South Australia's Police Commissioner has lost a bid to prevent the Coroners Court from accessing an internal police investigation into the conduct of officers involved in a high-speed police pursuit that resulted in the death of a 17-year-old girl.
The teenager – who had never held a driver's licence — died when the stolen car she was driving hit a wall in Morphett Vale, in Adelaide's south, in October 2017 during a police chase.
The girl had stolen the car with a 24-year-old man who had breached his home-detention bail by cutting off his electronic monitoring bracelet.
A coronial inquest which started in 2020 into the 17-year-old's death heard that a police officer commenced a pursuit after noticing the car travelling up to 45 kilometres per hour over the speed limit.
The inquest heard that when the driver failed to stop, the police vehicle clocked speeds up to 145kph – at times travelling on the wrong side of Main South Road – under emergency lights and sirens.
But unbeknown to the police officer, the alarm, light and monitor display to indicate a high-risk pursuit had not been activated and the state shift manager – who is required to take command and make assessments about pursuits – was not aware of the chase until later.
About five minutes later, the stolen car crashed and the 17-year-old driver was critically injured.
She died from her injuries two weeks later.
A toxicology report later found the teenager had consumed methylamphetamine and cannabis before the crash.
Coroner not told of internal investigation
An internal police investigation into the police officer's conduct was undertaken and a report produced but the deputy state coroner was not informed, despite holding a coronial inquest into the teenager's death.
Police Commissioner Grant Stevens declined the coroner's requests for the internal report, prompting him to make an order summonsing the Commissioner to produce the material.
The Commissioner then sought a judicial review in the Supreme Court, claiming the coroner had taken into account an irrelevant consideration in making the order and had misapplied the legislation.
In dismissing the Commissioner's application for judicial review, Justice Malcolm Blue said the Commissioner was not required to inform the coroner about the internal investigation but that he found the coroner's actions appropriate in ordering the report.
"Given the relationship between the Coroners Court and the police under which the police are effectively the investigatory arm of the court which is performing an inquisitorial function, it is natural that the coroner would have felt and expressed surprise and disappointment that the existence of the investigation had not been earlier disclosed to the court (and she was not given an explanation why this was so)," he wrote in his judgement.
The Coroners Court had told the Supreme Court that other police officers had described the actions of the police officer in question as "appropriate" but the fact an internal investigation had commenced "suggests the contrary".
"Unless I have an opportunity to examine the material canvassed in the internal investigation, including the final report of the investigation, I will not be able to satisfy myself that all relevant material pertaining to this inquest has been disclosed," the coroner told the Supreme Court.
"I fear that my ability to make recommendations concerning high-speed police pursuits may be compromised by the Commissioner's refusal to fully cooperate with this inquest."
The Police Commissioner had told the Supreme Court that inquiring into why disciplinary proceedings were not taken against officers involved in the pursuit was beyond the jurisdiction of the Coroners Court.
