Deceased
Barbara Lubik
Demographics
36y, female
Coroner
State Coroner Judge Ian L Gray
Date of death
2009-01-25
Finding date
2013
Cause of death
stab injury to neck with transection of left common carotid artery
AI-generated summary
Barbara Lubik, a 36-year-old Polish immigrant, was fatally stabbed in the neck by her husband Peter Lubik during a domestic dispute on 25 January 2009. The autopsy confirmed the stab wound transected the left common carotid artery. Peter Lubik had an established history of violence against women, exacerbated by alcohol misuse and untreated mental health issues. Multiple police and court contacts documented escalating domestic violence, yet systemic gaps remained. Barbara contacted police three months before her death; the responding officer checked her safety but did not proactively apply for an intervention order despite it having expired. Key clinical lessons include: recognizing patterns of intimate partner violence as a medical emergency, assessing lethality risk, documenting abuse comprehensively, and implementing structured case management for both victims and perpetrators. Services like WAYSS identified safety goals but engagement was not sustained. The coroner noted that assertive, structured intervention strategies—as later implemented in Victoria Police's Enhanced Family Violence Service Delivery model—could have provided better coordinated support between police, courts, and community services.
AI-generated summary — refer to original finding for legal purposes. Report an inaccuracy.
Specialties
Error types
IN THE CORONERS COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE Court Reference: 2009 / 0394
Form 38 Rule 60(2) Section 67 of the Coroners Act 2008
I, Judge Ian Gray, State Coroner having investigated the death of BARBARA LUBIK
without holding an inquest:
find that the identity of the deceased was Barbara LUBIK.
born on 28 March 1972 aged 36
and the death occurred on 25 January 2009
at 8 Julius Crescent, Noble Park North, Victoria, 3174 from:
Pursuant to section 67(2) of the Coroners Act 2008, I make findings with respect to the following circumstances:
Introduction
established.
2009 he was charged with the murder of Barbara Lubik.
' For the purpose of this finding, I will refer to Barbara Lubik as Barbara.
Coroners Court (Amendment No, 1) Rules 2011
for 9 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 6 years and 6 months.” Background of Barbara Lubik
accident in Poland when Barbara was 21 years old.
In October 2004 Barbara visited Australia under the provisions ofa student visa. She studied English and was working as a seamstress under the conditions of her visa.
Ms Regina Theiss, a close friend described Barbara as a very caring, happy girl.? She was
also described as a “responsible, helpful, organised and ethic(ally) minded girl”
Background of Peter Lubik
that marriage only lasted until September 1996 when she returned to Poland.
working. He was not employed at the time of the fatal event.
includes mental health issues including depression and past threats of suicide.
Background circumstances of Barbara and Peter Lubik’s Relationship
Barbara responded to the advertisement and they formed a relationship as a result of their
meeting. In April 2006 Barbara moved in with Peter Lubik. Barbara applied for a temporary
? Rv Lubik [2011]VSC 137. A Coroner is not required to hold an inquest when a person has been charged with an indictable offence in respect of the death being investigated pursuant to section 52(3)(b) of the Coroners Act 2008.
Statement of Regina Theiss, Inquest Brief, p.129
“ Statement of Danuta Nowakowski, Inquest Brief, p.136
Coroners Court (Amendment No. 1) Rules 20114
spouse visa with Peter Lubik being her sponsor. This required that her spouse be an
Australian citizen and provide financial support.°
On 15 July 2006, Barbara and Peter Lubik married at their home address in front of approximately 15 people. A number of people who knew Barbara and Peter Lubik said that the marriage was at times turbulent, and although Peter Lubik was normally a good husband,
this would change when he had been drinking.
In September 2008, Barbara gained permanent residency in Australia which allowed her to
gain full time employment at City White Alterations at the Southland Shopping Centre.
