Qld prison guard Jodi Irene Peacock’s $350k damage claim against state

A Queensland prison guard sued the State for nearly $350k after claiming she suffered an injury to her lumbar spine while pivoting and running during a physical exam.

Jodi Irene Peacock, 48, was based at the Borallon Training and Correctional Centre in Ipswich.

A Queensland prison guard sued the State claiming almost $350,000 in damages after she injured her back during a physical exam and claimed she was told to “suck it up princess”.

Jodi Irene Peacock, 48, has worked for Queensland Correctional Services since 2001, she was based at the Borallon Training and Correctional Centre in Ipswich at the time.

In November 2020, Ms Peacock undertook the practical aspect of her firearms renewal assessment, which included a reactionary gap test.

The test aims to demonstrate how far an aggressor can run toward an officer before they can draw and fire their weapon, and show what distance an officer should keep.

Ms Peacock alleged that she was told to start by facing the instructor, turn and run away from the instructor as fast as she could, and then stop suddenly when she heard the instructor shoot in the opposite direction towards the target.

Ms Peacock claimed she suffered an injury to her lumbar spine as a result of pivoting to run away, running, stopping suddenly, and turning to face the instructor when she heard the gun.

“As I was running, I felt I had [hurt] myself, but when I stopped, I felt intense pain down my legs … right down from my buttocks down to the back of my knee … white hot pains down the backs of my leg,” she said in her testimony.

Ms Peacock further claimed that the firearms assessment instructors and some of her QCS colleagues at Borallon told her to “suck it up princess” when she reported that she was in pain. This was denied by those involved.

Jodi Irene Peacock, 48, has worked for Queensland Correctional Services as a custodial corrections officer since 2001, she was based at the Borallon Training and Correctional Centre in Ipswich when she injured her back. Photo: LinkedIn

In her Brisbane District Court civil suit, Ms Peacock claimed that QCS was negligent by failing to allow her to stretch and warm up prior to undertaking the test, failing to properly explain the reactionary gap demonstration to her, and requiring her to participate in the test.

She said that as a result of her injury she suffers ongoing pain from aggravation to a pre-existing degenerative lumbar spine condition. She was off work until the end of February 2021 and the injury led to her being unable to continue in her role as a QCS officer.

Ms Peacock originally claimed damages totalling $342,451. But in closing submissions, her legal team downgraded this and sought $95,301.

According to court documents, QCS denied negligence and disputed many of Ms Peacock’s assertions, particularly about the events of the day, what caused her injury, whether any permanent injury persisted and whether she suffered any loss.

In deciding the case, Judge Ken Barlow KC said it “seems clear” that Ms Peacock did suffer some form of injury to her hamstrings during her run that day.

“Her principal injury, as both orthopaedic surgeons agreed, was an aggravation of a previously unknown spinal degenerative disease,” Judge Barlow wrote in his decision.

“The presence of the disease was only discovered on review of the CT scan produced after this incident, but it appears that it had existed for some time. It may well have been the cause of her previous incidents of lower back pain.

“Ms Peacock’s allied health records showed that she had been complaining of and obtaining chiropractic treatment for back pain on several occasions in and since 2018 and even then she reported to a chiropractor that she had had lower back pain for years.

“It is particularly notable that the last period in which she had obtained chiropractic treatment, including for tightness and pain in her lower back and hips, was in September and October 2020 - only shortly before the incident at the firing range.”

In his decision, Judge Barlow concluded there was no foreseeable risk of injury because Ms Peacock was otherwise in good physical shape and the resulting spinal degenerative disease was unknown prior to the incident.

“There would have been a foreseeable risk that an unfit person (which Ms Peacock was not) may injure themselves in some relatively minor way, such as a hamstring or calf strain, in running fast for a short time,” the court judgment stated.

“Furthermore, the evidence did not demonstrate that any stretching or warming up would or may have prevented any injury, especially when Ms Peacock had in fact been physically active for the previous two hours or so while undertaking the assessment.

“QCS did not, therefore, breach its duty of care. For that reason, Ms Peacock’s claim fails.”