Letter regarding Findings by the Queensland State Coroner

16^th 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 14^th 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 3^rd June 2012, I received a reply on 17^th 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 3^rd 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