Events leading up to the incident
On 25 January 2009, Elizbieta Wijas, a friend of Barbara contacted her and asked her to go shopping. When Barbara informed Peter that she was going shopping with Ms Wijas, he told her he would go too. All three attended the Dandenong area where they went shopping for furniture. According to Ms Wijas, Peter Lubik appeared happy and relaxed. After a short time
‘they noticed Peter was not with them. Barbara and her fricnd tried to look for Peter however
were unable to locate him. Barbara attempted to contact him by mobile phone over a two hour period however he did not respond. Barbara and her friend continued shopping. Once they had finished shopping, and as they were unable to locate Peter, Ms Wijas drove Barbara to a street corner near her house. Ms Wijas refused to drive her directly home as she was scared of
Peter Lubik.®
The fatal actions of Peter Lubik
Later in the evening, some time after 6pm and before 9.42pm a physical confrontation occurred between Peter and Barbara Lubik occurred. This unfolded in the dining room of
their home which resulted in a fatal stab wound to the neck of Barbara Lubik.
During the evening, several phone calls were made from the Lubik home phone and Peter Lubik’s mobile phone. One of these calls was to Dandenong Taxi at 6.58pm, registering an order for a taxi for a pick up from the Lubik address to drop off at Crown Casino. The taxi driver knocked on the door when he arrived at the Lubik house but there was no answer and
no pick up was made.’
5 Statement of Helen Friedmann, Inquest Brief, p.233
Coroners Court (Amendment No. 1) Rules 2011
At 7.05pm Peter Lubik rang his friend and asked him to meet him at the casino however his friend refused. This same friend received another call from Peter Lubik again requesting to
meet him at the casino however he again refused.
At 9.42pm Peter Lubik telephoned 000 for an ambulance to attend their address as a result of a fight with his wife. During the call Peter Lubik told the operator his wife tried to choke him and he broke out and hit her.® When asked how long ago this occurred Peter Lubik replied 20 minutes ago. Peter Lubik did not advise 000 that Barbara had sustained a knife wound to the neck, however he did say there was a lot of blood. Emergency services gave Peter instructions on how to resuscitate and administer CPR to Barbara. Ambulance officers arrived a short
time later and found Barbara deceased.”
The evidence of the police is that they found Peter Lubilk knoecling down next to Barbara who was lying face down in a large pool of blood. Peter was described as prodding and talking to her, whilst also crying. Peter Lubik appeared to be drug or alcohol affected and was very vague and hard to understand when he spoke.’ He smelled of alcohol and was unsteady on
his feet.'! Peter Lubik was conveyed to the Dandenong Police Station.
An examination of the crime scence revealed a blood stained white handled knife on the kitchen table. This was later found to have Mr Lubik’s DNA on the handle. Police also found
a black handled knife covered in blood lying next to Barbara.
Forensic Medical and Scientific Investigation
21,
On 30 January 2009, Dr Matthew Lynch, Senior Forensic Pathologist at the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine (VIFM) conducted an autopsy on the body of Barbara Lubik and
provided an opinion that Barbara Lubik’s cause of death was la) stab injury to neck,'?
Dr Lynch made the following comments:
a. The wound transacted the left common carotid artery and the approximate wound depth
was Som,
® Statement of Matthew Shepherd, Inquest Brief, p.63
© Statement of SC Maric Krandis, Inquest Brief, p.50
" Statement of LSC Les Kelly, Inquest Brief, p.45
2 Autopsy Report of Dr Matthew Lynch. Inquest Bricf, p.9 of report
Coroners Court (Amendment No. 1) Rules 2011
Criminal Investigation
22,
23,
24,
b. With respect to the assessment of the requisite force to produce this injury a number of
variables warrant consideration including the sharpness of tip and blade of knife, the
resistive effect of clothing, skin and underlying tissue and the relative kinetic energy conferred on the blade. In this instance given the absence of any significant bony injury the requisite degree of force is in my view best assessed as at least moderate applying a
three tier scale of mile/moderate/severe.
¢. No defence type wounds were identified."
d. Forensic toxicological analysis was negative for drugs and alcohol.
