Supreme Court considers appeal over assault allegations from Palmerston watch house

A woman who alleges she was assaulted by a female police officer during an illegal search is fighting to avoid the trauma of another trial following a Supreme Court appeal. WARNING: Distressing.

A local court judge found a female police officer inserted “one or more fingers” into the woman’s vagina during an illegal search in 2020. Picture: Pema Tamang Pakhrin

A woman who was allegedly assaulted during an illegal police search in a Territory watch house is fighting to avoid the trauma of yet another civil trial.

The woman, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, was initially awarded $120,000 in damages after a local court judge found that a female police officer inserted “one or more fingers” into her vagina during an illegal search at the Palmerston watch house in 2020.

The NT News understands that no criminal charges were ever laid in relation to the woman’s civil battery lawsuit.

In August last year the payment was appealed in the Supreme Court due to a legal error, with Justice Trevor Riley ordering that the matter return to another local court judge.

On Monday — five years on from the alleged assault — her senior counsel Kathleen Foley appealed to the full bench of the Supreme Court to review this decision to avoid sending her client “back to square one”.

The woman, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, was initially awarded $120,000 in damages. Picture: Tinnakorn Jorruang/iStock

The courts heard that the woman had been drinking and using methamphetamine “in a self-destructive matter” in the days before her arrest in late 2020, and she later admitted to robbery and drug possession offences.

While in the Palmerston watch house, recordings captured police discussing their suspicions that she had “concealed” stolen property, jewellery or drugs inside herself.

Despite the Police Administration Act stating that a “non-consensual internal search” must be conducted by a doctor, it was alleged during the civil trial that a Police Officer took it on herself to conduct an illegal search.

A local court judge said CCTV captured her putting a metal detector between the woman’s thighs, “gently kicked her feet apart” and — in a two second frame — the officer’s “hand moves quickly up towards the Plaintiff’s groin area”.

The woman later described a “fast, rough and very painful” feeling as without warning the police officer allegedly stuck her finger into her vagina. Picture: Pema Tamang Pakhrin

She later described a “fast, rough and very painful” feeling as without warning the police officer allegedly stuck her finger into her vagina.

CCTV captured the woman exclaiming “ow don’t do that!”, before breaking down in tears and saying there was “no need to stick your finger up my private parts”.

The Police officer has contested that she made any contact with the woman’s vagina, claiming that her shirt was “bunched up” between her legs so it was not “physically possible” for the penetration to have occurred.

However the local court judge said the CCTV showed that the arrested woman’s skirt was not bunched up, and the officer’s hand went “under the skirt with her palm facing upwards”.

After the alleged assault the officer changed her gloves, told another cop: “I don’t think she’s got underwear on”, said she did not believe she was “concealing” and joked with colleagues about “that sneaky finger slip”.

CCTV captured the woman exclaiming “ow don’t do that!”, before breaking down in tears and saying there was “no need to stick your finger up my private parts”. Picture: Zizi Averill generic

The officer claimed this inappropriate joke was made because she was “upset” by ‘false accusations’ from another woman.

But the judge found: “She looked like a person willingly joking about inserting a finger to search the vagina of a suspect.”

He did highlight weaknesses in the assault claims, including CCTV footage that “leave room for contention” and questions about the woman’s credibility — as she had 16 pages of prior convictions, including 30 property or dishonesty offences.

The original judge said the woman was likely still intoxicated and “told a number of lies on the day of her arrest and search”, including falsely accusing other police of physically assaulting her during her initial arrest.

Despite this, in the original civil case the judge found “the surrounding evidence is more than sufficient to overcome that doubt”.

He handed down his decision in favour of the arrested woman in December 2023, but after 38 days the NT Government filed their challenge listing eight potential grounds for appeal.

Acting Justice Trevor Riley

Justice Riley overturned the decision solely on the issue of the “inadequate” reasons for the decision and ordered that it should return before a different local court judge.

“Significant issues raised on that path were either not resolved or, if findings were made, any use made of those findings in making the final determination was not disclosed,” Justice Riley said.

On Monday Ms Foley said while her client accepted the appeal, she was fighting for the case to return to the original judge rather than restart the entire process five years on.

Ms Foley said after enduring cross-examination and a long court process, through no fault of the woman or her counsel, she was being forced back to “square one”.

“We say it’s in the interest of justice when one considers efficiency, timeliness and also of course reducing the burden on the witnesses in the court, to tailor the relief to the nature of the error which has been identified,” she said.

The NT Government’s senior counsel David McLure said it would be inappropriate for the original judge to review the case, as ultimately the appeal was about addressing a question of her credibility.

But Chief Justice Michael Grant said that the finding that the reasons for the decision were not “adequately disclosed” did not inherently mean that the local court judge’s findings were incorrect.

“None of this constitutes a conclusion that the local court was wrong in the credit based findings that it made, or that the fact finding process miscarried,” Justice Grant said.

The three justices adjourned the hearing to a later date to make their decision.

Originally published as Supreme Court considers appeal over assault allegations from Palmerston watch house