|
[Home] [Help] [Databases] [World Law] [Feedback] |
|
Indigenous Law Resources
|
||
|
You are here: AustLII >> AustLII Databases >> AustLII Projects >> Indigenous Law Resources >> RCIADIC >> Individual Death Reports >> Harrison Day |
||
I find:
1. Harrison Joseph Day, known as 'Barney' Day, was an Aboriginal pensioner most frequently resident in Echuca, who had suffered from epilepsy for many years.
2. He died in Echuca District Hospital on 23 June 1982 as a result of an epileptic fit which had commenced while he was a prisoner in Echuca police cells.
3. At the time, he was lawfully held in Echuca police cells under warrants for non-payment of fines imposed on convictions for being drunk and disorderly. However the law, as administered by police and courts in Echuca at the time, served to harass drunks, particularly Aboriginals, to no useful purpose and at considerable public expense.
4. He was placed in the cell at 11.30 am. He was probably not fed, visited or checked on until he was found fitting at 5.15 pm - apart from a shouted inquiry at 2.00 pm. No consideration was given to the possibility that he might suffer from a condition which placed him at risk if left unobserved, although there is a high incidence of such conditions (for example diabetes, epilepsy and heart disease) amongst Aboriginals. The supervision would have been grossly inadequate for a fit prisoner, particularly when the prisoner had no means of communication with police.
5. Some police officers knew or ought to have known that Harrison Day suffered from epilepsy, but did not appreciate its significance. Police training and practice did not provide an adequate standard of cam for prisoners.
6. Had Harrison Day been visited 'frequently', as Police Standing Orders required but practice negated, his fitting may have been discovered earlier and his death may have been avoided.
7. After he was found fitting he was given all possible and appropriate attention by police, ambulance and hospital staff.
8. There was no proper investigation of the death and in particular no consideration by anyone of whether police had carried out their duties to visit and care for the prisoner.
9. The police investigation, autopsy and coronial inquest were inadequate. The police officer whose conduct should have been the prime subject of investigation was the sole investigator, the sole supplier of information to the pathologist who conducted the autopsy, the sole compiler of the coroner's brief, the sole counsel appearing before the coroner, and the principal witness at the inquest.
10. There was no review of the events by the Police Department or the coroner to see whether anything could be learnt to improve future practice.
I make the following recommendation:
I draw attention to the recommendations of the Interim Report of Commissioner Muirhead in December 1988 relating to public drunkenness, and I recommend that the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission of Victoria in its Report No. 25 of June 1989 on public drunkenness be implemented as soon as possible.
In Pan Three of this Report I draw attention to other matters on which the Commission may make recommendations after further consideration and submissions. These include the redrawing of Police Standing Orders to ensure that proper standards of care of prisoners are established and enforced.