Dr TOYNE - 2002-08-22
Findings: Own Motion Investigation - Telephone Monitoring System at the Alice Springs Correctional Centre
| Complaint | Report March 2002 | Report June 2002 |
| Complaint A 1. The circumstances surrounding the purchase and installation of the telephone monitoring equipment used at Alice Springs Correctional Centre and whether the monitoring system was being used in accordance with the relevant legislation, namely the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979. 2. Further, the adequacy of protocols and guidelines within the ASCC as to the use of the telephone monitoring system and the manner in which the information obtained through the use of the system was accessed, particularly who authorised such access, in what circumstances was such access authorised, and the existence of appropriate auditable documents detailing the instances of access. | Findings The telephone monitoring system installed at ASCC was commissioned in circumstances that were inadequate and unsatisfactory in terms of addressing whether or not the system complied with all lawful requirements as to its use, any limits on such use and how such use should occur. I have no difficulty in forming the opinion that the administrative action relating to the selection and installation of the telephone monitoring system for the ASCC was unreasonable pursuant to section 26(1)(b) of the Act. I further find that the failure to seek legal advice as to the effect and application of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979, despite the relevance of this legislation being specifically raised by AUSTEL and, more significantly, despite the capacity of the system to monitor and record all incoming and outgoing calls, no matter who was making such calls, to be both unreasonable and wrong pursuant to section 26(1)(b) and (1)(g) of the Act. It is my view, that due to the complete lack of understanding of the legal requirements involved in the lawful use of telephone monitoring system, the use of the system by the agency breached the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 and thus the administrative action of the agency appears to have been contrary to law as pursuant to section 26(1)(a) of the Act. Ultimately, it is my view that responsibility for the manner in which the telephone monitoring system at the ASCC has been utilised vests with the agency concerned rather than one individual. The failure by the agency to establish any properly document guidelines, protocols and / or Commissioner’s Directives as to how the system was to be used and what constituted a lawful and authorised use of the system, in my opinion, constitutes administrative action that was unreasonable pursuant to section 26(1)(b) of the Act. The lack of auditable documentation has meant that there has been no basis to determine the full extent to which the system was used and for what purposes. The consequences of this is that, in my opinion, on occasions pursuant to section 26(1)(a) of the Act, administrative action taken by the agency appears to have been contrary to law. | Findings In regard to Complaint A, it is my view that the administrative action taken in terms of the selection and installation of the telephone monitoring system for the ASCC and the failure to seek appropriate legal advice as to the relevance of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 in regard to the use of such a system, in the context of clear advice by AUSTEL and do so, was both unreasonable and wrong pursuant to section 26(1)(b) and (g) of the Act. Further, the administrative action taken by the agency in not establishing protocols and guidelines with reference to the use of the telephone monitoring system was unreasonable pursuant to section 26(1)(b) of the Act and subsequently contributed to use of the system which appears to have been contrary to law as pursuant to section 26(1)(a) of the Act. |
Findings: Own Motion Investigation - Telephone Monitoring System at the Alice Springs Correctional Centre
| Complaint | Report March 2002 | Report June 2002 |
| Complaint B Allegations in respect to the monitoring of incoming and outgoing telephone calls at the ASCC, in particular whether: 1. Telephone conversations between prison officers were being monitored and recorded on tape and whether the tapes of such conversations were being transcribed and used for inappropriate purposes. 2. Tapes of recorded telephone conversations regarding between prison officers regarding industrial relations matters pertaining to the ASCC were provided to the then Minister for Correctional Services, the Hon Eric Poole MLA. 3. Telephone conversations between prisoners and their legal advisers were being monitored without the knowledge of the parties involved. | Findings In my opinion I believe that the allegation that telephone conversations between prison officers were being monitored and recorded on tape and such tapes were being transcribed and used for unauthorised purposes have been substantiated. I am of the opinion that the agency’s administrative action in this regard appears to have been taken contrary to law as pursuant to section 26(1)(a) of the Act. I am of the opinion that administrative action taken by the agency was unreasonable as pursuant to 26(1)(b) of the Act in that there was failure upon the part of NT Correctional Services to property consider the use to which telephone monitoring system should be put, there was a complete lack of policy development in regard to its use and that no guidelines nor protocols were established with respect to how the system should be used and in what circumstances that use would be lawful and appropriate. I cannot specifically sustain the complaint as originally made to me in respect to tapes or transcripts of tapes being made available to the Minister. I cannot in the absence of auditable documents or other reliable evidence, determine whether there were occasions when information was extracted from the telephone monitoring system improperly relating to prison officers related to industrial matters and used by the Department improperly. There is evidence of information being accessed from the system, in my view, improperly as I referred to. One occasion at least I am satisfied, appears to have involved a tape being obtained relating to prison officers discussing industrial issues. The ultimate whereabouts of that tape, and the use to which it was put, cannot be determined. That fact in itself is totally unsatisfactory and permits the perception, which cannot be refuted, of an ongoing misuse and abuse of the system. | Findings In regard t Complaint B, it is my view that this complaint has been substantiated and I am of the opinion that there was administrative action which was taken that was both unreasonable and appears to have been taken contrary to law pursuant to section (1)(a) and (b) of the Act. |
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016