Details of failed Alexander Maconochie Centre escape revealed as Guy Roberts faces court

Guy Pearson Roberts, 43, faced the ACT Magistrates Court on Thursday after pleading guilty to attempting to escape from custody and obstructing a territory public official.

Agreed facts tendered to the court on Thursday state about 11.30pm on March 19, 2022, Roberts and fellow prisoner George George used a metal stool to break through their cell window.

"I tried to do a Houdini," George said on the phone from the Alexander Maconochie Centre days after the incident.

The pair successfully struck the window out of its frame before fastening one end of tied-together bed sheets to a bolted metal stool in their cell, throwing the other end out the open window.

Roberts and George then "rappelled down the outside of the sentenced block".

The noise caused by the window smashing alerted ACT Corrective Services officers, who apprehended the two inmates after using capsicum spray.

About 20 minutes later, police located a blue-coloured duffel bag along the prison's eastern side perimeter fence "in a near identical position" to where corrections officers saw an unidentified motorbike rider try to throw an item over the fence.

The bag contained a reciprocating saw, thick cut rope and towels.

Email communication between Roberts and his partner on the night of the attempted escape referred to a bag.

MORE COURT AND CRIME NEWS:

"plz just get to her house .. I need the bag plz," [sic] Roberts' email said.

While those facts are agreed on, the court heard on Thursday that Roberts denied possessing a "small-bladed weapon" during the attempted escape.

Defence lawyer Tamzin Lee also contested her client said words to the effect of "have you got your blade, I've got my blade" and "if you come near us, we will stab you" after rappelling down the prison building.

Ms Lee cross-examined two prison officers, who provided evidence to the court on Thursday as witnesses to the incident.

The officers both allege Roberts was in possession of a bladed weapon they each identified as a "shiv" on the night in question and they both heard him announce it verbally.

Ms Lee questioned the two witnesses on why large parts of their incident reports were "identical".

The lawyer described certain sections of those two reports as being "word for word, exactly the same".

"Is it possible your incident report does not reflect your individual memory but is what was spoken about in the [staff debrief following the March 19 incident]?" Ms Lee asked the first witness.

"Did you copy [witness one's] report?" she asked the second witness.

Both men, the only people to allegedly see the shiv, said they had written their reports from their own memories and reaffirmed having seen the weapon in Roberts' hand during the attempted prison escape.

Ms Lee said the evidence given by the two officers was at least "contaminated, somewhat", without alleging any "nefarious" behaviour from the men.

"There is simply no manner in which, coincidentally, [the officers] could have such large swathes of information in their reports that was identical or almost identical," she said.

"Benefit of the doubt must be given to Mr Roberts."

Special magistrate Gregor Urbas is set to hand down a decision on the case's contested facts on Friday.

Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can continue to access our trusted content: