Juvenile detention guards had no legal authority to teargas a group of teenage boys when responding to a disturbance at Darwin’s Don Dale facility, lawyers for the boys will argue next week.
The boys are suing the Northern Territory government over treatment during a disturbance in August 2014 during which, the claimants allege, guards used treatment that amounted to assault and battery.
The case is one of two civil suits going before the courts relating to the Northern Territory’s controversial youth justice crisis.
In a well-documented incident, several boys had been held in isolation in “behavioural management units” for between six and 17 days. One got out of his cell and began causing damage and guards deployed teargas. The others remained in their rooms, despite reports by authorities at the time that described it as a “riot”.
Six youths were hooded and transferred to the adult prison despite guards only having approval for five, according to a children’s commissioner’s investigation into the incident. One was younger than lawfully permitted in transfers, it said.
In a hearing before the case, which starts on Tuesday, their lawyer, Kathleen Foley, flagged she would argue there was no legal authority for guards to use teargas in a juvenile facility and it was possible they breached the Weapons Control Act.
Any officers providing evidence would be advised to receive advice before addressing the court, it was suggested by the boys’ lawyer.
By marshalling guards in riot uniform and equipment, bringing in dogs and using teargas, the NT government “intentionally or recklessly caused the plaintiff to apprehend an imminent fear of personal safety and further an imminent fear of direct harm, such that the in law the conduct of the correctional officers constituted an assault”, the group will claim.
They will seek compensation for injury, loss and damage, including extreme distress and humiliation.
A lawyer for the NT government, Trevor Moses, also told the court there was no single document available that outlined rules relating to use of force, the ABC reported.
The government may alter its submissions, the court heard, because it appeared to concede there was no authority for the use of teargas. Submission documents suggested the use of handcuffs and other restraints were lawful, reasonable and necessary – but the use of teargas was described only as reasonable and necessary.
The defence rejected many of the allegations and claimed various detainees caused significant damage to their cells at the behavioural management unit and injured an officer.
The case will begin on Tuesday and is expected to run into the following week.
Next month the royal commission into youth protection and detention in NT is also expected to begin its public hearings, before reporting next March.