Peter Lubik was arrested and conveyed to the Dandenong Police Station at approximately 10.30pm on the night of the incident where he was placed in an interview room. At the time of his arrest, Peter Lubik was wearing a pair of shorts which were covered in blood. Various parts of his body were also covered in blood, His clothing was seized and the blood on his
body was photographed and swabbed.!°
During the record of interview process, it became apparent Peter Lubik’s health was deteriorating. Peter Lubik was assessed by Dr Ryan Tan, Forensic Medical Officer with VIFM. Dr Tan found no injury to Peter Lubik’s head, neck, chest or back.'° Dr Tan tested his blood sugar levels and advised that they did not adversely affect him. Further, on examination Peter Lubik seemed rational and had no significant cognitive impairment. However, Dr Tan formed the opinion that.Peter Lubik was not fit to be interviewed and informed police.'? Dr
Tan does not provide a reason for his belief that Peter Lubik was not fit to be interviewed.
Peter Lubik was subsequently conveyed to the Dandenong Hospital where he was admitted.
Peter Lubik remained in hospital for four days. During this time he spoke in Polish to a former friend, Mark Cieslak who was also a security guard at the hospital. Peter Lubik stated to his friend that Barbara became angry when he told her that he was going to the casino and as a result she grabbed a knife from the kitchen. He stated that when he tried to take the knife
from her a struggle ensued. He then claimed that she slipped and cut her own throat.'*
8 Autopsy Report of Dr Matthew Lynch, Inquest Brief, p.9 of report 4 Thid p.10
5 Statement of LSC Les Kelly, Inquest Brief, p.47
16 Statement of Dr Ryan Tan, Inquest Brief, p.83
" Statement of Dr Ryan Tan, Inquest Brief, p.82
18 Statement of Mark Cieslak, Inquest Brief, p.198
Coroners Court (Amendment No. 1) Rules 2011
On 30 January 2009 Mr Lubilc was discharged from hospital and conveyed to the offices of the Homicide Squad where he was interviewed in relation to these matters and made a no
comment record of interview. He was charged with the murder of Barbara.
Supreme Court Trial
On 16 March 2011, after a trial in the Supreme Court Peter Lubik was found guilty of one
count of involuntary manslaughter involving an unlawful and dangerous act.
On 13 April 2012, His Honour Justice Robson sentenced Peter Lubik to serve a term of
imprisonment of 9 years and 6 months, with a non parole period of 6 years and 6 months.
Her Honour Justice Robson stated:
your deliberate stabbing of Barbara involved a deliberate intention to harm her, although as I have said previously, 1 accept that, as the jury found, you did not intend to kill or seriously injure Barbara. It was a shocking and cowardly crime. You were duty bound to protect her. You are a big man. She was small. There was not the slightest justification for taking up a knife against her in her own home. You should never have raised a hand against her, let alone a knife. Your wife trusted and honoured you. She was entitled to feel safe and secure in her own home, with her husband. She constantly forgave you for your abusive, bullying and boorish behaviour. Despite her loyalty, love, forgiveness and companionship, you cruelly and deliberately stabbed her with a knife, killing her. I can discern no reason for your conduct other than your repeated abuse and bullying of your wife. Your past aggressive and abusive behaviour towards Barbara dimishes any mitigating suggestion that your conduct was part of ai isolated event.”
History of Family Violence
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.”
Peter Lubik had a history of perpetrating violence against his intimate partners, including his first wife. Police attended three family violence incidents involving Peter Lubik and his first wife and she obtained an intervention order against him in 1994. Their marriage ended in
° R v Lubik [2011] VSC 137, Sentencing Remarks at para 65& 66
© Positioned within the Coroners Court of Victoria the VSRFVD provides assistance to Victorian Coroners to investigate the circumstances in which family violence deaths occur. In addition, the VSRFVD collects and analyses information of family violence-related incidents. This contributes to the development of a broader knowledge based for dissemination to the community and agencies working in the area family violence.
Coroners Court (Amendment No. 1) Rules 2011
34,
35,
36,
suspicious of Barbara having been involved with other men.
Following this Peter Lubik had a relationship with another woman. She also sought assistance from police in respect to Peter Lubik’s violence and obtained an intervention order against
him in 2005,
Peter Lubik’s abusive behaviour towards woman was known within the broad Polish community. A former friend observed I heard that he had treated the girl he went out with before he got marricd badly too.
When I say badly, I mean smacking and shoving. Within the Polish community, Peter has a reputation of treating women he was with at the time badly.”!
Similarly, Danuta Nowakowski stated: “Peter had a reputation as a drunk, even the priest
... warned us that he was an alcoholic and used to mistreat his ex-wife.”
Investigations have established that Petcr Lubik’s violent and abusive behaviours emerged not long after he married Barbara in 2006. These appear to have been exacerbated by his
consumption of alcohol, although not entirely confined to periods of intoxication.
Throughout their marriage, Barbara informed friends of episodes of physical, verbal and emotional abuse perpetrated by Peter Lubik. Further, he threatened her pets, damaged her property and made threats to withdraw his support of her visa application? Several witnesses described instances of Barbara having to flee the home or being forced to leave by Peter
Lubik. The evidence also contains descriptions of Peter Lubik being possessive, jcalous and
A recognisable pattern of violence cxisted in Barbara and Peter Lubik’s relationship, whereby a serious violent incident would occur, followed by Barbara leaving (or being forced to leave) the home. A few days would pass before Peter Lubik would make contact and persuade his wife to return.?> Despite her ongoing exposure to abuse, friends described Barbara as committed to her marriage and having felt a sense of obligation to her husband and concern for his health problems.”
Contact with Victoria Police and the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria
Barbara and Peter Lubik both had multiple contacts with police over a two year period, as
either an affected family member or defendant in relation to family violence incidents.
2! Statement of Mark Cicsiak, Inquest Brief, p.197
® Statement of Danuta Nowakowski, Inquest Brief p.138
Statement of Llizbieta Wijas, Inquest Brief p.91
® Statement of Anna Stainwald, Inquest Brief p222
6 Statement of Danuta Nowakowski, Inquest Bricf, p.140 and Halina Kowalezyk, Inquest Brief, p.158
Coroners Court (Amendment No. 1) Rules 2011
39,
Al.
On 30 June 2007 police attended the Lubik residence due to a domestic dispute. Police asked both Peter and Barbara Lubik whether they would be prepared to leave the home. Neither of them agrecd to this. Police provided Barbara with a WAYSS””’ referral card and advised her to speak to them about support and advice. Police then left the residence. A short time later they were requested to return in relation to the same issues. This time they negotiated with
Peter Lubik to leave the family home and go to Sandown Park Motel.”
On 25 July 2007, Peter and Barbara Lubik had a verbal argument about his drinking. Barbara attended the Dandenong Police Station and reported the matter. Barbara met Leading Senior Constable Monika Kusnierz who spoke to her in Polish. Barbara indicated that she was concerned about her husband making threats that he would contact immigration and have her deported back to Poland.”? Barbara advised LSC Kusnierz about an incident that had occurred the previous day, which involved a physical altercation. Barbara was reluctant to make a statement on this occasion and indicated that she did not wish to have further police involvement. Nevertheless, LSC Kuznierz applied for an interim Intervention Order on her behalf as she had concerns for Barbara’s welfare.*? Barbara indicated she wanted no further police actions and signed a statement of no complaint. It was LSC Kusnierz’s recollection that “Barbara wasn’t fearful or concerned about her welfare, she expressed more of a concern
for Peter and his drinking problem.”*!
A fall Intervention Order was subsequently made at the Dandenong Magistrates Court on 19 September 2007 with an expiry date of 19 September 2008. A cross application was made by Peter Lubik as the complainant, and an order made, which was due to expire on 10 September 2008.
Police were called to attend the Lubik family home on 8 March 2008 in response to a family violence incident in which Peter Lubik was identified as the aggrieved family member. SC Michael Flower attended the house and found Barbara was in the house crying, whilst Peter was in the shed. Peter Lubik alleged that Barbara had smashed stubbies of beer on the ground, picked up a knife and tried to stab him and then threw the knife at him. Police observed broken glass on the floor and a knife on the ground in the shed. Peter Lubik had sustained a
cut on his neck which he alleged to have been caused by Barbara cutting him with glass.
2TWAYSS isa support service which offers emergency accommodation and associated support services.
