A coroner has ruled the death of an Auckland police officer a suicide after he battled multiple personal troubles.
A coroner has ruled the death of an Auckland police officer a suicide after he battled multiple personal troubles.
Warning: This story discusses suicide and domestic violence.
The 2018 death of an Auckland police officer battling personal troubles has been formally ruled a suicide. But the tragic case also posed questions as to whether the current practice for flagging suicide risk is fit for purpose. Ethan Griffiths reports.
When an Auckland police officer crashed his car while driving with more than four times the legal alcohol limit in his system, he probably knew his career was over.
That, combined with a messy break-up and an ongoing investigation following allegations he had assaulted his wife and kids, most likely left him feeling like the challenges in his life were insurmountable.
“He would have had no vocation and no livelihood. When coupled with the other stressors, his distress would have been profound,” said a coroner in releasing a decision today about the events that led to the officer’s death in October 2018.
Just moments after the crash, the man ran off to his home, where he took his own life. He was found by a police colleague who had searched his home upon discovering he was the registered owner of the abandoned car.
But despite at least four calls to police suggesting the man was at risk of ending his life, police never placed a suicide alert on the man’s file. His ex-partner argues had officers been aware of his mental health battle on the night of his death, his life could have been saved.
Coroner Marcus Elliot today formally ruled the man’s death a suicide, suggesting police change their approach to how they record suicidal tendencies on their records.
The officer, his family and those who supported him cannot be identified due to non-publication orders.
He was aged in his 40s when he died. He and his partner had a troubled relationship in the years leading up to his death.
In November 2017, the man was first referred to the police wellness service by a senior officer in his region. By February 2018, he and his partner officially separated and he moved out of the family home, with little contact with his children.
By April, his ex-partner had raised concerns with a police officer that the man might take his own life. When the information filtered back to the police wellness team, the officer denied he had any suicidal thoughts.
He underwent an assessment from a police psychologist to determine his fitness to work. The psychologist found the officer had “taken steps” to commit suicide in 2017, but believed he was now coping. By June 12, the psychologist deemed him fit for the front line.
But during the assessment process, the officer’s ex-partner applied for a protection order against him, and it was granted. That same month, the ex-partner again told another officer that she still worried her ex would commit suicide - not only taking his own life, but also the lives of his children.
In early June, the ex-partner laid a police complaint alleging acts of violence by the officer against her and the children in 2016 and 2017. Both a criminal and internal disciplinary investigation were opened.
Just three days after being cleared fit to work by the psychologist, on June 15, the officer was stood down from duty for a month while the complaint was assessed.
The development took a toll. That night, he wrote an email to his parents with the subject line “it’s time [sic]”.
“I have nothing left,” the man wrote in an email that strongly hinted at him ending his own life. His parents contacted police, and a colleague on duty went and visited the man, staying with him for hours as they talked through his struggles.
By July, the ex-partner raised concerns about the officer’s mental health for the third time, contacting another officer. At the end of the month, the man was moved into a period of sick leave after a psychologist deemed him unfit to return to the frontline.
By September, the man had declined to be interviewed as part of the criminal investigation into the assault allegations. Police ultimately concluded he should be charged with assaulting his ex-partner, but he wasn’t aware of this when he died.
That month he had also resumed some contact with his children, and his psychologist recorded he was feeling more optimistic.
The crash
On the evening of October 11, the officer and friends were out drinking for around four hours. While the friends left in an Uber, the officer said he would go find food and walk himself home.
But shortly before 11pm, a car registered in the officer’s name crashed in Auckland. A witness called 111, saying the driver had run off.
The troubled officer rushed home and called his parents. “I’ve done something stupid,” he said in a message left on the answering machine. “When you get this message, give me a call.”
The officer also called one of the friends he had earlier been drinking with, who travelled to his house. The officer wasn’t anywhere to be seen, so the friend searched nearby streets.
Meanwhile, a nearby police officer was notified of the crash, but no units were immediately available.
Minutes later, this officer looked at the job on his phone, discovering the vehicle was registered under the name of an officer he knew.
Police searched the man's home after failing to locate him at the scene of the crash.
He requested a phone call from the police communications centre so he could explain the sensitivity of the incident. He then spoke to an inspector, saying he was uncomfortable carrying out the standard breath test himself and requesting another sergeant.
The two officers met and travelled to the scene of the crash, arriving some 35 minutes after the collision, by which point the driver had left.
The officers drove directly to the registered owner’s property. There was a phone on the kitchen bench but no sign of the man. The police Eagle helicopter began searching nearby streets from the air.
As the officers searched inside, the friend returned to the property, saying the man was in distress. It was then the officers stepped outside and discovered their colleague’s body.
An ambulance was called and the man was pronounced dead.
The aftermath
In his determination, Coroner Elliot ruled the death a suicide, but said the question of what led to the tragedy was more complex.
There were a number of stressors in the officer’s life, but there was no evidence he was at acute risk of ending his life before the night he died. That changed when he crashed his vehicle while having a blood alcohol level over four times the legal limit.
He would’ve “surely assumed” the crash marked the end of his policing career, the coroner found.
The coroner said alcohol would have affected the man’s ability to make rational decisions on the night of his death.
The coroner also considered the support provided by police in the lead-up to the officer’s death. Police submitted that their response went “above and beyond” what could be expected from a reasonable employer. Staff were in contact with the officer at least weekly.
But the man’s ex-partner submitted that despite raising concerns about a potential suicide three times, she was never contacted for more information.
The ex-partner also suggested the officer was pressured to return to work, but there was no evidence of this, according to the coroner.
One of the more significant considerations by the coroner was whether the officer’s police file should have had a suicide, or ‘1X’ alert, placed on it, particularly after the June 15 incident.
Through the National Intelligence Application (NIA), police keep a file on all persons the force engages with. In cases of mental distress, the file is the main resource for police to immediately determine the person’s history and behavioural nature.
The officer who visited the man’s property in the aftermath of the crash said he had no idea of his previous suicidal ideation. Had a 1X alert been placed on the officer’s record, “I would not have waited for [the other sergeant], I would have gone immediately as a matter of urgency.” The man’s ex-partner said had a 1X alert been used, his life could have been saved.
Ultimately, the coroner ruled that the nature of suicidal action meant the exact time the officer died is not known. A 1X alert on the man’s file, and thereby a swifter response by the responding officer, could have saved his life, but equally could have been too late.
That didn’t mean the 1X alert procedure was free from criticism.
Police submitted that for a 1X alert to be used, a person must attempt suicide. But the police’s own instructions state a “credible threat and/or tried to take their life” is the requirement for a 1X alert, in contradiction of the National Reporting Standards, which refer to a 1X alert only as an “attempted suicide”.
The coroner said the contradictions introduced ambiguity, essentially leaving officers to determine what is and isn’t a “credible threat” of suicide. Officers are given no assistance in the instructions about what ‘credible’ means, the coroner said.
Coroner Elliott suggested police look at the instructions surrounding 1X alerts.
“This would be a difficult assessment for a mental health practitioner to make, let alone a layperson.” He suggested police review the policies, but as he found the lack of a 1X alert did not contribute to the officer’s death, he had no jurisdiction to make a formal recommendation.
“There must be a strong argument that officers attending a report of a person at risk of self-harm would benefit from having as much background information as possible, meaning that a liberal interpretation of the instructions should be applied.”
The district commander of the area where the officer worked said the officer’s death remains a tragedy for his family, police and the wider community.
“Police place a high priority on the health, safety and wellbeing of all of our people. Support was put in place over a period of time to help our colleague through a difficult period in his personal life, as outlined in Coroner Elliott’s findings.”
But despite the coroner’s suggestion that the 1X alerts be reviewed, police said no changes have been made.
“The coroner also found the absence of a NIA alert did not contribute towards the officer’s death. We regularly review policies around the entry and use of alerts in NIA. However, in this instance, policy has not changed.”
Ethan Griffiths covers crime and justice stories nationwide for Open Justice. He joined NZME in 2020, previously working as a regional reporter in Whanganui and South Taranaki.
