Finding into death of Perera and Perera

IN THE CORONERS COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE Court Reference: 873 / 06 874 / 06

REDACTED FINDING INTO DEATH WITH INQUEST

Form 37 Rule 60(1) Section 67 of the Coroners Act 2008

Inquest into the Deaths of HETTIARACHCHIGE SAMMY PERERA and

THUPPIGE DONNA SOMMEY IRANGANIE PERERA

Delivered On: Tuesday 3 July 2012

Delivered At: Coroners Court of Victoria Level 11, 222 Exhibition Strect, Melbourne, Vic, 3000

Hearing Dates: Monday, 23 April 2012

Findings of: JUDGE JENNIFER COATE, STATE CORONER

Representation:

Counsel Assisting the Coroner: Jacqui Hawkins, Principal In-House Solicitor

1, JUDGE JENNIFER COATE, State Coroner, having investigated the deaths of HETTIARACHCHIGE SAMMY PERERA and THUPPIGE DONNA SOMMEY IRANGANIE

PERERA

AND having held an inquest in relation to, these deaths on 23 April 2012 at Melbourne find that the identity of the deceased persons were:

HETTIARACHCHIGE SAMMY PERERA born on 25 September 1929 aged 76, and

THUPPIGE DONNA SOMMEY IRANGANIE PERERA born on 15 September 1929 aged 76 and the deaths occutred on,7 March 2006 at 11 Pauline Court, Hallam, Victoria, 3803 from: Hettiarachchige Sammy Perera 1 (aSTAB WOUNDS TO THE ARM AND CHEST Thuppige Donna Sommey Iranganie Perera

1 (a)STAB WOUNDS TO THE FACE AND CHEST

in the following circumstances: Introduction

1. On 7 March 2006, Mr Hettiarachchige Sammy PERERA (Mr Perera)’ aged 76 and Mrs Thuppige Dorma Sommey Iranganic PERERA (Mrs Perera)” aged 76, dicd in their daughter’s home as a result of fatal stab wounds.

2. Mr and Mrs Perera were on holiday from Sri Lanka visiting their daughter (BH), and their grandchildren (RAH), aged 4 months and (RTH) aged 4 years. They had been in Australia

for approximately two weeks.

Statement of wtentif

{ tatcmncat of identification by (SH), inquest brief al paid

Their son-in-law, Mr Sarath Lakshman Hettiarachchi (Mr Hettiarachchi) was charged with the murders of Mr and Mrs Perera. On 5 November 2007 he was found guilty by jury verdict in the Supreme Court after a 14 day trial conducted by Her Honour Justice King. After hearing a plea, Her Honour sentenced Mr Hettiarachchi to 27 years imprisonment with a

minimum sentence of 22 years to be served before being eligible for parole.

Mr Hetteriachchi appealed. unsuccessfully against his conviction to the Victorian Court of Appeal. He thereafter sought special leave to appeal to the High Court. On 9 February 2012

his special leave application was refused by the High Court.

In the course of rejecting his application for special leave, the High Court stated, "we see no reason to doubt the correctness of the conclusions reached by the Court of Appeal. In particular, we see no reason to doubt the conclusion that the circumstantial case against the applicant “was particularly powerful “4 The High Court stated that an appeal to this Court “would enjoy no reasonable prospect of success” and that “it was not in the interests of justice generally nor in this particular case that there now he a grant of special leave to

appeal.”

Upon completion of the proceedings in the High Court, the inquest brief was delivered to the Coroners Court of Victoria. The inquest brief consisted of the evidence gathered for the purposes of the criminal trial of Mr Hettiarchchi. Further investigations touching upon the “systems” involved in the circumstances in which these deaths occurred were conducted as patt of the coroner’s investigation. In particular, the issues that have becn further investigated touch upon the responses of Department of Human Services (DHS) Child Protection, Victoria Police and the family violence documents produced by the Magistrates Court for intervention orders. I have relied upon the facts as found by Her Honour Justice

King as the circumstances in which the deaths of Mr and Mrs Perera occurred.

Upon being advised of the short inquest in this Court, Mr Hetteriachchi wrote to the Court seeking to have the proceedings adjourned. The purpose for which he sought the adjournment was to re-litigate the defence which he had run in his Supreme Court trial that is, that it was his wife and not himself that had killed Mr and Mts Perera. This was the same

basis upon which he unsuccessfully sought special leave from the High Court.

§ Yettiarachchi v the Queen (2012) IICASL 5 (9 February 2012)

• ibid

"Tid

8. This Court is prohibited from making any finding or comment that a person is or may be guilty of a criminal offence.© This Court and its processes are not an adjunct to or a substitute for the criminal justice system. The purpose of this inquest is not to consider whether or not the entire findings and outcome of the criminal justice process were correct.

Such an endeavour would immediately put this Court beyond its power and purpose. For this reason, given that Mr Hetteriarchchi’s application was to adjourn for a fruitless exercise,

I did not consider it appropriate to grant that application.

9. The following is a summary of the material contained in the inquest brief, together with some further material obtained from the agencies mentioned above as to their relevant

interactions with the family and facts as found by King. J in her sentencing remarks.

