Report by the nsw state Coroner into deaths in custody/police operation
Download 0.8 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Background
The Role of the CoronerThe primary role of the coroner is to determine the identity of each deceased, the date and place of death and the manner and cause of death. Those findings must form part of the Coroners formal findings and are the mechanism by which the deaths and cause of death are ultimately registered under the provisions of the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages Act (NSW). Under the provisions of Section 22A of the Coroners Act 1980, a Coroner may make recommendations. Such recommendations are usually made on issues associated with pubic health or safety and the Coroner can make a recommendation that a matter be investigated or reviewed by a specified person or body. Before proceeding further, it was important the Deputy State Coroner felt to state that Coroners Courts are not Courts of blame, its function is limited by Statute. If shortcomings or system failures are detected it is in the spirit of the inquisitorial process that is hoped that lessons can be learned and if necessary by comment or by formal recommendations perceived deficiencies (if they exist) can be identified and hopefully remedied. In that context the Deputy State Coroner said from the outset, that much of the Inquest has focused on the action of perceived in-action of Police in relation to a number of events in the period of approximately 5 weeks before the tragic events of September 15. The Deputy State Coroner was heartened by the evidence given by the P family and their view that they are not seeking to apportion blame, but rather to seek to identify those areas which might be appropriate to examine and review. In the context of that comment, The Deputy State Coroner wished to make it very clear to all Officers who were involved in the series of events from 2 August 2003 and up to 15 September 2003, that any comments made in my formal findings should not be perceived by them as personal criticism. The Deputy State Coroner was well aware of the tremendous pressure our Police Officers work under, that it’s a much younger and inexperienced Police Service operating under difficult staffing and budgetary constraints. That factor seems to repeat itself, whether it be in the community services, mental health, hospitals, etc. He was also well aware of the impact Part XV of the Crimes Act 1900 (the section that deals with Domestic and Personal Violence matters) has had, not only on the Police Service, but also on the Courts and associated government instrumentalities. Part XV of the Crimes Act 1900 was enacted in 1987 and the workload of the Police and Courts virtually doubled overnight and even today, some 18 years after that legislation was invoked there is no doubt that it is perhaps one of the most taxing areas in terms of resources, education and training. Turning now to the events on and leading up to 15 September 2003, it is not necessary to reiterate those events, other than very briefly. Chief Inspector L prepared a most comprehensive brief of evidence which ahs been reviewed by Detective Inspector P. In addition Counsel assisting has given an opening address in which he succinctly summarised the facts and issues. That opening address forms part of the official transcript and the Deputy State Coroner wished to spare the P family the need to re-visit those tragic events by repeating them in any detail in his formal findings. It should also be said, that while this Inquest focused on identified issues, the entire evidence which is contained in the 5 volumes and exhibits has been closely examined not only by the Coroner, but also by Counsel assisting. The decision not to call certain witnesses, for example the Forensic Pathologist, or view video re-enactments in Court was deliberate and in accordance with the wishes of the P family. The Deputy State Coroner also said that throughout the past 22 months he had close and regular contact with Chief Inspector L who not only arranged for him to view the scene, but regularly kept him informed of the progress of the investigation and well being and wishes of the P family. BackgroundIP met PK in Thailand in 1997 when she was teaching English in Chang Mai. A relationship developed and they were married in a Thai Marriage Ceremony in 1998. They both returned to Australia and during 1999 moved into premises. The property was a large semi-rural holding with a single level home and an attached flat. At the time of moving in, IP’s father, PP and his wife CP resided in the substantive part of the home and IP and PK took up residence in the adjoining flat. The relationship produced 2 children, MK who was born in 1999 and SK who was born in 2001. The evidence from IP is that the marriage was a happy one for a number of years. However, it began to deteriorate some time after SK’s birth and the couple separated in June 2003. PK found accommodation elsewhere, however, he regularly saw IP and the children. It is apparent from evidence that the relationship became further strained after separation. It appears that PK could not accept that the relationship was over and believed the parties would reconcile. It is also apparent that during this period of separation his behaviour and mood was changing and a number of incidents of domestic violence took place. On 2 August 2003, an incident took place which involved the Police, and this was the first occasion Police became involved. Further contact was had with Police on 4 August (DVO applied for), 27 August (at Court), 28 August (report of breach) and 15 September 2003 (report of breach). The report to Police of the Domestic Violence Orders on 15 September 2003 resulted in Police attending the property, setting up a crime scene, and taking IP to hospital for examination and treatment. She returned to the Police Station at Windsor at around 11.30pm and after an informal interview with Detective S a decision was made to return IP to her home in order for her to rest and have a meal. It is apparent from the brief that PK had tried unsuccessfully to contact IP during the late morning following 2 phone calls to her mobile. Call records indicate that he phoned the property on 2 occasions and it’s evident that he would have spoken to PP and was informed that IP was with the Police. It is clear from the evidence that PK then left his employment, purchased a knife and drove to the property. At around 1.30pm he arrived at the property and shortly thereafter PP was deceased, as was MK and SK and PK was suffering from self inflicted knife wounds. It would appear that Detective S, Constable, M and IP arrived at the property within minutes of the fatal assaults. Upon arrival the evidence would suggest that PP and the children were deceased and PK was critically ill. As a result of the actions by PK to further inflict injuries on the child SK, he was shot twice by Detective S. PK was treated at the scene for his injuries and transported to hospital where he passed away shortly thereafter. In terms of formal findings, being satisfied as to the identity of each deceased, and having regard to the findings of the Forensic Pathologist, PP and SK died on 15 September 2003 at the property, from stab wounds to the chest, inflicted by a person since deceased. Similarly in regard to MK the finding will be that she died on 15 September 2003 at the same address from multiple stab wounds to the body, inflicted by a person since deceased. In regard to PK the finding will be that he died on 15 September 2003 at Hawkesbury Hospital, Windsor from stab wounds to the chest, self-inflicted with the intention of taking his own life. It should be stated that while the Forensic Pathologist has included in his post mortem finding that those gunshot wounds to PK’s arms may have contributed to his death, it is evident that those gunshot injuries by themselves were non fatal. That finding clearly imports that the consequences of PK being shot by Detective S did not directly result in his death. The post mortem findings are unequivocal that the self-inflicted stab wounds were the primary cause of death. The Deputy State Coroner was guided by the views of Chief Inspector L and the crime scene examiners that would suggest, that on the balance of probabilities the order of death was MK, PP, SK and PK. 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:
|