Officer loses appeal over assault of boy within WA’s Banksia Hill

A custodial officer at WA’s trouble-plagued Banksia Hill juvenile detention centre has failed in his appeal over his unlawful assault of a 14-year-old boy.

A solitary confinement cell at Banksia Hill juvenile detention centre.

A custodial officer at Western Australia’s trouble-plagued Banksia Hill juvenile detention centre has failed in his appeal over his unlawful assault of a 14-year-old boy, in a case that has highlighted a lack of training and chronic staff shortages.

But CCTV footage of the moment officer Mark Griffen slammed the boy to the floor will remain unseen by the public after the Supreme Court rejected an application by The Australian for the footage.

Griffen was fined $3000 and given a spent conviction in May, and his appeal against the conviction has now been dismissed by the Supreme Court.

The incident took place in May 2022, when the boy – known as a prolific spitter responsible for “daily” assaults on staff inside Banksia Hill – had returned to the facility after being denied bail.

He had smashed an overhead light inside a cell at Perth Children’s Court and damaged a seatbelt in the vehicle that returned him to Banksia Hill, and was required to be screened by officers inside the facility’s reception area.

The boy, who stood about shoulder height to Griffen, was told to stand on a box while he was “wanded” by the officers. He became agitated, swearing at and threatening officers before thrusting his chin at Griffen.

The court found Griffen then grabbed the boy by the back of his neck, pushing him off the box and slamming him into the ground, and the incident was captured on CCTV. The boy was left winded, and told the court he had a sore hand, neck and back for a couple of days after.

In his judgment, Supreme Court Justice Robert Mitchell acknowledged Griffen was facing a “difficult and challenging situation”. “He was aware of the complainant’s history of regular assaults against custodial officers, and was reasonably concerned that the complainant might have secreted an item that could be used as a weapon on his person,” Justice Mitchell wrote.

“However, allowance must also be made for the fact that the complainant was a 14-year-old boy who was of much smaller stature than the appellant and other custodial officers.”

Justice Mitchell said there were other options available that required a much lower degree of physical force. “That use of force carried with it a significant risk of serious injury to the complainant as his back and potentially his head struck the floor. It was, in my view, more than the minimum degree of physical force required to control the behaviour of a 14-year-old boy of relatively small stature standing on a box surrounded by four custodial officers.”

During the trial, the court heard from multiple officers that staff at the facility had received limited training. One of the other youth custodial officers, Mathew Lyons, told how training in communication and de-escalation techniques had “gone out the window” due to staff shortages.

WA’s handling of juvenile detainees has been under intense scrutiny in recent years amid a spate of incidents inside Banksia Hill and the Unit 18 facility established for young offenders within the maximum-security Casuarina men’s prison.