Mr & Mrs Perera’s personal background

10. Mr Perera was born in Dehiwala, Sri Lanka on 25 September 1929.

11. Mr Perera had been gainfully employed as an office clerk for 35 years with a company callcd McWoods, based in Colombo, Sri Lanka.’ Mr Perera’s passions in life were his

children, family and music.*

12, Mrs Perera was born in Panadura, Sri Lanka on 15 September 2009, After completing secondary schooling, Mrs Perera studied primary school teaching and early childhood development at a teachers training college in Colombo and eventually taught in a

government run primary school in Colombo for a number of years.”

13. Mr and Mrs Perera met in 1956. They were married in a Buddhist wedding ceremony in

Colombo, Sri Lanka the same year. They had five children including a daughter, (BH).

14. In relation to her parents and family upbringing, (BH) commented “T recall nothing but a loving and happy family environment growing up...they lived for us and did everything

within their power to ensure that we had a happy existence, vio

Background circumstances and relationship of (BH) and Mr Hettiarchchi

© 8 69 Coroners Act 2008

7 Statement of (BH) at p240

• thid p24

hid

Io : Wid

18,

(BH) met and married Mr Hettiarachchi in February 1990 in Colombo. The marriage had been an arranged one, Mr Hettiarachchi returned to Australia in 1990 but it was not until 1994 that (BH) arrived in Australia to join him. In 1998, Mr Hettiarachchi and (BH): purchased a block of land at 11 Pauline Court, Hallam and built a house, They moved into

their house on 1 April 1999.

Mr Hettiarachchi was born in Sri Lanka and qualified as an electronics technician, and had immigrated to Australia in 1988, and mainly worked as a part time taxi driver. (BH) had

completed an Arts Degree majoring in Sociology before coming to Australia.

The inquest brief contains a considerable amount of material touching upon the unhappy relationship between (BH) and Mr Hettiarachchi after commencing their life together in Australia. (BH) describes many cpisodes of emotional abuse and controlling behaviour by her husband. (BH)’s statement describes a number of specific examples of physical abuse and acts of humiliation committed by Mr Hettiarachchi against her. Ms Nelum Liyanage, a friend of (BH), made a statement to police, which stated “the simple way to describe their

relationship was as master and servant. vl

Her Honour Justice King in the course of sentencing Mr Hettiarachi stated to him “you have a@ most unfortunate manner, which became evident during the proceedings, and it gives you the appearance of being overbearing and demanding. I am not able to say if that is your normal manner with ail persons, as IT have not been in a position to make that determination, particularly as the trial places those involved in the process, under great stress. That, however is the evidence of your wife, as to how you treated her during your

opt marriage”. ?

in September 2000, (BH) gave birth to a son, (RTH). (RTH) was born with a developmental delay and according to Dr Cong Phan of the Hallam Family Practice “would fall into the ‘special need’ category, demanding full time care and attention from his carer(s),""? After the birth of (RTH), (BH) stated a further deterioration in the relationship between Mr

Hettiarachchi and herself occurred.

A second child to their marriage, (RAH), was born on 25 October 2005. Shortly after

(RALD was born, (BH) stated that Mr Hettiarachchi discovered he had diabetes and was also

"' Statemont of Ms Nelum Liyanage at p140

fey &

v Hettiarchehi [2007] VSC (14 December 2007) Para 24

inquest brief at p [jy

(BR)’s 21,

23,

24,

advised that he was required to repay a sum of money to Centrelink. According to (BH), Mr Hettiarachchi formed the belief that (RAH) was in some way responsible for these negative

events and this caused a strain on his relationship with his daughter.” history of attempts to separate from Mr Hettiarachchi

(BH)’s statement indicates that by 2003, she was no longer able to tolerate her husband’s treatment of her. As a result, she decided to leave Mr Hettiarachchi and informed him that she wanted to take (RTH) with her. (BH) alleged in her statement that Mr Hettiarachchi did not take this well and threatened to kill her if she took (RTH) when she left.’

During this period, (BH) sought assistance from a number of service providers. In 2003, she obtained crisis accommodation from the community organisation ‘Hanover,’ before moving into family violence refuge accommodation. This led to a referral being made to the Women’s Liberation Half Way House, a specialist family violence organisation.

Arrangements were made for (BH) to stay in supported crisis accommodation in April 2003, and she was provided with legal advice in order to have access with (RTH), who remained with Mr Hettiarachchi. A worker from the Women’s Liberation Half Way House, Ms Yalgin, supported (BH) to attend the Magistrates’ Court for the purpose of obtaining a family violence intervention order. This was one of several contacts (BH) had with the

justice system, as describe in further detail below.

Following their separation, arrangements were made for (BH) to have contact with (RTH).

During the course of these visits, Mr Hettiarachchi told (BH) that he would attend counselling if she agreed to return to the family home, Counselling sessions did occur, during which time (BH) remained in accommodation provided through the Women’s

Liberation Half Way House.

Around October 2003, (BH) returned to live with Mr Hettiarachchi. At this time she was

advised by Ms Yalgin that if things did not go well, she could seck further assistance from

Women’s Liberation Half Way House. '®

In December 2003, (BH) contacied Ms Yalgin and told her that her situation at home was

still problematic. Ms Yalgin invited (BF) to attend a Christmas party at the refuge, however

"4 Statement of (BH) al p229

Is ype Ibid a

States

£227

new of Zdua Yalpia, inquest brief at plet

(BH) stated that Mr Hettiarachchi would not permit it. Throughout 2004 and 2005, (BH) called Ms Yalgin from time to time and spoke about her situation at home. The nature of these calls was not to seek immediate involvement from the service, but it seems reasonable to interpret that (BH) took this action in order to maintain a connection with the organisation

should she need assistance in the future.

Contact with Department of Human Services, Child Protection

27,

In February 2003, DHS Child Protection initiated an investigation after allegations of concern were raised regarding (RTH)’s welfare. (BH) had sepatated from Mr Hettiarachchi at the time and was living in refuge accommodation. The report to DHS contained allegations that the reason she had left her husband was duc to family violence. Protective involvement focused on the adequacy of (RTH)’s developmental needs being met, coupled with his exposure to emotional trauma. During a protective planning meeting held on 13 March 2003, it is documented that Mr Hettiarachchi stated he would kill himself if he lost (RTH).'?. Mr Hettiarachchi was described as largely reluctant to accept DHS Child Protection’s involvement, but agreed to (RTH) seeing a paediatrician and attending a playgroup for children with special needs, The DHS Child Protection investigation was

closed in June 2003.

In October 2005, and following the birth of (RAH), a further report was made to DHS Child Protection... It was alleged that Mr Hettiarachchi had been observed slapping (RTH) across the face.!® In addition, concerns were raised in connection to his treatment of (BH). Asa

result of these allegations, Child Protection conducted another investigation.

DHS Child Protection visited (BE) and Mr Hettiarachchi on 7 November 2005. Mr Hettiarachchi denied hitting (RTH) and further denied the existence of family violence involving (BID. During the visit, Mr Hettiarachchi made comments to the effect that

a 19 “people have it in for me”

DHS Child Protection remained involved for a period of approximately three months.

Arrangements were made for (BH) to receive visits from the Enhanced Maternal Children Health Nurse (EMCN) and further consultation occurred in relation to (RTH)’s educational

needs, Concerns raised about Mr Hettiarachchi’s treatment of (RTH) were not

‘TH 28 Day Protective Plaming Mecting Record dated 13 March 2002

'S Statement af Linda Spann inquest brief ai p. 192

1y

od

” Statement of Linda Spann, isneylest brief ab 1 Od

substantiated. DHS Child Protection did not identify evidence of physical or other abuse at

the time” and ceased any further involvement in January 2006.

Contact with Victoria Police and the Magistrates’ Court

34,

There were a number of family violence reports made to police between (BH) and Mr Hettiarachchi during their marriage. The first of these was on 3 November 1995, when police attended their home in Carnegie. (BH) reported that she was being harassed by her husband to get employment as he was about to lose his job. It is noted on the police LEAP

system that there was no violence, weapons or alcohol involved.”!

On 3 January 2001, (BH) telephoned police from the Hallam Railway Station and stated that

she had had an argument with her husband. Police spoke to (BH) at the railway station then returned with her to the shared residence. She advised police that her husband had been violent one month earlier, however police were not notified at this time. The LEAP records on this occasion record that both parties decided to remain in the house, but that they would

sleep in separate rooms. There was no further involvement with police after this incident.”

On 3 March 2003, a complaint and summons (summons) for an intervention order was issued by the Melbourne Magistrates Court against Mr Vettiarachchi. The summons states that (BH) moved out of the family home due to domestic violence and that her husband had threatened to kill her and further that he “has physically, verbally, emotionally and sexually abused me and has physically, verbally and emotionally abused my baby ...and I fear my

baby is in danger. 08

On 11 March 2003, the summons was struck out’ There was no further information as to

why this was the case.

On 7 July 2003, after separating from Mr Hettiarachchi and with the assistance of the Women’s Liberation Half Way House, (BE) attended the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court

where an interim intervention order was made.”*> On 15 July 2003 the court ordered an

2 DHS Child Protection written submission, dated 26 May 2012

2. LEAP Report, inquest brief at p748

® 1 EAP Report, inquest bricf at p75

2 Complaint and Summons for an Intervention Order dated 3 February 2003, inquest brief at p754

4 Conified Extract, Melbourne Magistrates Court dated 1{ March 2003, inquest brief at p753

% Oositiod Extract, Melbourne Magistrates Court dated 7 faly 2003, inquest biieP at p 756

oo

35,

intervention order against Mr Hettiarachchi, which prohibited him from having contact with

(BH).

On 24 September 2003, (BH) made an application to the court to vary the intervention order to allow contact with Mr Hettiarachchi, This was granted but prohibited Mr Hettiarachchi

from assaulting, harassing, molesting, threatening or intimidating (BH).””

On 2 October 2003, (BH) made an application to revoke the intervention order after she had reconciled with Mr Hettiarachchi. This application was granted by the court® and (BH)

moved back to the family residence.

Events leading up to the incident

During 2005, while pregnant with (RAH), (BH) asked Mr Hettiarachchi if she could invite her parents who lived in Sri Lanka to come to Australia to assist with the children, Mr

Hettiarachchi agreed to this.

