home | news l

The Young Man From Kamilaroi

Ray Jackson

28 July 2004 - On St. Valentines Day, 14 February 2004, the Young Man from Kamilaroi, the 17 year old son of Gail Hickey became impaled upon a metal fence at the back of 1 Philip Street, Waterloo. He died the next morning of his horrific injuries.

Sunday 15 February saw the so-called ‘riots’ and the resultant analysis of those events that I have already written on.

Briefly, the Premier Bob Carr, NSW Police Commissioner Ken Moroney, seemingly all police and police supporters in NSW along with certain media identities all stated - continuously - that the Redfern police were not chasing the Young Man, thus they were not involved in the tragedy that occurred!

Carr trumpeted that there would be three enquiries looking at the circumstances involved around the question of the chase - did it happen or not?

The three enquiries were to be an internal police investigation, an overview of that investigation by the Ombudsman Office and, finally, a Coronial Inquest as to the cause of the death, and further, the death would be dealt with as a Death-in-Custody. Even though he believed that there was no police involvement in that death. The look on Ken Moroney’s face was a sight to behold!

Later came the news that there was also to be a NSW Upper House Inquiry looking into the events involved in the ‘riot’, the police resources available to that ‘riot’ and, as a hard fought for addition, an overview of police/community relations at the the Block and adjoining areas.

Relations between the police, the Hickey Family, the Aboriginal Community and their supporters, has been somewhat strained since. Police harassment of the daughters of Gail Hickey, along with other Family members and young April Ceisman continues to this day.

The Coroner’s Court began the Inquest at 10 00 am on 5 July 2004, and it became quite evident that this Inquest was to be structured differently to most other Aboriginal Deaths in Custody Inquests.

For the full eight and a half days of sittings the Court was standing room only. A large contingent of Redfern police, and others, was present everyday. About 20 Family members were present every day. About a dozen media reporters every day, along with the media pack outside attempting to force their TV cameras in Gail’s face everyday. And then there were the supporters of all sides. Quite a lot of interest in a packed Court. There was also without doubt a lot of Political interest. That was proven by this Inquest being brought on very quickly relative to other Inquests.

His Honour, John Abernathy presiding, opened by explaining to all that he wanted this Inquest over by 16 July 2004 including his Findings and Recommendations. He believed that his Court and those in attendance owed the Family that much at least.

The Bar table was also lined with the legal profession at all levels - Solicitors, Junior Counsel and Senior Counsel. Appearing also on an ad hoc basis was Counsel for the media conglomerates.

The scene was set for a veritable wordfest indeed. It was also, of course, hoped that some justice would be found at the end of the Inquest.

Ms Liz Fullerton, Counsel assisting the Coroner, supported by two members of the Crown Solicitors Office, began the Submissions. The importance of this Inquiry was also reinforced by their presence. Normally the Counsel assisting is a member of the NSW Police Service as it is considered, falsely I believe, that only the police have all expertise in matters of investigation and presentation. We also hope for independence and honesty. In this Inquest I do not believe that there would be too much of either.

The first witness called was Detective Constable Darryl Pace, the Aboriginal officer who was the cause of so much angst to the youth of Redfern, Waterloo and surrounding areas.

The police Brief showed that Pace had no physical involvement in the pursuit and death of the Young Man and he remained very close to his Statements and he was allowed to leave. He was dealt with first, apparently, for his safety at Court. It was for similar reasons he has been transferred from Redfern to work with the Child Molestation Unit, somewhere.

An aside. In his Statements, Pace states that he arrested an Aborigine who ‘resembled the bag snatcher that the police were looking for on the day.’ The arrestee was shown the video of the bag snatcher and he was asked the identity of the bag snatcher and according to Pace the arrestee nominated who it was. The arrestee vehemently denies this and states another police officer identified the bag snatcher. Both the arrestee and the bag snatcher are gaoled together and the arrestee is actively seeking to clear his name of Pace setting him up as ‘a dog.’ Not a safe category in a gaol.

I believe that Pace was being merely maliciously mischievous in his reporting of this matter.

After Pace, Ms Fullerton handed up the full Police Brief of Witness Statements and the evidentiary material for His Honours consideration. I had access to the original Brief but not the latest one.

