1. Carl Williams v The State of Victoria - a study into the exercise of ‘duty of care’ - an Expert Witness report
Adjunct Professor Peter Norden AO
Australian & New Zealand Society of Criminology Conference
Hobart
December 2016

2. CRONOLOGY: 9 June 2004: Williams received into Barwon Prison after being charged with conspiracy to murder. November 2008: Williams elects to become a witness in relation to murder charges against a former police officer and another individual Dec 2008: Williams removed from Barwon Prison by Victoria Police on an Administrative of Justice Permit to assist giving evidence as witness Feb 2010: Williams again removed from Barwon Prison by Victoria Police on an Administration of Justice Permit to assist their inquiries 19 April 2010: The death of Williams in Arcacia maximum security unit September 2011: Johnston convicted of the murder of Williams December 2011: Johnson sentenced to a minimum of 32 years for murder “Australia’s national Prison population passes 35,000 for the first time”. This represented a 6.7% increase in a year. The previous year saw a 9.8% increase. Australia’s population was increasing at 1.2% a year

3. Ombudsman’s Report into Williams’ death “Mr Williams’ death raises important questions as to how it is possible that a high profile prisoner in Victoria’s highest security prison unit could be killed with an unsecured metal pipe from an exercise bike, and that prison staff did not find out about the incident for some 27 minutes”. April 2012

4. What might be the duty of care
What might be the duty of care? The management of high security prisoners is a difficult and complex task. Particularly in the changing circumstances that existed with relation to the custody of Carl Williams. Williams was murdered on 19 April What might be ‘duty of care” of the Victorian Dept of Justice in ensuring the secure management of the number one security prisoner in Australia?

5. What are the key issues to be considered
What are the key issues to be considered? This paper will outline why I came to the conclusion “that the Victorian Department of Justice failed to balance the competing interests between what Victoria Police wanted to achieve with Carl Williams as a police witness as against the responsibility of the Department to protect his safety”. These were competing interests…….

6. Key documents that were considered: - Standard Guidelines for Corrections in Australia (Revised Edition, 2012) - Correctional Management Standards for Men’s Prisons in Victoria (July 2014) - Sentence Management Manual, Corrections Victoria (December 2007)

7. What is the impact of being seen as a police informer for a high security inmate? Within a custodial environment it is a critical and damning identification. Williams’ denial of his need for protective isolation must be assessed in these terms. “Keep your friends close…. and keep your enemies even closer!”

8. Temporary Absences from Prison Correctional Administration Permits
“It is unclear to what extent the safety of Mr Williams was considered in granting the permit for him to be removed from the prison and how this was balanced against the benefits of his cooperation with Police” (Vic Ombudsman)

9. The Prisoners of War………… “Johnson was either the leader or a leader of a group of prisoners known as the ‘Prisoners of War’. One of the group’s important principles is the hatred of anyone, particularly any prisoner, who cooperates with police and informs against any person charged with criminal offences’. Coroner Ian Gray, 13th October, 2014.

10. The Age (and) SMH, Jan 10, 2009: “Gangland killer Carl Williams and his father George were allegedly secretly taken from jail for eight days to be quizzed about currently serving corrupt police. Carl, 38, who is subject to the state’s highest security rating, was believed to have had several visitors during his stay”

11. Critical Media Coverage of Williams: ‘On 19th April 2010, the Herald Sun Newspaper published an article relating to Williams. The article ran on the front page and page four, and disclosed that taxpayers were to pay $8,000 for the private school fees for Williams’ daughter and $750,000 for his father’s tax bill’ Coroner Ian Gray, 13th October 2014.

12. Critical change that had resulted: “Corrections Victoria appears not to have taken reasonable steps to assess the risk involved in the two administration of justice permits, not with regard to Williams’ safe passage while in police custody, but with relation to the impact of those visits once known to those with whom he was placed in Barwon Prison and further when this eventually became public knowledge through the media articles cited above” Norden, Expert Witness Report, p.9.

13. CONCLUSIONS: “There were clearly statutory responsibilities impacting on Corrections Victoria to ensure Williams’ safe custody. But in many respects, conflicting with that responsibility was the determined efforts of Victoria Police to obtain from Williams information that they sought in relation to the Hodgson murder investigation. Essentially, it is my conclusion that these objectives were competing objectives and that they were not adequately managed by the Department of Justice”. Norden, Expert Witness Report.

14. THE DECISION OF SUPREME COURT: This matter brought before the Supreme Court of Victoria was settled with a confidential out of court settlement in favour of Dhakota Williams, Carl Williams’ daughter. She now continues her secondary school education at a private school in the western suburbs of Melbourne. The Department of Justice have now made significant changes in their procedures….