Mr and Mrs Perera arrived in Australia on 22 February 2006, almost four months after (RAH) was born. By the time of their arrival, Mr Hettiarachchi and (BH) were living separately within the family residence. (BH) reported that initially, Mr Hettiarachchi behaved amicably towards Mr and Mrs Perera, however, according to (BH), the situation

deteriorated after a very short time.

According to (BH), on 5 March 2006, Mr Hettiarachchi took (BH) to an ATM and withdrew all her Centrelink benefits, (BH) alleged that the money he withdrew was used to purchase food for (RTH) and himself only.

According to (BH), on 6 March 2006, Mr Perera advised Mr Hettiarachchi that he should treat his wife better. According to (BH), Mr Hettiarachchi reacted out of character by becoming silent, and his lack of response was of concern to (BH). She stated that “the fact that Sarath just said nothing really frightened me and he gave me the strong feeling that

things were going to get very nasty. nad

(BE)’s contact with the Women’s Liberation Halfway House

6 Certified Extract, Melbourne Magistrates Court dated 15 July 2003, inquest brief at p759

"1 Certified Exiract, Melbourne Magistrates Court dated 24 September 2003, inquest brief at p761

41. At approximately 10:10am on Monday 6 March 2006, (BH) called Ms Yalgin from the

Women’s Liberation Halfway House and stated that “she was having problems at home.” (BH) requested accommodation in the women’s refuge for herself and her parents. Ms Yalgin told her that it would not be possible to obtain accommodation for her parents, as men were not allowed in a women’s refuge, but she indicated she would look for transitional

housing for them.

42. Ms Yalgin later mentioned (BH)’s situation to her colleague, Marcela Posteraro, who then telephoned (BH) and explained one option she had available to her included applying for a sole occupancy interim intervention order, which was a court order that would require Mr

' After some consideration, (BH) indicated to Ms

Hettiarachchi to leave the home.’ Posteraro that she would consider this alternative.” Ms Posteraro states that she reiterated to (BH) that if she took this course of action it was important to change the locks to the

house and to call the police if Mr Hettiarachchi ever came near the property.” Interim Intervention Order

43. On that day, 6 March 2006, (BH) attended the Dandenong Magistrates Court with her parents and her baby (RAH) and spoke to Deputy Registrar Linda Morrison to obtain an Intervention Order against her husband* Ms Morrison was not able to interview (BH) at the time and suggested she come back after 2:00pm. Ms Morrison states that the “circumstances that she relayed to me caused.me sufficient alarm to warrant me making an appointment to see her prior to the days end 33 as she said she was “frightened of her

husband. 7°

44: A 2:15pm (BH) and her parents returned to the registry counter. (BH) filled in the Family Violence Information Form*” and was then interviewed by Ms Morrison. With the information provided, Ms Morrison generated a complaint and summons for an intervention

order.

3 Statement of Ms Yalgin, inquest brief at p182

3! Statement of Ms Marcela Posteraro, inquest brief at p173

• Ibid at p174

• Thid at p173

44 Statement of Ms Linda Morrison, inquest brief at p208

§ thid at p209

bid

MD 4 po PT licjuest bret at p772

45,

The complaint and summons sought to prohibit Mr Hettiarachchi from the following:

a,

b.

d.

Assaulting, harassing, molesting, threatening or intimidating the aggrieved family

member/s; Approaching, telephoning or contacting the aggrieved family member/s except: i. In the company of a police officer; or

ii. To participate in counselling or to exercise child contact hy agreement with the aggrieved family member/s or pursuant to a court order, or by direction or order made by a court exercising jurisdiction under the family law act 1975, or

iii. To participate in mediation by agreement with the aggrieved family

member/s

Knowingly being at or within 200 metres of premises situated at 11 Pauline Court,

Hallam or any other premises where the aggrieved family member/s lives or works

except: i. Inthe company of a police officer; or

ii. To exercise child contact by prior agreement with the aggrieved family

member/s or pursuant to a court order Damaging properly owned/jointly owned by the aggrieved family member/s Causing another person to engage in conduct prohibited by this order

Further order that any party has liberty to apply in writing to the court at any time

to revoke, vary or extend this order.

The narrative supporting the application stated:

“The defendant is my husband. We have been in a relationship for 12 years and we have two children aged 5 and 4 months. T have made two previous applications for intervention orders in the past. On both of these occasions the defendant said that he would change and I didn’t proceed with the orders, T am now seeking a further intervention against him to protect me and my children. 1 want the defendant to leave the family home. T have been subjected to emotional, social and financial abuse, The defendant keeps me and ny children isolated. The defendant is a very

controlling mon Te also controls my money and only ews me $30 Farr not

allowed to answer the phone and I can’t open my Centrelink letters. He hates my daughter. In 2003, T moved out of the house due to domestic violence and I stayed in a refuge. He was socially, emotionally, financially and sexually abusive towards me.

He physically hit me in the past. Tam very scared that it will happen again. I want my children included in the intervention order as I am scared that hefwill] assault them. In the past child protection were involved. He abuses my daughter all the

, 238 time because he hates her.’

47. Ms Morrison thought (BH)’s application was serious enough to list the matter in court

before a Magistrate that same day. Pursuant to the Crimes (Family Violence) Act 1987 in

place at the time, an interim intervention order was made, with a return date of 20 March

2006.2”. The interim intervention order made included four of the conditions applied for on

the complaint and summons, but did not include a sole occupancy order. One can assume

this was a considered decision of the presiding magistrate. There were no written reasons

provided for this decision, although I readily accept that reasons most likely would have

been provided orally in open court by the presiding Magistrate.The conditions made by the

court were that Mr Hettiarachchi be prohibited from:

eh.

d.

Assaulting, harassing, molesting, threatening or intimidating the aggrieved family

member/s; Damaging property owned/jointly owned by the aggrieved family member/s Causing another person to engage in conduct prohibited by this order

Further order that any party has liberty to apply in writing to the court at any time

to revoke, vary or extend this order.

48. A registrar from the Dandenong Magistrates Court faxed the interim intervention order

together with the complaint and summons to the Endeavour Hills Police Station the next

morning on Tuesday, 7 March 2006.

Police Service of the Order

49, On Tuesday 7 March 2006, Senior Constable Tracey Arnold received instructions to serve

that interins intervention order on Mr Hettiarachchi. She performed the necessary checks on

the LEAP database to determine if any warnings for the person on whom the intervention

• thid poG0 and 174

taterin intervention Order, inquest brief at p6G4

order was to be served existed.*” SC Amold established that Mr Hettiarachchi did not have a firearms licence and did not have any prior convictions. SC Amold’s statement indicates she “read the intervention order and saw that it was an order prohibiting the defendant jrom being within 200 metres of his home. This indicated to [her] that police would have to remove the defendant from his home. »4l However, as noted above, this condition was not in fact part of the order, but was listed in the complaint and summons (ie the application for the

order).

SC Arnold telephoned (BH) on the morning of 7 March 2006. She was advised by (BH) that Mr Hettiarachchi was in the shower and would be home all day. SC Arnold confirmed with (BH) that Mr Hettiarachchi was not expecting the order to be served upon him and (BH) was said to make the observation “he wont be happy.” What (BH) meant by this, or her expectations as to how Mr Hettiarachchi might respond, were not further explored by SC

Arnold.

After considering the material, SC Arnold stated that she did not feel comfortable going to the Hettiarachchi home alone to serve the order. Consequently, she spoke to Constable Stephen Regnier and Senior Constable Graeme Stanley and asked them to go with her.” They offered to serve the interim intervention order on Mr Hettiarachchi without her and she explained the documentation to them, namely, that Mr Hettiarachchi had to be removed from the home. Further, she stated they had “so kick the male out of the house and he didn’t

know about the order.”

Constable Regnier and SC Stanley stated that they read the documentation and determined that “according to police records the defendant did not possess firearms; he didn’t have any prior convictions for violence or a history of violence. “4 SC Stanley stated that “the conditions in the order were fairly standard in that the defendant named in the order could not assault or harass the aggrieved family member, that the defendant could not be within

200 metres of the address at {1 Pauline Court, Hallam unless in company of a police

9 Senior Constable Tracey Amold, inquest brief at p318

‘! Thid

"Tid at p319

Staternent Constable Siephen Regier, inquest brief al p322

“ Yhid ai 323

53,

officer. 45 However, as previously outlined, this was a misreading of the documents as this condition was not featured in the interim order, but was contained in the complaint and

‘summons.

The two officers left the police station and en route to the Hettiarachchi home, discussed the contents of the intervention order, conducted a risk assessment*’ and formulated a plan on how they would serve the intervention. order on Mr Hettiarachchi.”” The statements of both police officers indicate that at this time they both held the view that there were no previous

episodes of physical violence against (BH) by Mr Hettiarachehi.

Constable Regnier and SC Stanley arrived at the Hettiarachchi home at approximately 12.01pm and served the intervention order and complaint and summons on Mr Hettiarachchi. The police officers advised Mr Hettiarachchi that as a condition of the order, he was required to leave the family home. Mr Hettiarachchi requested to read the documents and was permitted to do so. It was explained to Mr Hettiarachchi that he was allowed to gather some clothes and personal items. Further, he was instructed not to go within 200 metres of the house until the court hearing on 20 March 2006.8 Mr Hettiarachchi asked where he might find a solicitor and SC Stanley stated that he advised that there were many solicitors’ offices in Foster Street, near the Dandenong Magistrates

Court.

The police officers state that Mr Hettiarchchi was “calm and showed no hostility or violence towards anyone.” Police waited for Mr Hettiarachchi to leave the home and finalised their formal duties at the residence by 12.35pm. The two police officers observed Mr Hettiarachchi leave the house in his car. They followed him a short distance, and when

he slowed down, they passed him in their vehicle.

Mr and Mrs Perera, (BH) and the two children remained at the residence. Following the departure of Mr Hettiarachchi and the police, (BH) stated that she locked the doors of the

house.

45 statement of SC Graeme Stanley, inquest brief at p330

46 This is the language that was used in their statement. There is no evidence of any informed risk assessment taking into account the family violence situation.

47 eratement of Constable Regnier, inquest brief at 327

AG

Stateme

nt of SC Stanley, inqnesi brieFal p337

tement of Consiuble Regnier, iiquest bricl at p32)

The fatal actions of Mr Hettiarachchi

57,

Her Honour Justice King found that after the police drove past Mr Hettiarachchi, he turned the cat around and returned home, used his key to unlock the front door, and walked into the housc. At this time, (BH) states that she was on the phone, attempting to contact Ms Posteraro in order to make arrangements for the locks to be changed. She heard the front door open and observed Mr Hettiarachchi enter the house. (BH) states “I was shocked I

couldn't believe it, He opened the door and just walked right in. 750

Mr Perera was seated in an armchair opposite the front door holding his granddaughter in his lap. (RTH) was at the front window. (BH) stood between the front door and her father

and Mrs Perera stood near the master bedroom door.

Her Honour Justice King found that Mr Hettiarachchi walked into the kitchen area of the house, picked up two large knives from the kitchen drawer, went to the lounge chair in which Mr Perera was seated holding (RAH), pushed her aside and stabbed Mr Perera with a deal of force on at least two occasions. Mr Perera died in the chair in which he sat, still

holding his granddaughter (RAH).

King J found that Mrs Perera tried to come to the aid of her husband and she was stabbed in the face with such force by Mr Hettiarachchi that the wound penetrated to the spine at the back of her neck, Her Honour Justice King found that Mrs Perera attempted to escape and run to the front door while Mr Hettiarachchi continued to stab her. She finally collapsed on the ground outside the front door, Mr Hettiarachchi, then placed the knives on the ground

next to Mrs Perera and left."

(BH) noticed her mother was still breathing and called 000 at 12.42pm. An ambulance and police units arrived at 12.48pm. Constable Regnier and SC Stanley were making their way back to the police station when they received ihe call describing the incident at the Hallam

address.

Sadly, attempts to resuscitate Mr and Mrs Perera were unsuccessful. They were subsequently pronounced deceased at the scene by Dr Noel Woodford, forensic pathologist

of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine (VIFM).

an

ST Tid, inquest brief p236

ibid, inquest brief 217

The evidence at trial heard that Mr Hettiarachchi left the scene and attended a number of solicitors firms in Dandenong. At the first two offices, Mr Hettiarchchi was observed to

have blood on the right and left sleeves of his shirt.

In the evening at approximately 7.25pm, Mr Hettiarachchi was leaving a motel when he was

intercepted by police who then arrested him.

INVESTIGATION AS TO CAUSES OF DEATH

Forensic Pathology

Mr Perera

Dr Noel Woodford, Senior Forensic Pathologist of VIFM, performed an autopsy on Mr

Perera on 8 Match 2006 and provided his opinion as to cause of death was stab wounds to

the arm and chest.”

66. Dr Woodford judged the degree of force to be “at least moderately severe on a four point scale of mild, moderate, severe and extreme. 33 He also noted “there were no defensivetype incised injuries to the forearms or hands. ?*4

67. Toxicological analysis did not reveal the presence of alcohol or commonly encountered drugs or toxins.

68. Natural disease processcs that were identified at autopsy included ischaemic heart disease and chronic obstructive airways disease.”

Mrs Perera

69. Dr Noel Woodford, conducted an autopsy on Mrs Perera on 8 March 2006 and provided his opinion as to cause of death was stab wounds to the face and chest.’

70. Dr Woodford noted a total of 5 stab wounds were identified (one to the face, two to the right

upper arm and two to the back of the chest) he also noted two incised wounds to the left

mid upper arm.”

» Statement of Dr Nocl Woodford, inquest brief at p1 14

° ibid, p 115 Ibid, p15

• Ibid pil4 and p638

“Thid plis

72,

Dr Woodford stated that “the degree of force is judged to have been at least severe ona four , point scale of mild, moderate, severe and extreme. 1760 Toxicological analysis showed no findings of significance.”

Dr Woodford noted that there was “no natural disease evident at autopsy likely to have

caused or significantly contributed to death”. a

Record of Interview

74,

75,

Police interviewed Mr Hettiarachchi on 7 and 8 March 2006. Mr Hettiarachchi denied returning to the residential home after leaving with police officers. He denied having any knowledge of the incident. When intervicwed by police, Mr Hettiarachchi denied returning to the house after being evicted and denied that he had killed Mr and Mrs Perera. He

claimed that his wife had done it and that she was “mad”.

On 8 March 2006, Mr Hettiarachchi was charged with the murders of Mr and Mrs Perera,

Criminal Trial and Appeal

As noted above, Mr Hettiarachchi pleaded not guilty to the charges against him but he was

convicted upon trial by judge and jury.

On 14 December 2007, Her Honour Justice King sentenced Mr Hettiarachchi to 27 ycars imprisonment with a non parole period of 22 years. In her sentencing remarks, Justice King noted Mr Hettiarachchi’s reaction was “absolutely out of proportion, to the upset [ he} may have pele Further, Mr Hettiarachchi “behaved in a savage and agitated manner, at the time of the actual killings, The force, the ferocity and the number of wounds, indicates

that.’

8 Thid

• Thid p133

® Ibid p133

§! Thid p133and p643 © Thid p33

8 Ry Hettiatachchi [2007] VSC 541

© Ry Hettintachchi [2007] VSC 544

© Bey Pleitialachchi {2007| VSC 54)

78. Mr Hettiarachchi sought leave to appeal against his conviction and the Director of Public Prosecutions also sought to appeal against the sentence. On 27 November 2009, the Court

of Appeal dismissed both appeals.°°

79. Mr Hettiarachchi made an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia. This application was dismissed by the High Court on 9 February 2012.7

COMMENTS

Pursuant to section 67(3) of the Coroners Act 2008, I make the following comment(s) connected

with the deaths:

80, This investigation was assisted by the Victorian Systemic Review of Family Violence Related Deaths (VSRFVD) in order to identify any opportunities to strengthen the response to family violence in this state. Asa result of that review, there arc a number of important observations that can be made in connection to the family violence aspects present in this case. These are outlined here, in order to assist with understanding the circumstances

surrounding how these deaths occurred.

DHS Child Protection inquest submission

81. As part of this coronial investigation, further information was requested from DHS Child Protection in respect to their last contact with the family prior to the horrific deaths of Mr and Mrs Perera. A submission was received at the Coroners Court on the 26 May 2012. As outlined above, this notes that concerns regarding Mr Hettiarachchi’s inappropriate physical discipline of (RTH) could not be substantiated during the associated investigation.

Similarly, while concerns pertaining to (BH)’s exposure to family violence were raised, the

DHS Child Protection reported that it found no evidence of this.

82, Tt is not possible to draw the conclusion that had DHS Child Protection remained involved with the family, the tragic deaths of Mr and Mrs Perera could have been prevented and J do not draw any such conclusion. However, there are some important observations that can be

made in relation to family violence and contact with the DHS Child Protection.

66 Ry Hettiarachchi; DPP v Hettiarachehi [2009} VSCA 2.70

© Heuiarachchi v The Queen [2012] HCASL 5

6 positioned within the Coroners Courl of Victovia, the VSRPYD provides assistance to Victorian coroners to ate the circumstances in which family violence deaths occur, In addition, the VSREVD collects and analyses ily vielence-rulaied invidonts, This contributes to the development af a hroader knowledge base for

sworkiuy in fhe area of family violence,

• At the time DHS Child Protection became involved with the family in late 2005, this was

the second occasion in which concerns about Mr Hettiarachchi’s abusive behaviour had been raised, While the DHS Child Protection reported that it was unable to find evidence family violence was occurring, it is known that much of this behaviour is typically obscured.

from public view. Further, (BH) was experiencing a number of additional factors known to increase risk and vulnerability, such as her cultural background, limited family and social supports, and the recent birth of (RAH). Whilst necessary and appropriate community supports were arranged for (RTH) and (RAH), there is no evidence that DHS discussed ongoing family violence assistance with (BH) at the time. Support to (BR) in this area was

likely to be an important factor, not only for her own safety, but also for that of the children.

The submission provided by DHS Child Protection documents the continued efforts made by the DHS Child Protection in connection to family violence since the deaths of Mr and Mrs Perera in 2006. Chief among these is a whole of government approach to addressing this issue. Given the widespread prevalence of family violence in the community, a strategic approach of this kind is undoubtedly necessary. It is particularly important for Child Protection interventions fo protect children from exposure to violence, to assist in that

protection by understanding and. supporting the parent who is the victim of that violence.

Actions of Victoria Police

SC Tracey Arnold states that she filled in the Intervention Order Action Advice Cover Sheet, which records information about the intervention order. She states that she conducted the relevant LEAP searches and enquired as to whether Mr Hettiarachchi had a history of violence, was licensed to own a firearm and whether he had a firearm registered to him. SC Arnold stated that she noticed that there had been previous expited intervention orders. Tt is acknowledged that the resources of police are stretched” and that it is not always possible to conduct extensive enguirics, however, this case serves as a stark example of the powerful

danger to life that family violence can pose,

SC Arnold states that she cannot remember the complaint saying anything about a history of violence, however, the second page of the complaint details allegations of prior physical

assaults and (BH)’s fear of her husband.

The written submission provided by Victoria Police dated (5 tune 2042 notes thai police serve approximately {00,000 Family Violence Intervention Grdeis annually,

SC Atnold also states that she spoke to (BH) on the phone and enquired as to how Mr Hettiarachchi may react to being served with an intervention order and (BH) responded he would not be happy. SC Arnold did not follow up with any questions as to how he might react, whether she was fearful for her safety, whether she had a safety plan, or whether she was in touch with her family violence worker. Had SC Arnold made these further enquiries, she may have assisted police member’s Regnier and Stanley with their risk assessment as to how this intervention order ought to be served and what could have been considered to

bolster the family’s safety.

It appears that both Constable Regnier and SC Stanley may not have adequately read the documentation, prior to their attendance at the family home. Constable Regnier states that there was “definitely no mention of any violence towards her or any other person.” Further, SC Stanley asserts “there was no indication of violence in the summary towards the

ral

victim”. However, as previously discussed these assertions were incorrect. In fact,

Constable Regnicr at Mr Hettiarchchi’s trial stated “7 don’t recall reading [the intervention

order] myself but we had a conversation about it. wn

I do not conclude that had the police read the documents accurately and not excluded Mr Hettiarchchi from the home then these terrible events would not have occurred. There is no basis to come to such a conclusion. Indeed, the order sought by (BH) was that Mr Hettiarchchi be excluded from the home which is no doubt why she readily acecpted that

what she had asked for was.the order made.

