❓ A Western Australian parliamentary question probes the standard procedures for prisoner urinalysis, focusing on consistency across prisons, sample integrity, disciplinary actions, witness availability, and record maintenance. The answer reveals varied procedures, prosecutorial review for compromised tests, arrangements for witnesses, and record keeping.
AnsweredQoN 70Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the answer to Question on Notice No. 36 -
(1) Prior to May 14 2001 was there or were there standard procedures for urinalysis of prisoners within the Western Australian Prisons system?
(2) If so -
(a) did the procedure vary from prison to prison or was it the same for all prisons;
(b) what were the procedures; and
(c) what was the consequence of a failure to follow procedures, and in particular was any disciplinary action taken with regard to a prisoner if the procedure was not followed?
(3) If there were no procedures or if only some prisons had procedures then in the absence of such procedures, in what way was the sample taken so as to ensure -
(a) the sample was not interfered with so as to mask drugs or provide a substitute sample;
(b) the sample was properly attributed to the correct prisoner; and
(c) there was no tampering with the sample after it has been given?
(4) Has any disciplinary action been taken against prisoners where the procedure followed did not guarantee that the sample had not been tampered with?
(5) What action prior and subsequent to the generic standing order has the prison system taken to ensure that witnesses are available at disciplinary proceedings to give evidence as to those procedures so that prisoners have an opportunity to question the propriety and correctness of the taking of the sample?
(6) In the time since you have been in Government has any prisoner been denied the presence of witnesses as to the taking of a sample?
(7) Are you able to say whether the requirement to maintain a register recording the details referred to in answer (4) to Question on Notice No. 36 is actually observed?
(1) Prior to May 14 2001 was there or were there standard procedures for urinalysis of prisoners within the Western Australian Prisons system?
(2) If so -
(a) did the procedure vary from prison to prison or was it the same for all prisons;
(b) what were the procedures; and
(c) what was the consequence of a failure to follow procedures, and in particular was any disciplinary action taken with regard to a prisoner if the procedure was not followed?
(3) If there were no procedures or if only some prisons had procedures then in the absence of such procedures, in what way was the sample taken so as to ensure -
(a) the sample was not interfered with so as to mask drugs or provide a substitute sample;
(b) the sample was properly attributed to the correct prisoner; and
(c) there was no tampering with the sample after it has been given?
(4) Has any disciplinary action been taken against prisoners where the procedure followed did not guarantee that the sample had not been tampered with?
(5) What action prior and subsequent to the generic standing order has the prison system taken to ensure that witnesses are available at disciplinary proceedings to give evidence as to those procedures so that prisoners have an opportunity to question the propriety and correctness of the taking of the sample?
(6) In the time since you have been in Government has any prisoner been denied the presence of witnesses as to the taking of a sample?
(7) Are you able to say whether the requirement to maintain a register recording the details referred to in answer (4) to Question on Notice No. 36 is actually observed?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
31 July 2001
Responded by
Minister for Racing and Gaming representing the Minister for Justice and Legal Affairs
Response time
48 days
(b) what were the procedures; and (c) what was the consequence of a failure to follow procedures, and in particular was any disciplinary action taken with regard to a prisoner if the procedure was not followed?
(c) what was the consequence of a failure to follow procedures, and in particular was any disciplinary action taken with regard to a prisoner if the procedure was not followed?
(b) the sample was properly attributed to the correct prisoner; and (c) there was no tampering with the sample after it has been given?
(c) there was no tampering with the sample after it has been given?
1 Prisons did not have a completely standard procedure although they all followed a similar format. 2 (a) See answer to 1. 2 (b) The procedures and instructions for each prison are attached for tabling. 2 (c) If a Prosecuting Officer became aware that there was reliable evidence supporting a claim that urinalysis testing procedures had not been followed in a way which prejudiced the integrity of the test results, then the charge against the prisoner would be reviewed and may not proceed. 3. See answer to 2(a) & (b). 4. The Department of Justice has advised that it is not aware of any such cases. 5. If a prisoner advises the Prosecuting Officer prior to a disciplinary hearing that he/she will be requesting a Prison Officer to be present to give evidence about the urinalysis procedure, the necessary arrangements can be made. If a prisoner raises the issue during the disciplinary hearing, attendance of a Prison Officer to give evidence is determined by the Visiting Justice. 6. The Department of Justice has advised that it is not aware of any such cases. 7. Yes, either as a written or computer record.