28 Statement of SC Hunter, Inquest Brief, p.261
» Statement of LSC Monika Kusnierz, Inquest Brief, p.259
3° Statement of LSC Monika Kusnierz, Inquest Brief, p.259
3! Statement of LSC Monika Kusnierz, Inquest Brief, p.259
Coroners Court (Amendment No. 1} Rules 2011
42,
44,
Peter Lubik presented himself as the victim of family violence and asked for Barbara to be removed from the house. SC Flower states he requested both Barbara and Peter Lubik to sit together and try to resolve the conflict. Hc states that he was unable to progress a resolution and decided that one party would have to leave the home. To this end, he obtained a statement from Peter Lubik’? and then arrested Barbara and conveyed her to Springvale Police Station. Barbara was charged with making a threat to kill and bailed to appear at the Dandenong Magistrates’ Court. These charges were later withdrawn due to Peter Lubik
refusing to give evidence.™
On 14 March 2008 Barbara made an application to revoke the intervention order, stating that her husband had an alcohol problem, depression and had an operation and should not stay home alone.’ Peter Lubik also made an application to revoke the order he obtained against
Barbara, stating that his drunken behaviour caused the incident.*°
On 20 March 2008, the intervention order against Peter Lubik was modified to include the condition that Peter Lubil was not to consume alcohol at his home address. Further, the court ordered that he attend the Positive Lifestyle Centre at Dandenong to address his problematic drinking. The expiry date remained 19 September 2008.*” Enquires made as part of this investigation indicate that although this was a condition of the order, Peter Lubik did not
attend or engage with the Positive Lifestyle Centre.
On 22 July 2008 police were called to another family violence incident at the Lubik residence** in which Barbara was identified as the affected family member. On this occasion, it is alleged that Peter Lubik was intoxicated when he pushed Barbara during an argument. He also attempted to disconnect her mobile phone and threatened to have her visa withdrawn.
Peter Lubik then called police and stated that Barbara had a knife. Peter Lubik was arrested and charged with breaching an intervention order and was bailed to appear at the Dandenong
Magistrates’ Court on 24 November 2008.
Following this incident, Barbara had brief contact with the family violence service WAYSS.
This occurred between 24 July and 14 August 2008. During this period, several goals were
® Statement of Peter Lubik, Inquest Brief, p.464
33 Statement of SC Mick Flower, Inquest Brief, p.268
Charge sheet, Inquest Bricf, p.466
Inquest brief, p.393
** Inquest brief, p.398
*” Inquest brief, p.394 .
8 Statement of Constable Elise Toomey, Inquest Brief, p.263 ® Statement of Elise Toomey, Inquest Bricf, p.456
Coroners Courl (Amendment No. 1) Rules 2011
identified in an effort to improve Barbara’s safety. These included obtaining an Intervention Order and developing a safety plan; assistance with legal advice, providing family violence education to Barbara and securing her immigration status. Case notes indicate that during telephone contact with the service on 14 August 2008, Barbara advised that she had reconciled with Peter Lubik and that he had commenced medication for depression. She stated his behaviour had improved and that she would contact WAYSS again if needed. Her file was
subsequently closed.
The last contact Barbara had with police occurred three months prior to her death on
4 November 2008. On this occasion, she attended the Springvale Police Station and spoke to Leading Senior Constable Cassandra Stone.’ LEAP records describe the incident as involving verbal abuse.*! LSC Stone’s statement indicates that Barbara sought advice in connection to a domestic dispute. Peter Lubik had been drinking during the Melbourne Cup day celebrations and they had argued, Barbara stated she had an intervention order in place that prevented Peter Lubik from drinking at home. LSC Stone searched the police database and determined that the intervention order had expired. LSC Stone advised Barbara that police would not be able to remove Peter because the order had expired and told her to seek advice from a solicitor regarding separation. Barbara had her two pet dogs with her and while at the police station, Peter Lubik called to report the theft of the dogs. LSC Stone stated that she spoke to Peter on the phone and similarly advised him to get advice from a solicitor regarding the ownership of the dogs and further advised both parties to get marriage
counselling.
The LEAP records indicate that Barbara had money to find alternative accommodation and
that she had intended on visiting a friend. It appears Barbara indicated that she would return home when her husband was asleep because then “all will be ok in the morning”. The LEAP records also note that Barbara indicated that she would attend the Magistrates’ Court the next
day to apply for another intervention order.”