The facts in this case provide an horrendous example of the heightened risk of death and injury in such circumstances and must remain as a tragic monument to all of those involved.

in family violence work of the need for constant vigilance and safety and attention to all of the details available. Any police member involved in the removal of an alleged perpetrator of family violence from the family home cannot afford to be cavalier about the risks to the

family in the wake of that removal.

Victoria Police Submission

91,

As part of this coronial investigation, further information was provided to the court from

Victoria Police in connection to current practice when police serve intervention orders. The

™ Inquest brief, p323

Ty

Hf

aquest brief, p330

’Velal transevint, pt 2

93,

94,

submission notes that since the deaths of Mr and Mrs Perera there have been a number of changes to Victoria Police policies and procedures in relation to intervention orders. It is also noted that legislative reform has occurred with the introduction of the Family Violence Protection Act 2008, which had the intention of increasing the safety of affected family members (AFM) and enhancing risk management at family violence incidents. Police submit that risk management at family violence incidents has improved dramatically as a

result of these reforms.”

The submission of Victoria Police states that police procedure prior to serving orders involves standard risk assessment and safety planning. This includes conducting LEAP checks to determine prior criminal histories and identify any warning flags; reviewing previous tisk assessments where police have attended a family violence incident involving the parties; and assessing for access to firearms oF other weapons. Further, police submitted they consider the physical parameters of the location where the order is to be served, and any other information provided by the AFM in relation to the respondent, Consideration is also given as to how contact with the AFM prior to service of the order on the respondent might impact on the AFM’s safety. Specifically, the submission notes that “the danger of escalating risk to the AFM by alerting the respondent to the order in advance of service

needs to be carefully weighed against the benefits of proactive planning. ua

The submission provided by Victoria Police also describes some of the issues and challenges currently encountered by the organisation in connection to serving intervention orders. Among these, and of particular relevance to the circumstances of the present case, relates to the readability of the documentation. The submission notes that the current format can be difficult to read by the parties required to absorb the information, namely police, affected family members and respondents. In addition, intervention orders are described as being “lengthy and repetitive.” 1 accept that submission and agree that the documents gencrated by the current system are repetitive and confusing. All parties would benefit from

a more streamlined and ‘user friendly’ set of documents.’

Were it not for the Victoria Police submission provided to the Coroners Cort regarding the

enhanced changes to their policies and procedures over the years since the deaths of Mr and

8 Victoria Police written submission dated 15 Junc 2012

™ Thid p3

P tbid pZ

Mrs Perera, I would have turned my mind to making recommendations specifically to Victoria Police addressing the issues which arose in this case. However, given the material I have been provided with I am satisfied, that Victoria Police has been proactive in improving the systems associated with serving intervention orders and considering the safety of

affected family members when doing so.

Conclusion

95,

Mr Hettiarachchi was convicted of the murders of Mr and Mrs Perera and will serve a lengthy term of imprisonment. In sentencing, Her Honour Justice King commented, “These were vicious murders of elderly, defenceless, innocent people, who were doing nothing more than visiting their child and grandchildren, and undoubtedly feeling protected as a result of the intervention order that had been granted. It is appalling that an intervention order, designed to protect predominantly women from abusive partners, could end up being the

precipitator, for such horrific violence. 16

It is important to note that Mr Hettiarachchi did not have any prior convictions, a firearms licence or a firearm registered to him, not is it recorded that he made any violent threats toward Mr and Mts Perera. Further, he appeared calm and complied with the requests made

of him by police at the time the order was served upon him.

Family violence is a matter of extreme importance to our community. It requires continued efforts to strengthen and enhance the services that are designed to both prevent and intervene in this behaviour. With this in mind and based on the material elicited throughout

this investigation, I make the following recommendation:

RECOMMENDATION

1,

I recommend that the Victoria Police and Magistrates’ Court of Victoria Family Violence Committee review the written format of family violence intervention orders, so as to improve the readability of these documents for all those required to understand and adhere

to them, including members of Victoria Police, affected family members and respondents.

I direct that a copy of this finding be provided to the following for action:

Ry Hetiiatacheht [2007 VSC a57

Magistrate Kate Hawkins and Detective Inspector Kerryn Hynam, Chairpersons of the Victoria Police and Magistrates Court of Victoria F amily Violence Committee

Pursuant to section 73(1) of the Coroners Act 2008, | order that this Finding be published on the internet in REDACTED form (consistent with the Suppression Order made on this day).

I further direct that a copy of this finding be provided to the following for information only:

(BF)

Sarath Hettiarachchi

Chief Magistrate lan Gray

Magistrate Kate Hawkins and Magistrate Felicity Broughton Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police Ken Lay APM

Ethical Standards Division, Victoria Police

+]

he Hon. Robert Clark, MP, Attorney-General of Victoria

The Hon. Peter (RTH), MP, Minister for Police and Emergency Services

The Hon. Mary Wooldridge, MP; Minister for Community Services; Minister for Mental Health; Minister for Women's Affairs

The Hon. Andrew McIntosh, MP, Minister for Corrections; Minister for Crime Prevention

The Hon. Wendy Lovell MLC; Minister for Housing

Assistant Commissioner Wendy Steendam and Mr Simon Phemister, Chairpersons, Family |

Violence Inter-Departmental Committee, Department of Human Services

Signature:

Ea <a ( DG JENNIFER COATE, State Coroner

Date: 3 July 2012