2 (a) See answer to 1. 2 (b) The procedures and instructions for each prison are attached for tabling. 2 (c) If a Prosecuting Officer became aware that there was reliable evidence supporting a claim that urinalysis testing procedures had not been followed in a way which prejudiced the integrity of the test results, then the charge against the prisoner would be reviewed and may not proceed. 3. See answer to 2(a) & (b). 4. The Department of Justice has advised that it is not aware of any such cases. 5. If a prisoner advises the Prosecuting Officer prior to a disciplinary hearing that he/she will be requesting a Prison Officer to be present to give evidence about the urinalysis procedure, the necessary arrangements can be made. If a prisoner raises the issue during the disciplinary hearing, attendance of a Prison Officer to give evidence is determined by the Visiting Justice. 6. The Department of Justice has advised that it is not aware of any such cases. 7. Yes, either as a written or computer record.
2 (b) The procedures and instructions for each prison are attached for tabling. 2 (c) If a Prosecuting Officer became aware that there was reliable evidence supporting a claim that urinalysis testing procedures had not been followed in a way which prejudiced the integrity of the test results, then the charge against the prisoner would be reviewed and may not proceed. 3. See answer to 2(a) & (b). 4. The Department of Justice has advised that it is not aware of any such cases. 5. If a prisoner advises the Prosecuting Officer prior to a disciplinary hearing that he/she will be requesting a Prison Officer to be present to give evidence about the urinalysis procedure, the necessary arrangements can be made. If a prisoner raises the issue during the disciplinary hearing, attendance of a Prison Officer to give evidence is determined by the Visiting Justice. 6. The Department of Justice has advised that it is not aware of any such cases. 7. Yes, either as a written or computer record.
2 (c) If a Prosecuting Officer became aware that there was reliable evidence supporting a claim that urinalysis testing procedures had not been followed in a way which prejudiced the integrity of the test results, then the charge against the prisoner would be reviewed and may not proceed. 3. See answer to 2(a) & (b). 4. The Department of Justice has advised that it is not aware of any such cases. 5. If a prisoner advises the Prosecuting Officer prior to a disciplinary hearing that he/she will be requesting a Prison Officer to be present to give evidence about the urinalysis procedure, the necessary arrangements can be made. If a prisoner raises the issue during the disciplinary hearing, attendance of a Prison Officer to give evidence is determined by the Visiting Justice. 6. The Department of Justice has advised that it is not aware of any such cases. 7. Yes, either as a written or computer record.
3. See answer to 2(a) & (b). 4. The Department of Justice has advised that it is not aware of any such cases. 5. If a prisoner advises the Prosecuting Officer prior to a disciplinary hearing that he/she will be requesting a Prison Officer to be present to give evidence about the urinalysis procedure, the necessary arrangements can be made. If a prisoner raises the issue during the disciplinary hearing, attendance of a Prison Officer to give evidence is determined by the Visiting Justice. 6. The Department of Justice has advised that it is not aware of any such cases. 7. Yes, either as a written or computer record.
4. The Department of Justice has advised that it is not aware of any such cases. 5. If a prisoner advises the Prosecuting Officer prior to a disciplinary hearing that he/she will be requesting a Prison Officer to be present to give evidence about the urinalysis procedure, the necessary arrangements can be made. If a prisoner raises the issue during the disciplinary hearing, attendance of a Prison Officer to give evidence is determined by the Visiting Justice. 6. The Department of Justice has advised that it is not aware of any such cases. 7. Yes, either as a written or computer record.
5. If a prisoner advises the Prosecuting Officer prior to a disciplinary hearing that he/she will be requesting a Prison Officer to be present to give evidence about the urinalysis procedure, the necessary arrangements can be made. If a prisoner raises the issue during the disciplinary hearing, attendance of a Prison Officer to give evidence is determined by the Visiting Justice. 6. The Department of Justice has advised that it is not aware of any such cases. 7. Yes, either as a written or computer record.
6. The Department of Justice has advised that it is not aware of any such cases. 7. Yes, either as a written or computer record.
7. Yes, either as a written or computer record.
(c) what was the consequence of a failure to follow procedures, and in particular was any disciplinary action taken with regard to a prisoner if the procedure was not followed?
(b) the sample was properly attributed to the correct prisoner; and (c) there was no tampering with the sample after it has been given?
(c) there was no tampering with the sample after it has been given?
