Brisbane Broncos dragged into storm over football player’s tragic death

[Cult]

No there can’t. You cannot sue a Coroner. You could take legal action to have a higher court over-turn findings thst shouldn’t have been made, but you cannot sue a Coroner or a Magistrate for things done in their official capacity.

What if a coroner says something stupid and is completely wrong?

 

[Mr Fourex]

Turns out the coroner is a disgruntled St George fan. Still harbours a grudge from the '92 & '93 grand finals.

 

[Jason Simmons]

What if a coroner says something stupid and is completely wrong?

There are several legal options. You can apply to a higher court to have those findings or comments set aside legally, which in effect means they are meaningless and the inquiry will have to be re-run or at least reviewed, by a different Coroner.

You could make application to the State Coroner or the Supreme Court if it is the State Coroner who made said findings / comments, removed from this inquiry or office altogether.

Needless to say, such applications cannot be taken lightly nor will they likely succeed merely because you disagree with the Coroner’s opinion.

 

[Cult]

There are several legal options. You can apply to a higher court to have those findings or comments set aside legally, which in effect means they are meaningless and the inquiry will have to be re-run or at least reviewed, by a different Coroner.

You could make application to the State Coroner or the Supreme Court if it is the State Coroner who made said findings / comments, removed from this inquiry or office altogether.

Needless to say, such applications cannot be taken lightly nor will they likely succeed merely because you disagree with the Coroner’s opinion.

What do you think about this case then? Are the Broncos to blame in any way, shape or form? I really don't think so. Based on the comments, I also think the coroner has no idea about rugby league or what clubs do and don't teach the players.

It isn't like the Storm and their wrestling which can be proven that they train to do because it's done in every single tackle. This incident is the fault of one person and in my opinion the rules aren't fair toward players who do still shoulder charge as it is obviously a reactionary thing that both the defending player and attacking player do.

 

[Jason Simmons]

What do you think about this case then? Are the Broncos to blame in any way, shape or form? I really don't think so. Based on the comments, I also think the coroner has no idea about rugby league or what clubs do and don't teach the players.

It isn't like the Storm and their wrestling which can be proven that they train to do because it's done in every single tackle. This incident is the fault of one person and in my opinion the rules aren't fair toward players who do still shoulder charge as it is obviously a reactionary thing that both the defending player and attacking player do.

I don’t know. I’d have to read the report and I’m not sure I’m interested enough. Coronial Inquiries can be quite the dog and pony show at times. I have given evidence at a few over the years and they are so different to regular courts. Rules of evidence don’t apply for a start so they are full of hearsay, rumour and innuendo. It doesn’t take that much to become a party to the inquest and to be able to give evidence or cross-examine witnesses under oath at that inquest and you get some very esoteric situations occurring within them.

As an example, I gave evidence in relation to a coronial inquriy some years back where an offender had been tasered and had subsequently died. For the record I did not employ a Taser at that scene. However I was there and I was equipped with a Taser and was subsequently questioned under oath about it.

When we check out Tasers, we conducted a ‘SEED drill’. A static electricity discharge drill, to ensure our Taser cartridges don’t activate due to static electrical discharge. We also check the battery level for the Taser (by policy the level has to be above 20% or we don’t take them out) and finally we do a spark test, to ensure the Taser is working correctly before we attach the cartridges and the weapon is ‘loaded’.

So I was asked the usual questions by Counsel assisting the Coroner, my observations and recollections, did I make any notes, audio or video recordings and so forth.

I was asked nothing by the Counsel representing the family of the deceased.

I was grilled for over two hours by the Counsel representing Taser International. What specific Taser did I use that day? How did I sign it out? What function tests did I perform? What battery level did my Taser have? How did I wear my Taser during the shift? Did I take it off? Did I use it on anyone else? Did I present it at all and if so was that effective? How many hours did I have a Taser on? When did I return it? What condition was it in after I returned it to it’s allocated weapons safe? Did I disassemble it correctly when I returned it? Did I sign it back in?

I was questioned more thoroughly than I was during the internal investigation and more than by the Coroner himself. To this day I have no idea why. The questions would be in the court transcript but they aren’t in the report and no submissions were made by Taser International or anyone else about my evidence.

It was utterly bizarre and I have never experienced anything before or since like it. I can’t help, but get the nagging feeling the whole thing occurred simply because the lawyer wanted to get some cross-examination practice or was putting on a show for his client. It meant absolutely nothing at the end of the day. Maybe it was just an odd, complicated and expensive way of getting detailed feedback on their product? I don’t know.

Someone above said Coroners aren’t about appointing blame. That is somewhat true, but not entirely correct because they can still recommend that someone be charged with a criminal offence as a result of their inquiry, including murder or manslaughter, however it is a recommendation only and it remains up to the DPP to decide whether to present an indictment on the matter or not. But they can and often do apportion specific blame. The Daniel Morcombe inquiry was a notable example of this, as I expect we will shortly see...

The real point of a Coronial Inquiry is simply to determine a cause of death, identify any related matters and attempt to identify and correct any issue that may have prevented the death or may in future help prevent further deaths.

So my thoughts are I suppose that the above quotes don’t provide enough context for the reasons the Coroner decided to say those things. As with most things written by journalists, they are funnelled through the journalist’s ability to understand them, or desire to paint in a particular light (usually for commercial imperatives, ie: to sell copy).

 

[1910]

The fact he has never played makes no difference, do you want a State Coroner that's murdered people too? How can he possibly have findings if he's never done it? The State Coroner for New South Wales never played Test cricket so he can't possibly investigate the death of Hughes?

His role is to make findings that could stop this happening again. Like the Phillip Hughes inquest where he looked at equipment, reaction time of medical people, SCG facilities and short balls bowled that day.

It's one quote and they've sucked it in with a headline, of course he would have looked at training and further education. Molo did it twice after the accident. If someone died at any work and then you kept doing it do you think people would question training?

He also made findings about send offs and possible rules/actions that could be implemented. It's not about blame in this case he hasn't recommended any charges. It's about it not happening again. If he finds some things that can be done better or quicker than you do them. Helmets changed because of the Hughes' findings.

 

[Kimlo]

I don’t know. I’d have to read the report and I’m not sure I’m interested enough. Coronial Inquiries can be quite the dog and pony show at times. I have given evidence at a few over the years and they are so different to regular courts. Rules of evidence don’t apply for a start so they are full of hearsay, rumour and innuendo. It doesn’t take that much to become a party to the inquest and to be able to give evidence or cross-examine witnesses under oath at that inquest and you get some very esoteric situations occurring within them.

As an example, I gave evidence in relation to a coronial inquriy some years back where an offender had been tasered and had subsequently died. For the record I did not employ a Taser at that scene. However I was there and I was equipped with a Taser and was subsequently questioned under oath about it.

When we check out Tasers, we conducted a ‘SEED drill’. A static electricity discharge drill, to ensure our Taser cartridges don’t activate due to static electrical discharge. We also check the battery level for the Taser (by policy the level has to be above 20% or we don’t take them out) and finally we do a spark test, to ensure the Taser is working correctly before we attach the cartridges and the weapon is ‘loaded’.

So I was asked the usual questions by Counsel assisting the Coroner, my observations and recollections, did I make any notes, audio or video recordings and so forth.

I was asked nothing by the Counsel representing the family of the deceased.

I was grilled for over two hours by the Counsel representing Taser International. What specific Taser did I use that day? How did I sign it out? What function tests did I perform? What battery level did my Taser have? How did I wear my Taser during the shift? Did I take it off? Did I use it on anyone else? Did I present it at all and if so was that effective? How many hours did I have a Taser on? When did I return it? What condition was it in after I returned it to it’s allocated weapons safe? Did I disassemble it correctly when I returned it? Did I sign it back in?

I was questioned more thoroughly than I was during the internal investigation and more than by the Coroner himself. To this day I have no idea why. The questions would be in the court transcript but they aren’t in the report and no submissions were made by Taser International or anyone else about my evidence.

It was utterly bizarre and I have never experienced anything before or since like it. I can’t help, but get the nagging feeling the whole thing occurred simply because the lawyer wanted to get some cross-examination practice or was putting on a show for his client. It meant absolutely nothing at the end of the day. Maybe it was just an odd, complicated and expensive way of getting detailed feedback on their product? I don’t know.

Someone above said Coroners aren’t about appointing blame. That is somewhat true, but not entirely correct because they can still recommend that someone be charged with a criminal offence as a result of their inquiry, including murder or manslaughter, however it is a recommendation only and it remains up to the DPP to decide whether to present an indictment on the matter or not. But they can and often do apportion specific blame. The Daniel Morcombe inquiry was a notable example of this, as I expect we will shortly see...

The real point of a Coronial Inquiry is simply to determine a cause of death, identify any related matters and attempt to identify and correct any issue that may have prevented the death or may in future help prevent further deaths.

So my thoughts are I suppose that the above quotes don’t provide enough context for the reasons the Coroner decided to say those things. As with most things written by journalists, they are funnelled through the journalist’s ability to understand them, or desire to paint in a particular light (usually for commercial imperatives, ie: to sell copy).

I've nothing worthwhile to add, but I just want to say that was a fascinating read. Quality post, thanks for sharing.

 

[Jason Simmons]

I've nothing worthwhile to add, but I just want to say that was a fascinating read. Quality post, thanks for sharing.

No dramas, thanks for reading. I’m on afternoon shifts post nightwork at the moment so I am up very late at night, not at all ready to sleep when I get home from work and was bored last night... So happy to share some of my experience with these things.

 

[1910]

The Queensland Rugby League acknowledges the Coroner’s report released today relating to the inquest into the death of James Ackerman on June 20, 2015.
The QRL will carefully review the findings of the Coroner and his various recommendations with a view to implementing where possible.
On behalf of the extended rugby league family in Queensland, we again offer our condolences to the loved ones of James during this difficult time.

 

[heartly87]

Molo should be coping more heat for this. The problem with todays world is there is always somebody to blame. Whatever happened to being responsible for your own actions. You step on the field and are expected to play hard and play within the rules. Molo not learning from killing another player is on him and he should of been given a 12 month ban as soon as he did again.

 

[lynx000]

I don’t know. I’d have to read the report and I’m not sure I’m interested enough. Coronial Inquiries can be quite the dog and pony show at times. I have given evidence at a few over the years and they are so different to regular courts. Rules of evidence don’t apply for a start so they are full of hearsay, rumour and innuendo. It doesn’t take that much to become a party to the inquest and to be able to give evidence or cross-examine witnesses under oath at that inquest and you get some very esoteric situations occurring within them.

As an example, I gave evidence in relation to a coronial inquriy some years back where an offender had been tasered and had subsequently died. For the record I did not employ a Taser at that scene. However I was there and I was equipped with a Taser and was subsequently questioned under oath about it.

When we check out Tasers, we conducted a ‘SEED drill’. A static electricity discharge drill, to ensure our Taser cartridges don’t activate due to static electrical discharge. We also check the battery level for the Taser (by policy the level has to be above 20% or we don’t take them out) and finally we do a spark test, to ensure the Taser is working correctly before we attach the cartridges and the weapon is ‘loaded’.

So I was asked the usual questions by Counsel assisting the Coroner, my observations and recollections, did I make any notes, audio or video recordings and so forth.

I was asked nothing by the Counsel representing the family of the deceased.