Senior Constable Lee Baily as the Redfern Police Intelligence Response Team Supervisor, among other things said that three days prior to the tragic events of the 14 February 2004, the Young Man’s photo and police profile was placed on a notice board for the police to be made aware that the Young Man was now nominated as being a High Risk Offender.

I believe that it is a high probability that most, if not all, of the Redfern Police were made aware that the Young Man was in the Redfern area.

Detective Senior Constable Michael Kyneur was the officer in charge of collating the Brief. He was closely questioned by all legal teams in regard to the omissions from the four police Statements of Constables Rimmel, Rocha, Reynolds and Hollingsworth as to their movements and actions during the 15 to 20 minutes prior to the tragic death.

He argued that whilst he would agree that, perhaps, the several Statements made by the four police witnesses could have been more inclusive of ‘some details’, he still believed that the Statements had not breached police protocols. And for police, that is correct. Fortunately that opinion is not accepted outside of the police service.

Attention then turned to the Police ‘Gang of Four’.

Constable Alan Rimmel was first to the stand.

He agreed that both he and Rocha saw the Young Man on his bike but as he was not the bag snatcher then he was of no interest to them. He had difficulties with his memory and his recall was minimal in several key areas, eg: any conversation with Rocha during the events. His reasons for his movements to Phillip Street and finding the Young Man on the fence were also much cause for concern. It was described as being merely happenstance of a fortuitous nature.

His account placed both police wagons in Renwick Street, one coming in - Redfern 16 and Rimmel’s, Redfern 17 driving out. He further stated that he did not recognise the Young Man on the fence as the Young Man on the bike they had seen moments before. This was proven to be wrong by his own words alerting the police of the accident.

The unravelling continued when Constable Ruth Rocha took the stand and gave her evidence. She too suffered from memory loss and her matters of recall were also limited. She did however state that when all four officers were making their Statements, they did so together - all four in the one room and openly discussing the events that they would write. They also shared these views with Senior officers. One being Inspector Emery. She also, under pressure, admitted to being engaged to Constable (as he was then) Michael Hollingsworth.

Constable Maree Reynolds then took the stand. Her powers of recall were the worst, a fact that Ms Liz Fullerton stated could be construed as evading questions, perhaps, even lying.

Then came Senior Constable (he had been promoted since the tragedy and such is not an uncommon practice) Michael Hollingsworth. Two Barristers argued on his behalf that he could not take the stand as he may incriminate himself and such incrimination could lead to police disciplinary action. The Coroner could grant a Certificate giving him immunity from other legal use of his evidence but the Coroner could not protect him from the Police Commissioner. Ergo, therefore, Hollingsworth is excused from taking the stand! Much consternation and angst from all but the police and the police legal team. Hollingsworth was now represented by another legal person, Ken Madden, who stated that he would need time to view the Brief, the Transcripts to date and other evidence.

The Coroner closed the Court until the following Monday. The media was also pleading for open access to the evidence for the news bulletins but the Coroner continued to restrict such access. The Coroner stated that no inference could be laid against Senior Constable Hollingsworth in not taking to the witness box other than his concern of any possible (but highly improbable) disciplinary action. The police stood behind their collective opinions that no police were chasing the Young Man.

On Monday we began hearing the evidence of other police witnesses and perhaps, more importantly, the civilian witnesses.

The Ambulance officer who attended the scene stated that in his opinion the police officers involved were all doing the proper thing in their joint attempt to keep the Young Man alive. He also stated that there was no neck wound when all other reports, including the Autopsy Report said there was. There were no questions to him concerning this error.

The media were still attempting to gain full access. On the Tuesday Detective Senior Constable Michael Kyneur was re-examined as they were not able to hear from Senior Constable Hollingsworth.

He insisted that he had made an independent investigation and on 16 February 2004 further Statements were taken from Constables Rimmel and Rocha. Another Statement was made by Senior Constable Hollingsworth on 21 February 2004. He further insisted that whilst there were several versions made by the four police officers involved, all the pertinent questions had been asked and answered.

