Canberra woman sues ACT government over illegal jail strip search

Julianne Williams has filed a statement of claim in the Federal Court seeking damages over the incident at the Alexander Maconochie Centre in 2021. Last year, the ACT Supreme Court found that an attempted strip search in her room and a subsequent strip search in a toilet both breached the Human Rights Act. The use of force by officers was also ruled incompatible with her right to humane treatment.

The searches occurred after Ms Williams was moved to the Crisis Support Unit when prison authorities refused to allow her to attend her grandmother's funeral. Justice Verity McWilliam delivered the finding late last year.

Ms Williams' solicitor, Sam Tierney, said his client had initially sought an ex-gratia payment from the ACT treasurer as an act of grace, but correspondence shows that application has stalled. "The government has indicated that it wishes to litigate further in relation to the incident," Mr Tierney said. He described the video of the incident as showing "an absolutely traumatic" event.

Ms Williams is now seeking compensatory damages intended to rectify the harm caused and deter similar conduct in the future.

Why This Matters

The case tests how government accountability mechanisms operate when human rights breaches occur in custodial settings.
A damages award could set a precedent for compensation claims by detainees under the Human Rights Act.
The outcome may influence ACT corrections policy, particularly regarding strip searches and crisis support protocols.

Background

Julianne Williams was a detainee on remand at the Alexander Maconochie Centre in Canberra in 2021. After being denied permission to attend her grandmother's funeral, she became distressed and was moved to the Crisis Support Unit. During that transfer, staff attempted a strip search in her room and later conducted one in a toilet. The ACT Supreme Court found these searches breached the Human Rights Act and that force used was incompatible with her right to humane treatment. The ACT Human Rights Act allows for remedies including damages, though compensation is not automatic.

Key Perspectives

Julianne Williams and her legal team: They argue the incident was a major abuse of her rights and that compensation is necessary both to repair the harm and to deter future government misconduct. ACT government: Has chosen to litigate further rather than settle via an ex-gratia payment, indicating a dispute over liability or the appropriate remedy. Critics/Skeptics: Some may argue that damages claims against government bodies risk chilling legitimate security procedures, or that the court has already established the breach and a payment could have resolved the matter without further litigation.

What to Watch

The ACT government's defence and any arguments about the scope of compensation under the Human Rights Act.
Whether a settlement is reached before trial, or the case proceeds to a hearing on damages.
Potential changes to strip search policies at the Alexander Maconochie Centre in response to the original finding.

ZOTPAPER