I was grilled for over two hours by the Counsel representing Taser International. What specific Taser did I use that day? How did I sign it out? What function tests did I perform? What battery level did my Taser have? How did I wear my Taser during the shift? Did I take it off? Did I use it on anyone else? Did I present it at all and if so was that effective? How many hours did I have a Taser on? When did I return it? What condition was it in after I returned it to it’s allocated weapons safe? Did I disassemble it correctly when I returned it? Did I sign it back in?

I was questioned more thoroughly than I was during the internal investigation and more than by the Coroner himself. To this day I have no idea why. The questions would be in the court transcript but they aren’t in the report and no submissions were made by Taser International or anyone else about my evidence.

It was utterly bizarre and I have never experienced anything before or since like it. I can’t help, but get the nagging feeling the whole thing occurred simply because the lawyer wanted to get some cross-examination practice or was putting on a show for his client. It meant absolutely nothing at the end of the day. Maybe it was just an odd, complicated and expensive way of getting detailed feedback on their product? I don’t know.

Someone above said Coroners aren’t about appointing blame. That is somewhat true, but not entirely correct because they can still recommend that someone be charged with a criminal offence as a result of their inquiry, including murder or manslaughter, however it is a recommendation only and it remains up to the DPP to decide whether to present an indictment on the matter or not. But they can and often do apportion specific blame. The Daniel Morcombe inquiry was a notable example of this, as I expect we will shortly see...

The real point of a Coronial Inquiry is simply to determine a cause of death, identify any related matters and attempt to identify and correct any issue that may have prevented the death or may in future help prevent further deaths.

So my thoughts are I suppose that the above quotes don’t provide enough context for the reasons the Coroner decided to say those things. As with most things written by journalists, they are funnelled through the journalist’s ability to understand them, or desire to paint in a particular light (usually for commercial imperatives, ie: to sell copy).

Out of interest were any other officers subject to a similar cross-examination. I can posit one explanation for the purpose behind the cross-examination. It sounds like the Taser company perceived that they may have been at risk for a wrongful death action (perhaps this had been intimated behind the scenes) and they were using the coronial inquest as an opportunity to conduct a forensic examination to see if there was any issue or breakdown with QPS training and procedures that they could later point their finger at and seek to have QPS added as a party or a third party or serve a notice of contribution on them.

 

[jarro65]

Molo should be coping more heat for this. The problem with todays world is there is always somebody to blame. Whatever happened to being responsible for your own actions. You step on the field and are expected to play hard and play within the rules. Molo not learning from killing another player is on him and he should of been given a 12 month ban as soon as he did again.

Agree with this.

Molo is the only one to blame in all this.

 

[ivanhungryjak]

Full findings here.

http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/542818/cif-ackerman-jw-20171109.pdf


Looks like whoever wrote the story conveniently left this bit out.

130. I am not particularly critical of the Broncos position about this. It was a judgment call and they made a decision. With the resources at the Broncos disposal it may have been better if professional advice was obtained to determine whether they should directly approach Francis about his tackling technique, rather than presume Francis’s welfare concerns were such this could not occur.

 

[Jason Simmons]

Out of interest were any other officers subject to a similar cross-examination. I can posit one explanation for the purpose behind the cross-examination. It sounds like the Taser company perceived that they may have been at risk for a wrongful death action (perhaps this had been intimated behind the scenes) and they were using the coronial inquest as an opportunity to conduct a forensic examination to see if there was any issue or breakdown with QPS training and procedures that they could later point their finger at and seek to have QPS added as a party or a third party or serve a notice of contribution on them.

That is entirely possible though there has not been any lawsuit brought against the QPS or the officer involved (or Axis - formerly Taser International) to my knowledge, for this incident. However it could have been a ‘just in case’ scenario, to save them some effort with discovery in the early stages of any such action I suppose...

 

[Mortician]

Turns out the coroner is a disgruntled St George fan. Still harbours a grudge from the '92 & '93 grand finals.

Regardless of the coroner's findings St George still can't play.