John Stratton, Senior Counsel for the Family teased out the changing of the Statements by Constables Hollingsworth and Reynolds to better reflect the actuality of the circumstances of the vehicle travelling down the pathway to the fence line. Changes were made, Kyneur agreed, as they progressively thought about their actions on that day.

He also agreed that whilst there were inconsistencies between the officers’ Statements he did not think this was detrimental to their Statements in any way.

After further cross examination Kyneur left the stand. The next witness had a dual identity. He was originally identified as Danny Townsend and we will continue to identify him by that name.

He stated that he heard the bike hit the fence, saw the Young Man on the fence and ran up and comforted him and attempted to ring for an ambulance. Within two minutes of the accident, he says, Constables Rimmel and Rocha arrived. During his time in the witness box he kept repeating that he was scared but no one pressed him as to who or what he was scared of. He later that day threw a rock at a Channel 9 vehicle that was following him. And so he should.

Thomas Connor who was sitting in the back yard of the Salvation Army Community Centre then gave his evidence. He described the vehicle that he had told to turn around by pointing was an unmarked police car. Constables Rimmel and Rocha were in a police wagon. No one challenged this identification either.

Ryan Sengara then gave his evidence briefly. No one cross-examined.

The Coroner was not impressed when we began the next day, describing the actions of the Channel 9 car crew as “lurching from press crisis to press crisis.” This was not a good time for Dawson, the legal representing the media, to argue for more access.

Gail’s cousin, Roy Hickey, then gave evidence to his Statement. The police Legals hammered that Roy had made errors in his Statement and that he was influenced by others to report as he did. To my mind Roy remained a credible witness. Stuart Clanachan was given similar treatment but he to remained basic to his original Statement.

Inspector Robert Emery of Redfern Local Area Command then presented himself. He had spoken to the four police involved and told us that the Young Man was a person of no interest to any police on that day.

He had heard the allegations of a police chase but he dismissed them as he believed it was of no sense to chase anyone down that pathway because it was fenced off at the bottom. He had spoken with Superintendent Denis Smith and believed that all four officers had no role in chasing the Young Man.

He described the four officers at the accident scene as being badly traumatised and he had counselling arranged for them. He had arranged the Press Conference on the Sunday to explain that the police did not chase the Young Man as they had no interest in him.

When asked why the Aboriginal Community Liaison Officer was not called to deal with the Family issues, he stated that in his opinion the ACLO was unfit to attend to those duties.

Dawson for the media tried again. No was the answer. He tried again the next morning, Thursday, but again to no avail, except for the Hollingsworth Statements dated 14 and 21 February 2004.

Sargent Kirsty McIntosh, the Shift Supervisor on the day, then informed the Court that she had spoken to Constable Reynolds and Hollingsworth and did not learn about the chase or the real route taken. She further reinforced the point that the Young Man was of no real interest to the Redfern Police at the time.

Jodie Paton was then examined and she believed that the police at the death scene should be treated as heroes and not vilified by the Community. She also mentioned the trauma suffered by the four Constables. This then finished the witnesses.

The legal teams began their Submissions. Basically Ms Liz Fullerton argued that Constable Hollingsworth did chase the Young Man but he could also have been merely following the Young Man. She was critical of the police actions/inactions after the 14 February 2004 and believed that all four police but especially Constables Reynolds and Hollingsworth had created doubts about the integrity of the Redfern Police.

John Stratton, Senior Counsel for the Family then put his arguments. The four police were not credible in their Statement evidenced by the constant charges made to them. The three police in the witness box were unhelpful in coming to the truth and did not give true accounts of what happened that day. He believed that the Young Man had the accident prior to the police arriving. He also stated that ACLO’s should have been present at the incident and further, that it must not be left to the ACLO’s alone to deal with the grieving Family.

Saidi attempted to rewrite everything and firmly believed that the police were not involved in any wrong doings and repeated Ms Jodie Paton’s call that they must be treated and recognised as heroes. The other police legal supported this argument.

That ended the Submission. A legal discussion was then entered into as to the validity or otherwise of the Statement of Ms Iris Hobson who was too ill to attend Court.

