chief executive has also advised that he will be initiating a separate process that holds to account the relevant senior managers and staff who were responsible for this regrettable incident. I can only hope that Mr Rigney turns himself in so that we can move on and take steps to ensure that this situation does not repeat itself.