16th June 2013
It has been 14 months since my son Jason was shot and killed
from 2 gunshot wounds to the back of his body by Queensland Police Officer
Thomas Hess. After 10 days of evidence
the State Coroner Michael Barnes handed down his findings on Friday 14th
June 2013. This process took 29mins and
19 seconds although in an earlier report I did say 19 minutes immediately
following the findings. The report was
approximately 50 pages and I have labelled it the book of lies. From the very beginning of this ordeal I have
stated my intention to find the truth and I can honestly say I don’t believe
that has yet been found. I guess with
the Coroner’s findings they expect me to lay down and accept that this misguided
and shallow report is a true and accurate description of events that took place
on the day. However as I stated to the
media I do not believe that a blue uniform and a badge is an open licence to
kill. Well may Thomas Hess relish in
what Police Union boss Ian Leavers said that he was vindicated from any wrong
doing, I think most intelligent people would know who and what Police Union
President Ian Leavers is. I say to
Thomas Hess that well may you have and always had the support of Police Union
President Ian Leavers and the chief investigating officer of Ethical Standards
Command (ESC) of this case Inspector Mark Reid, I would like to remind you that
this is only round one, well may you feel that you have gotten away with this
and it is over but let me tell you it is not over and I will continue to seek
to find the truth. My next question that
I ask everyone is who is Michael Barnes?
I did not see any halo around his head whilst he sat delivering his
findings nor did I see anything else of any significance. All I saw was one man who when the crucial
witnesses took the stand, put a time limit on the family barrister and said he
wasted too much time on unnecessary questions.
I ask you the question that if any lay person shot dead a person whether
in self-defence or otherwise would have to face a jury of 12 people to decide
whether they were innocent or guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The purpose of a Coronial Inquest was to
gather evidence but not to try and test that evidence, that is done in a court
of Law. So my question is what right
does one man have to make the decision not to send this case to be heard and
tested within a court of law?
The findings released by the State Coroner Michael Barnes
raised many questions regarding the conduct of the Police Union President Ian
leavers and the lead investigator from Ethical Standards Command Inspector Mark
Reid. He has made several recommendations
regarding these issues. Within the
findings he has made the following recommendations with regard to Queensland
Police Union President Ian Leavers:
“The access provided to Mr Leavers and
other union officials to the command post
and their ready access to information
relating to the incident can be contrasted
with the circumstances in which the
Protheroe family found themselves. The two
officers involved had been provided,
entirely appropriately, with high quality legal
advice and emotional support.
Congregated on the boundary of the
outer cordon was the extended Protheroe
family. Grasping for information about
their son and brother and with no channel
of communication yet established with
the QPS, they were understandably
distraught. Although to someone with
little understanding of what had happened
their behaviour might have seemed
unruly, it should have been sufficiently
apparent to the uniformed officers
maintaining security of the outer cordon that it
was unnecessary and inappropriate to
tell them to ‘fuck off’ and to threaten them
with arrest if they did not leave, as
they claim occurred.
The callous treatment the family
members say they were subjected to when
compared with the compassion shown to
the shooter, understandably contributed
to a perception of bias on the family’s
part.”
Recommendation 1 –
Security of critical incident scenes
In order to avoid the
uncontrolled and unintended release of information and the
adverse impact that
can have on the integrity of an investigation, I recommend
the QPS review its
policies and procedures to ensure access is only granted to
the outer cordon of
critical incident scenes to those needed to investigate and/or
respond to the
incident. Union officials and employees should of course be given
ready access to their
members to support them but that should happen away
from the incident
scene whenever possible.
Recommendation 2 –
Initial family liaison
I am aware the QPS
has a family liaison policy that provides for the allocation of
a specific family
contact person in all cases of homicide. In deaths in custody, the
investigators from
the Ethical Standards Command discharge this role. That
happened in this
case.
However, as this case
demonstrates, in some instances, family or ‘secondary
victims’ will be at
the scene at the time of the incident or very soon after. QPS
procedures which
stipulate how the incident scene is to be managed should
stipulate that those
with a special interest in the incident, such as family members
of the deceased, are
to be treated appropriately and, as soon as possible, given
as much information
as can be released to them without compromising the
investigation.
