Report by the nsw state Coroner into deaths in custody/police operation

Coordination of Operation

It is important to keep in perspective that police actions in searching in the vicinity of the river were aimed at apprehending suspects. This did not commence as a search and rescue operation. It is obvious that the search for the two suspects did not demonstrate the precision or coordination of a police operation planned in advance. One would not expect it to in the circumstances. It is also obvious that there were aspects in relation to the handing over of command as senior officers left the area that could be improved. However, the purpose of the inquest is not to assess police actions against some hypothetical standard of perfection. Rather the salient question is whether any shortcomings in the command and coordination of the operation contributed to RS’s death. In this context it was noted that, when police arrived at the river, there was no certainty that those whom they were seeking were still in the vicinity. Indeed, the river had provided a successful means of escape in the recent past. Hence, there was no defined area for police to search. Even after CJ was located, the information he provided indicated that his companion was no longer in the area. Consequentially, while police efforts were aimed at searching and containing the area along the river in case the other suspect was still present, the search needed to remain flexible. It was not considered that any shortcomings in the command and coordination of this operation impacted on the tragic outcome.

Police Strategy

In the course of the inquest criticism was directed at the police strategy described as “waiting out” the suspects in the river. This was coupled with the submission that police had a duty to ensure the suspects emerged from the river as soon as possible because they, the police, had an adult appreciation of the hazards posed by the river which would not be shared by juveniles. As the Deputy State Coroner understood the submission, it was not only that a boat would be called immediately the suspects headed to the river but also that police would leave the area, thereby allowing the suspects to emerge from the river unscathed and, presumably, escape.

As was commented previously, police were actively searching along the river, not passively waiting. It was considered whether the extent of the search was reasonable and appropriate given the circumstances of the offence and decided it was. As to the notion that police owed a special duty to juvenile offenders in the context of the search, it was noted that police were unaware of the identities, and ages, of the suspects until actually observing them. RS was over 17 years of age at the time. According to GM, he was familiar with the river, having swum in it over a number of years in all seasons. It is probably underestimating RS to suggest that he was unaware of the risks involved. Whether he fully appreciated those risks, or at least his ability to deal with those risks, on 16 September given his intoxication with “speed” is another matter. From an objective perspective, it seems that RS had the option of leaving the water at the same time as CJ. As soon as police noted RS’s presence, they called to him continually to get out of the water. There is every indication that police officers would have assisted him to do so. In those circumstances, the Deputy State Coroner had no criticism of the way police carried out their duties.

Boat

The boat that was used to search for RS following his disappearance was owned and operated by the VRA. According to Sgt. P, formerly of Police Rescue Squad, who was responsible for the VRA in Dubbo the response time for getting the boat in the water was better than he would have anticipated - under 25 minutes between the call-out and when the boat was in the water. Evidence was given that the boat had been used previously in rescue operations on the river but it had never been used in a police operation to apprehend suspects. Sgt. P stated that it was not appropriate for civilians to be engaged in such operations. However, the evidence clearly shows that the boat was originally called for at the time when such an operation was in progress. In this situation the boat should, optimally, have been operated by trained police personnel.

Nevertheless, even if operated by police, the boat would need to have been launched in an even quicker period of time and, from Mr B's evidence as set out below, to have been positioned directly alongside RS when he disappeared to have impacted on the outcome. There was insufficient evidence presented about the practicalities of police owning and/or manning a boat in the Dubbo to make a positive recommendation in this regard. However, it is obvious that a boat manned by police officers to be used in the apprehension of offenders would be a valuable resource given that offenders apparently use the river regularly as means of escape. Hence, the Deputy State Coroner determined to recommend that the Commissioner of Police assess the feasibility of training police personnel to operate and access a boat at Dubbo.

Comments of Police Officers

Three teenagers standing on the footbridge gave evidence of hearing comments made by police and RS which were not otherwise in evidence. Taken in a coherent context they appear to be that after RS uttered the words to which all witnesses attested, “Help me, I’m drowning”, an unidentified voice said, “It’s your own fault. Swim to the side and we’ll help you.” RS said, “No”. The police officers who gave evidence were asked individually about these comments and no one recalls that interchange. The Deputy State Coroner was asked unanimously by all counsel at the Bar table to discount this evidence as unreliable. It was noted that the youths were a considerable distance away both from police officers on the banks and RS in the water. It was also noted that there were many opportunities for them to exchange versions of the events of that day. It was considered that they were genuinely trying to provide accurate recollections. However, it was likely that they have given an interpretation of their observations rather than an account of the actual words spoken. In any event, taken in context, the Deputy State Coroner did not draw any negative inference from the words. The actions of both RS and police officers speak for themselves. RS did not attempt to go to the side. Police officers did go to his assistance.

Rescue Attempts

According to Mr B who not only observed the events of 16 September but also knows the river intimately and, additionally, has had the experience of rescuing a person in difficulties, the only reasonable chance of rescue was if someone was positioned alongside RS so as to grab him as he went under the water. No police officer was close enough to achieve this. However, Detective Senior Constable S, Senior Constable W and Detective Inspector W all voluntarily entered the river to try to save RS even though they were concerned about the prevailing conditions of cold and current. Collectively, they covered the area between where RS disappeared and the footbridge. There was a police presence in the water until the VRA boat arrived. The Deputy State Coroner had no criticism of those officers who did not enter the river. It was a personal decision based on their assessment of their own abilities to cope with the conditions. Those officers who went to RS’s aid displayed courage and selflessness. They are to be commended. The Deputy State Coroner determined to recommend that their bravery be officially recognised, and would also make a recommendation in respect of Senior Constable W who entered the water to assist CJ and then walked on logs out to the clump of willows to reach RS.

Directory: Documents
Documents -> Concept stage
Documents -> Concept stage
Documents -> The great global switch-off
Documents -> Nonprofit grant application
Documents -> The Truth about the Rwandan Genocide
Documents -> Annual InStructional unit plan
Documents -> Chaos equipment included

Download 0.8 Mb.

Share with your friends: