Borallon Correctional Centre officer Carol Nash disciplined for looking through inmate files without authority

A prison officer was disciplined after looking through the confidential files of several inmates - but she refused to accept her punishment. Now she’s been given a final decision.

Curiosity and an impulse to follow her own “investigations” led to a prison officer reading the confidential files of inmates at a prison near Ipswich, the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission heard.

Carol Nash was working as a Custodial Corrections Officer at Borallon Correctional Centre when she accessed the files of several inmates in a “deliberate departure” from her duties, the Commission found.

She viewed the records of inmates from both Borallon prison and Townsville Women’s Correctional Centre where she was previously employed.

The Integrated Offender Management System (IOMS) is a database used to store and manage confidential records and information about prisoners and on 18 occasions between January and April 2019, Ms Nash used it to access these records.
Ms Nash did have authority to access records as required for work purposes but on these occasions was acting outside of her duties, the Commission found.

Documents published by the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission this month reveal that Ms Nash claimed she was accessing these files for work and educational purposes.

Borallon prison officer Carol Nash read the confidential files of several inmates without authority.

However, when Queensland Corrective Services launched their initial investigation into Ms Nash’s conduct, she gave several other explanations for accessing the records.

These included her saying she might have made some typos and a “totally random” prisoner would have shown up, because she was assessing “trends” between men and women’s prisons, and to see if prisoner’s religious or allergy diets had changed.

Another reason given was because she had heard “interesting” events or incidents in the Townsville prison and wanted to “have a look at” what happened and who was involved.

She also said she would assess whether a prisoner who was not incarcerated at Borallon was suitable for employment there, even though prisoners from other correctional centres are not able to apply for employment at Borallon.

The document states none of these reasons were related to Ms Nash’s work duties and were therefore not authorised.

Queensland Corrective Services found these various explanations to be “implausible and self-serving” and her failure to engage honestly in their investigation and discipline process was of considerable concern.

Following this investigation internal disciplinary action was taken in June and Ms Nash’s paypoint was reduced from level GS 2-4 to GS 2-1, which amounted to a reduction of $391 per fortnight, for 12 months.

She was not accused of any criminal wrongdoing.

After the 12 months Ms Nash would be eligible to work her way up annually to her previous level.

Ms Nash appealed this decision and took the matter to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission.

“I am appealing this decision on the basis that the disciplinary action taken against me was unfair and unreasonable,” Ms Nash said.

“It is not in dispute that I accessed IOMS records of prisoners in the allegations schedule, however it is disputed that I accessed IOMS without authority.”

Ms Nash said the penalty was “unfair” given her “exemplary work record” and more than 10 years of service.

In the appeal Ms Nash claimed the department introduced new training regarding the proper use of the database which she did not receive until after the misconduct had occurred.

She also said her management had given her “express authority” to access the database for educational purposes.

“Ms Nash had previously offered a variety of implausible explanations for her access to the IOMS records but appears to now suggest that the only reason for the access was for ‘educational purposes’,” QIRC Commissioner Samantha Pidgeon said.

“In circumstances where the IOMS policy was known to Ms Nash and she was required to acknowledge terms of use each time she logged in, it seems to me that her access of files of prisoners unrelated to her duties was a deliberate departure from accepted standards.

“Even accepting that it was possible Ms Nash had authorisation to access IOMS for educational purposes for some of the occasions listed in the allegation schedule, it remains the case that Ms Nash had accessed several of the files out of curiosity or to follow a line of investigation she was ‘interested in’.

“Ms Nash accessed the files for reasons of personal curiosity and that she did not give the information to anyone else.

“I note that this was taken into account by the decision maker in determining the ultimate disciplinary outcome and that the outcome would have been far more serious had the information been used for purposes other than personal interest.”

Ms Pidgeon upheld the finding that Ms Nash accessed files without authority and that the disciplinary action against her was fair and reasonable.