Media comment
After attending the scene of the
shooting, Mr Leavers made numerous media
statements and partook in various
interviews with journalists in which he
purported to disclose details of the
circumstances of the shooting, some of which
he now concedes were wrong. He also
concedes he gained some of the
information (and misinformation) from
officers he spoke to while in the outer
cordon.
The first of the interviews were
broadcast at 5.01pm that afternoon, before some
of witnesses to the events had been
interviewed by the investigators.
Recommendation 3 –
Union officials’ competing responsibilities
The president of the
QPUE has responsibilities to the union and its members but
he or she remains a
member of the QPS and is subject to and must comply with
its policies and
procedures. There currently seems some uncertainty as to how
these roles are to be
accommodated if they conflict, for example, in relation to
accessing and disseminating
confidential information held by the QPS.
Accordingly, I
recommend the QPS in conjunction with the union review those
aspects of the union’s
areas of activity that may cause this conflict to arise to
ensure both parties
have in place appropriate policies and protocols so they can
be managed without
compromising the functions of the QPS, while allowing for
the legitimate and
necessary industrial activities of the union’s officials.
Recommendation 4–
Responsible media comment
Public comment
concerning a critical incident involving police officers can
negatively impact on
the integrity of the investigation of the incident, the
reputation of the
officers involved, the reputation of the QPS and the public
confidence in those
investigations. It is therefore essential the comments be
limited to the
release of sufficient information to satisfy the public’s right to know
in very general terms
what has occurred and to engender confidence the incident
is under rigorous and
impartial investigation, the results of which will be made
public at the
appropriate time. I recommend the QPS review its policies in relation
to such matters and
have regard to the report of the Office of Police Integrity’s
suggestions as to the
limit of matters that should be included in such public
comments. The
resulting policies should be binding on all police officers,
including union
officials.
Regarding the above recommendations, my understanding is
that Mr Ian Leavers should not be given access to the inner or outer cordon
whilst he is in the role of Police Union President, but rather assist his
members away from the primary crime scene during a critical incident. Once again a complaint letter regarding Mr
Leavers conduct was sent by myself to the CMC on 3rd June 2012, I
received a reply on 17th August 2012 saying that the matter had been
given to QPS to investigate with the CMC overseeing. I am yet to receive any further correspondence
regarding this matter.
Within the findings State Coroner Michael Barnes has stated
the following with regard to Inspector Mark Reid:
“Section 48(3) of the Coroners Act
provides that a coroner may give information
about official misconduct or police
misconduct to the CMC.
I suspect the dissemination to the
media of the ‘mug shots’ of Ms Sinn and Mr
Protheroe and details of their
criminal histories involved either official misconduct
and/or police misconduct. Counsel for
the QPS told the inquest this matter is
already the subject of an
investigation, although I was also advised this
investigation commenced only after
concerns were raised during the inquest. I
intend to provide this information to
the CMC to ensure the matter is vigorously
pursued.
I consider I am also obliged to refer
to the CMC the failure of Inspector Reid to
report this suspected misconduct, which must have been
apparent to him by at least 29 May 2012”
On the above matter an official letter of complaint
regarding Inspector Mark Reid from Ethical Standards Command was sent to the
CMC by myself on 3rd June 2013.
(A copy of the letter sent also appears on this site) I await a reply
from CMC with regard to this matter.
During the inquest we heard evidence from Snr Detective Troy
Weston who was the partner of Thomas Hess on the day. He stated in his evidence that he never saw
Jason holding a weapon, he saw something in his hands which is in dispute on
the taped evidence as it sounds like he says “black garment” in my opinion but
Weston says it was object. The only
point of interest that Weston brought to this inquest was that although he was
asked to cover Jason whilst Hess removed the alleged weapon from his hand, he
said within evidence that he at no time could he confirm that Jason was holding
a weapon, nor did he see Hess remove the weapon from Jason’s hand or throw the
weapon behind him. Weston did not see
the weapon until it was on the ground and pointed out to him. I believe under cross examination by Mr Sam
Di Carlo the family’s Barrister asked Thomas Hess whether on his lanyard
recording when he was asked was there a weapon by another male person, could it
have been Troy Weston asking the question.