After some discussion, the Coroner agreed to view the video tape of the Channel 10 interview among other things and he then stated that he would need more time to come to a decision and set a time of 10 am on Friday 27 August 2004. He apologised to the Family for their wait but he believed that rushed justice is no justice.

We await His Honour’s decision and Recommendations.

Some thoughts

There is embedded within a Coronial Inquest the sure evidence of Power. There is the Power of the Coroner and the Power of the Laws that provide that Power. There is, of course, also the Power of the Police in their control of what is presented to the Coroner - The Brief of Evidence.

When a Death in Custody occurs within Police sectors of responsibility, then there is every possibility that that Power will be used, or rather abused, by the investigating Police. This is not merely a NSW thing, nor an Australian thing - it is an International thing.
Police Culture demands nothing less than to extricate Police Officers involved in their questionable reactions to events that normally cause concern. In the Inquest of the Young Man, and more importantly, the how and why the Young Man died, I argue that the Politics and the Power fused to make sure that the full truth will probably not come out.

It was evident from the start that this Inquest was going to be different, and the events of the day-by-day unraveling of the Police actions and inactions made this quiet apparent.

The focus of this Inquest was collaboratively restricted with the full knowledge of the Coroner, the Police and the Legal Teams presenting their arguments to the Court. The focus was restricted to only the movements of the two Police wagons (Redfern 16 and 17) and the movements of the Young Man on his bike.

But his death was much more than this.

After all Inquests, there are always unanswered questions that the Families live and grieve with for the rest of their lives. This Inquest is not going to be any different.

The initial Legal team, offered to and accepted by the Family, was of the opinion that it was legally dangerous for the Police to investigate the circumstances of this death. They choose the evidence that goes before the Court and it is up to the Family Legal team to seek out other evidence to present also. I do not believe that happened in this Inquest. There are too many questions unasked and thus unanswered.

Witnesses state that a Police Rescue van arrived at the site within minutes but was sent away. Why? The Ambulance arrived; it is said, some 10 - 15 minutes later. The Police Rescue teams are better qualified than normal Ambulance personnel. Why was this not investigated? The sometimes strange answers given by the non-Police witnesses were not picked up, neither by Counsel Assisting nor the Family Team.

The Autopsy Report was not given any scrutiny in Court, yet there are questions and answers arising from that Report as to the injuries that occurred and the force required to cause those injuries. There is an argument put that to discuss in detail the events at the death scene and close examination of the Autopsy Report is distressing to the Families. Yes it is most distressing but surely so to are police not being completely honest or the Submissions of the Police Counsel in submitting that police should not be condemned but be treated as heroes! I know that the Families want the full and open Truth and to reach that point they will accept that distress.

There was no Forensic argument against the Police report of the damage to the bicycle. Why? From day one both Gail and April, among others believed the wheels they saw at the Police station were not the original wheels on his bike. A Channel 7 report showed the back wheel to be buckled yet when others and I saw it at Surry Hills Police Station there was no buckled wheel, neither the front nor back wheels. Why?

What Forensic examinations, if any, were made on the two Police wagons involved? What about the reported events of violence and intimidation prior to the start of the Inquest?

Rumors abound, still, that a Police vehicle hit the bike wheel, thus causing the death of the Young man. Did the chase start in Cope/Renwick Streets or did it really begin up near Redfern Railway Station as some say? What was that witness afraid of? Why?

What about the young eyewitness who made a Statement but was not called due to her age? What about the other two young teenagers who are too afraid to come forward? These are only some of the questions that people have asked me. I do not have any answers for them. I inform them all that that is the task of the Coroner.

I would argue that a restricted level Inquest is not going to be able to answer those questions either. I truly hope that I’m wrong. We await the decision of the State Coroner with interest, so to does the Family. I and others since the early 1990’s have been arguing against the use of the Police Services when investigating events that involve Police actions or inactions. It is stated that only the Police have the ability to investigate and process the gathering of evidence. I absolutely disagree. What we need is a fully independent non-police team to investigate. Such Investigation Teams would also include Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders to be able to properly investigate the tragedy that is a Death in Custody. Especially for Police Deaths in Custody.

Ray Jackson is the president of the Indigenous Social Justice Association

Source: Green Left

Further information: redfern riots

|| click to go to the top of this page