High Court cuts Don Dale unlawful tear-gassing damages

The High Court has reduced exemplary damages for four former Don Dale detainees who were unlawfully exposed to tear gas in 2014, cutting the amount from $200,000 each to $50,000 each.

The ruling leaves the total damages at $360,000 and marks another major turn in a case that has been litigated for years and closely watched in the Northern Territory.

What the court changed

The case concerns Josiah Binsaris, Kieran Webster, Leroy O'Shea and one unnamed former 16-year-old detainee.

They were in the Behaviour Management Unit at Don Dale Youth Detention Centre when CS gas was used on August 21, 2014.

Reporting on the latest decision says the High Court reduced only the exemplary damages component of the award. Exemplary damages are intended to punish wrongdoing and deter similar conduct.

The reduction means the total award now stands at $360,000.

The long legal path

The Don Dale incident has already produced multiple court findings. In 2020, the High Court found the use of the gas unlawful.

In September 2023, the Northern Territory Supreme Court ordered almost $1 million in damages, including exemplary damages of $200,000 each for the four plaintiffs.

The June 17, 2026 ruling cut that exemplary component to $50,000 each.

The latest decision does not change the underlying history of the case: the tear-gassing took place in 2014, and the courts later found it unlawful.

Why the case matters

The dispute has become one of the most significant youth justice cases in the Northern Territory.

It raises questions about compensation for former detainees, accountability for government conduct, and the safeguards that should protect children and young people in detention.

It also matters because exemplary damages are meant to do more than compensate. They are designed to mark the court's response to serious wrongdoing and to discourage similar conduct in future.

Reaction from one plaintiff

Leroy O'Shea said through the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency that the decision mattered because it recognised that what happened to the group was wrong and that young people in detention deserve dignity and care.

His response kept the focus on the human impact of the case, as well as the legal outcome.

What happens next

Further detail may emerge if the High Court publishes written reasons explaining why it reduced the exemplary damages component.

It is also not yet clear whether the Northern Territory government or its lawyers will issue a formal response.

Advocates and legal observers are likely to watch for any further comment on the ruling and whether it prompts renewed scrutiny of youth detention practices in the territory.