Thomas Hess agreed that it could quite possibly have been Troy Weston. The point here is that this evidence was not
tested and I believe Mr Peter Johns (Counsel assisting the Coroner) in oral
submissions said that no weight what so ever should be put on Detective Troy
Weston’s version of events.
The only civilian eye witness to the events on the day was
Krystal Sinn who suffered a great loss on that day as well as witnessing the
most horrific event she hopefully will ever witness. She has been mistreated, she has had her mug
shot and criminal record splashed over the news and been tainted as a liar and
a scarlet woman as well as having her physical health sacrificed. She has struggled to cope and deal with this
whole ordeal. She appeared at the inquest
as a witness across 2 days as her health took a turn for the worse with all the
stress she was trying to cope with having to relive this event and I personally
would like to thank her for her courage.
She took the stand and answered every question put to her with honesty
including stating if she really couldn’t remember. I believe she was a credible witness who
appeared to give an honest and true version to the best of her ability. Within the Coroner’s findings he states that
he finds Krystal Sinn to be an unreliable witness. Once again I ask who is Michael Barnes to
make this decision?
I would also like to state that toward the end of the
Coronial hearing when the crucial witnesses including Thomas Hess the last
witness to finish giving evidence the State Coroner Michael Barnes placed a
time limit on the Family Barrister Sam Di Carlo on how long he could question
them. The Coroner stated in his
findings:
“The officer’s actions in the hours
before the confrontation were of no relevance to
how Mr Protheroe came to be shot. Much
court time was wasted and
unnecessary distress caused to the
family by the pursuit of baseless theories
about PCC Hess prosecuting some
vendetta against Mr Protheroe.
PCC Hess came to work and found a
direction in an email from his sergeant to
investigate offences believed to have
been committed by Mr Protheroe. He acted
on it as would be expected of any junior
officer in a similar position.”
With reference to the above quote from the Coroner’s findings, the
family believes that their Barrister did not waste court time pursuing
questions as to what Thomas Hess spent 2 – 3 hours doing at the station that
morning with regard to Jason. I believe
all theories and questions should be explored in order to find the truth.
Further Findings from the Coroner
include:
“The family seem fixated by the idea
the officers were exhibiting unreasonable urgency or overzealousness in their
pursuit of Mr Protheroe. I am of the view the family’s
perception of these matters has been
distorted by what followed. If Jason had
simply been arrested at Ms Sinn’s
house, I suspect nothing would have been said
about the events which preceded such
an arrest. Sadly, that did not happen and
perhaps understandably, the family
have therefore over analysed and
misconstrued mundane, routine events.”
With reference to the above quote from the Coroner’s findings, “NO SHIT
SHERLOCK” if Jason had simply been arrested at Miss Sinn’s house then I
probably would have said nothing about the events that preceded such an arrest
but I still would have thought it. If
Thomas Hess had of listened to us and simply allowed us to ring him or the police
to have him arrested on the day, he would now be alive and probably out of jail. I believe that the family has not over
analysed anything in our quest for the truth.
In reference to the Coroner’s remarks of the family
Barrister Mr Sam Di Carlo I would like to state that I had never met Mr Sam Di
Carlo prior to meeting with him approximately 2 months before the inquest
began. In my opinion he is a man with exceptional
understanding of the law, a man with exceptional intelligence and a man with
exceptional honesty and integrity. We as
a family could not have hoped for a better person to speak for Jason on our
behalf and we are eternally grateful, we will never forget what he has done for
Jason and the support to our family.
In closing I firmly believe that one person does not have the
right to decide on matters relating to the death of a civilian by Police. These matters should be tested by a jury of
12 independent people as is the system designed for lay people. Finally I would ask again with all sincerity “Who
is Michael Barnes?????????”
Yours Sincerely
Steve Protheroe
