A South Australian prisoner was wrongfully held in custody for several months beyond his sentence release date, an investigation by Ombudsman SA has found — and the Department for Correctional Services has refused to pay the inmate compensation, saying it "respectfully disagrees" with the recommendation to do so.
The ombudsman's investigation determined the male prisoner was detained past his lawful release date due to what it described as "insufficient" processes within the department. While the department acted quickly to free the man once the error was identified, the findings raise serious questions about transparency, accountability and the treatment of prisoners in state custody.
What the Ombudsman Found
The investigation concluded that the Department for Correctional Services was "in breach" of the Correctional Services Act and had acted "inconsistently" with both international and national human rights standards by failing to release the prisoner on time.
Beyond the unlawful detention itself, the ombudsman found the department compounded its error through a prolonged failure to communicate honestly with the prisoner. According to the investigation's findings, it took the department five years to inform the man that he had been held beyond his release date — and it only did so after the ombudsman's office intervened directly.
"It did not appear the department had any intention of advising the prisoner of its error until the ombudsman requested it do so," the ombudsman's report stated.
When the department did eventually write to the prisoner, the letter fell well short of what the ombudsman considered adequate. The investigation found the correspondence "did not offer an apology or inform the prisoner of their legal rights against the state."
The ombudsman warned this failure had the potential to affect the prisoner's ability to seek legal redress, noting that the extended delay in disclosure was itself inconsistent with human rights standards and "the reasonable expectations of the community in regard to the state's treatment of prisoners."
Compensation Rejected Despite Ombudsman Recommendation
The ombudsman made three formal recommendations arising from the investigation. These included a review of practices and systems across all correctional facilities, as well as a request that the department consider making an ex gratia payment — a discretionary compensation payment — to the prisoner.
The Department for Correctional Services acknowledged the ombudsman's findings but pushed back on the compensation recommendation. A departmental spokeswoman said the incident had occurred six years ago and that, since then, both the department and contracted operator G4S had introduced new processes to better manage prisoner release dates.
"The government respectfully disagrees with the ombudsman's request to pay compensation," she said.
The ombudsman's report was clear about the gravity of the department's conduct, stating: "The seriousness of the department's error was exacerbated by the fact that the department knew it had held the prisoner in error and failed to provide timely advice of this fact, offer an apology or make him aware of the compensation options available to him."
Accountability and Systemic Reform
The case has drawn attention to the broader obligation on government agencies to acknowledge and address errors that directly harm individuals. The ombudsman's report noted plainly that "South Australian government agencies are required to take accountability for errors when they have an impact on people."
The department's acknowledgment that new processes have since been introduced suggests the systemic gap identified in the investigation has been at least partially addressed. However, the refusal to compensate the prisoner means the man — who was unlawfully deprived of his liberty for several months — will not receive any financial recognition of that harm unless further legal action is pursued.
Questions about when corrections systems fail to manage the release of individuals properly continue to surface across Australia, underscoring the need for rigorous oversight of custodial institutions and the processes governing when and how people are freed from state detention.