1 Prisons did not have a completely standard procedure although they all followed a similar format. 2 (a) See answer to 1. 2 (b) The procedures and instructions for each prison are attached for tabling. 2 (c) If a Prosecuting Officer became aware that there was reliable evidence supporting a claim that urinalysis testing procedures had not been followed in a way which prejudiced the integrity of the test results, then the charge against the prisoner would be reviewed and may not proceed. 3. See answer to 2(a) & (b). 4. The Department of Justice has advised that it is not aware of any such cases. 5. If a prisoner advises the Prosecuting Officer prior to a disciplinary hearing that he/she will be requesting a Prison Officer to be present to give evidence about the urinalysis procedure, the necessary arrangements can be made. If a prisoner raises the issue during the disciplinary hearing, attendance of a Prison Officer to give evidence is determined by the Visiting Justice. 6. The Department of Justice has advised that it is not aware of any such cases. 7. Yes, either as a written or computer record.
2 (a) See answer to 1. 2 (b) The procedures and instructions for each prison are attached for tabling. 2 (c) If a Prosecuting Officer became aware that there was reliable evidence supporting a claim that urinalysis testing procedures had not been followed in a way which prejudiced the integrity of the test results, then the charge against the prisoner would be reviewed and may not proceed. 3. See answer to 2(a) & (b). 4. The Department of Justice has advised that it is not aware of any such cases. 5. If a prisoner advises the Prosecuting Officer prior to a disciplinary hearing that he/she will be requesting a Prison Officer to be present to give evidence about the urinalysis procedure, the necessary arrangements can be made. If a prisoner raises the issue during the disciplinary hearing, attendance of a Prison Officer to give evidence is determined by the Visiting Justice. 6. The Department of Justice has advised that it is not aware of any such cases. 7. Yes, either as a written or computer record.
2 (b) The procedures and instructions for each prison are attached for tabling. 2 (c) If a Prosecuting Officer became aware that there was reliable evidence supporting a claim that urinalysis testing procedures had not been followed in a way which prejudiced the integrity of the test results, then the charge against the prisoner would be reviewed and may not proceed. 3. See answer to 2(a) & (b). 4. The Department of Justice has advised that it is not aware of any such cases. 5. If a prisoner advises the Prosecuting Officer prior to a disciplinary hearing that he/she will be requesting a Prison Officer to be present to give evidence about the urinalysis procedure, the necessary arrangements can be made. If a prisoner raises the issue during the disciplinary hearing, attendance of a Prison Officer to give evidence is determined by the Visiting Justice. 6. The Department of Justice has advised that it is not aware of any such cases. 7. Yes, either as a written or computer record.
2 (c) If a Prosecuting Officer became aware that there was reliable evidence supporting a claim that urinalysis testing procedures had not been followed in a way which prejudiced the integrity of the test results, then the charge against the prisoner would be reviewed and may not proceed. 3. See answer to 2(a) & (b). 4. The Department of Justice has advised that it is not aware of any such cases. 5. If a prisoner advises the Prosecuting Officer prior to a disciplinary hearing that he/she will be requesting a Prison Officer to be present to give evidence about the urinalysis procedure, the necessary arrangements can be made. If a prisoner raises the issue during the disciplinary hearing, attendance of a Prison Officer to give evidence is determined by the Visiting Justice. 6. The Department of Justice has advised that it is not aware of any such cases. 7. Yes, either as a written or computer record.
3. See answer to 2(a) & (b). 4. The Department of Justice has advised that it is not aware of any such cases. 5. If a prisoner advises the Prosecuting Officer prior to a disciplinary hearing that he/she will be requesting a Prison Officer to be present to give evidence about the urinalysis procedure, the necessary arrangements can be made. If a prisoner raises the issue during the disciplinary hearing, attendance of a Prison Officer to give evidence is determined by the Visiting Justice. 6. The Department of Justice has advised that it is not aware of any such cases. 7. Yes, either as a written or computer record.
4. The Department of Justice has advised that it is not aware of any such cases. 5. If a prisoner advises the Prosecuting Officer prior to a disciplinary hearing that he/she will be requesting a Prison Officer to be present to give evidence about the urinalysis procedure, the necessary arrangements can be made. If a prisoner raises the issue during the disciplinary hearing, attendance of a Prison Officer to give evidence is determined by the Visiting Justice. 6. The Department of Justice has advised that it is not aware of any such cases. 7. Yes, either as a written or computer record.
5. If a prisoner advises the Prosecuting Officer prior to a disciplinary hearing that he/she will be requesting a Prison Officer to be present to give evidence about the urinalysis procedure, the necessary arrangements can be made. If a prisoner raises the issue during the disciplinary hearing, attendance of a Prison Officer to give evidence is determined by the Visiting Justice. 6. The Department of Justice has advised that it is not aware of any such cases. 7. Yes, either as a written or computer record.
6. The Department of Justice has advised that it is not aware of any such cases. 7. Yes, either as a written or computer record.
7. Yes, either as a written or computer record.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.