The maturity levels of notorious Don Dale guard Conan Zamolo were “only one notch above” child detainees he allegedly filmed going to the toilet and asked to suck his penis, and Northern Territory police decided not to lay charges against him because he was just “goofing around”, the royal commission has heard.
NT police detective sergeant Kirstin Engels was called before the commission into the protection and detention of children on Tuesday to face questions about her 2015 investigation into allegations Zamolo had mistreated detainees.
During the course of the commission it has come to light that on multiple occasions Zamolo filmed detainees and uploaded the videos to social media, including Snapchat. Videos included a detainee going to the toilet, Zamolo asking detainees to “suck my cock”, and making a detainee eat bird faeces from the ground.
In December 2015 Engels was assigned to investigate these and other allegations, including that Zamolo filmed a boy masturbating in the shower. Engels interviewed Zamolo and a number of detainee witnesses who gave similar accounts of seeing a video by Zamolo of a naked detainee, AT. She ultimately decided there was not enough evidence to support pursuing criminal charges against him.
Engels had obtained several videos from Zamolo’s electronic devices, including three depicting apparent events at Don Dale and three depicting suspected drug activity by Zamolo and others.
In her statement Engels told the commission Zamolo’s maturity level was “only one notch above the children he was working with” and it seemed the intention behind his “despicable behaviour” was to make a joke.
She said that when asked why he had filmed a boy in the toilet, he initially couldn’t remember the incident, but then said he was “just goofing around with him”. He said it was “just stupid, just being an idiot”.
When asked about footage of himself asking detainees to “suck my cock” Zamolo again said he was just mucking around, and that footage didn’t show him and the detainee “laughing and pounding fists and saying see you tomorrow”.
A subsequent review into her investigation recommended an opinion be sought about whether the video of a boy on the toilet constituted child abuse material, but Engels wrote in her statement she didn’t believe it met the evidentiary standards.
“There is no evidence or circumstance which could be relied on to demonstrate that Mr Zamolo is sexually motivated in making this recording. There is no evidence that he is attempting to exploit the child.”
Similarly, a video by Zamolo of a detainee being forced to eat what is believed to be bird faeces could not be confirmed as bird faeces.
In evidence to the royal commission in March, Zamolo said he was “just mucking around” when he dared a child to “eat shit” and posted the footage on social media app Snapchat in 2014.
“It’s just the kids goofing around. Something to pass the day,” Zamolo said. “I can see now it was inappropriate.”
Engels said while it was extremely inappropriate and poor judgement by Zamolo, she didn’t believe the video could be successfully prosecuted.
Allegations Zamolo filmed detainees masturbating in the shower were also dismissed as unproven. During questioning Zamolo had told Engels he only pretended to film, but did admit to standing in the shower area with a phone he wasn’t supposed to have, and pretending to record the boy. There was no video of the incident found.
Zamolo denied to the royal commission that he had filmed a child masturbating in the shower: “I never recorded no kids in the shower. I may have pretended to ... I’m not a bully,” he said.
The inmates claimed they saw vision of a naked boy on Zamolo’s phone, but he said he only led them to believe he had done it.
Engels said: “Regardless of how unpleasant the context of these recordings are, pretending to record a child masturbating is not a criminal offence.”
“As a police officer the remit of my authority is to objectively investigate matters where there is criminal activity or suspected criminal activity. I am not satisfied that there was a criminal element to this alleged conduct.”
AT had also told police he was “clotheslined” by a guard who stuck his arm out and “clotheslined” him when he ran into the dining room. He said he was then chased into his cell by Zamolo who hit him on the kneecaps with a torch, but that he didn’t think Zamolo was trying to hurt him.
Based on this, and the relationship between the detainee and Zamolo, Engels did not pursue charges. She also felt the other guard had the defence of preventing AT from going into an area he was not allowed to be in.
Engels defended her investigation, noting she had been assigned to the case 18 months after it started and some pieces of evidence, such as CCTV footage which is only retained for weeks, had to have been collected by her predecessors. She said there was no indication any attempts had been made.
The commission continues.