LSC Stone indicates that she compiled a family violence report as per police protocol. The notations in LEAP also suggest she considered Barbara’s safety and seemed to conduct a risk assessment which satisfied her that Barbara had somewhere to go and that the complaint was
verbal abuse. On this occasion, police did not make an application for an Intervention Order
Coroners Court (Amendment No, f) Rules 2011
on Barbara’s behalf. It appears that Barbara did not return to the court to apply for a further
intervention order following contact with LSC Stone.
Shortly after this incident, on 24 November 2008, Peter Lubik appeared at the Dandenong Magistrates’ Court for breaching an intervention order (22 July 2008 incident), he was sentenced to an adjourned undertaking for 12 months which was due to expire on 23
November 2009 and ordered to pay $500 to the Court fund.
At the time of Barbara’s death there were no intervention orders in existence against either Barbara or Peter Lubik, however Peter Lubik was on a 12 month adjourned undertaking for
the breach of the intervention order as described above.
Conclusion
Sl.
33,
Having considered all the evidence I find that Barbara Lubik was killed by her husband Peter Lubik on 25 January 2009 from a stab injury to neck.
I find that Peter Lubik had an established history of violence against women and that he was repeatedly abusive, violent, threatening and aggressive towards Barbara, usually when he had been drinking. Peter Lubik could reasonably be described as a recidivist perpetrator of family
violence.
Both Barbara and Peter Lubik had multiple contacts with police and the Magistrates’ Court over the course of their relationship. The last interaction Barbara had with Victoria Police was on 4 November 2008. The LEAP records indicate LSC Stone had conducted some background enquiries into the reasons for her attendance at the police station. LSC Stone checked LEAP, asked questions of Barbara’s safety, discussed obtaining legal advicc and was satisfied that Barbara was safe and was going to attend the Magistrates Court the next day.
Her death did not occur for another three months and I find that LSC Stone could not have foreseen the escalation of violence which consequently resulted in a fatal outcome. That said, Lalso recognise that a number of risk factors for violence were an ongoing feature of the
relationship, and without some form of intervention, were unlikely to abatc on their own.
Pursuant to section 67(3) of the Coroners Act 2008, I make the following comment(s) connected
with the death:
54,
Victoria Police members respond to family violence incidents and outcomes on a daily basis.
T acknowledge that much work has been done by Victoria Police in this area over the past
Coroners Court (Amendment No. 1} Rules 2011
38,
decade, particularly since the introduction of the Victoria Police Code of Practice for the
Investigation of Family Violence from 2004.
As outlined above, family violence perpetrated by Peter Lubik was brought to the attention of police and the courts on several occasions, Following the incident in which police attended the home in March 2008, the LEAP narrative notes the frequent call outs to the home, and the perceived difficulties of permanently ending the cycle of violence. Police determined Barbara to be the primary instigator of violence on this occasion and she was charged. Without second guessing the assessment made by police on this occasion, it is possible, given the history, that
her actions were retaliatory or defensive.
As noted, additional contacts with the service system also occurred. Barbara’s brief involvement with WAYSS identified important goals to help improve her safety and receive legal assistance. Similarly, Peter Lubik’s referral to the Positive Lifestyle Centre for the purpose of addressing his alcohol misuse marked an important opportunity to mediate one of the primary factors connected to his offending. Regrettably, ongoing engagement with these organisations did not occur. I recognise that for Barbara, her culturally and linguistically diverse background may have impacted her ability to easily reccive assistance, As for Peter Lubik, compliance with court direction for proactive intervention strategies to address
problematic behaviour, linked to the perpetration of violence remained unresolved an issuc.
There was no indication that Barbara Lubik was preparing to leave her husband. However, she was aware of the need for measures to help increase her safety at home, hence her contact with Victoria Police in the months preceding her death. While she was given basic assistance when she attended the police station on 4 November 2008, arguably a more structured and
assertive approach was required.
Thaye been advised that Victoria Police have recently implemented the Enhanced Family Violence Service Delivery 2011- 2014 model, designed to provide a more effective response to recidivist offenders and high risk victims. This strategy clearly recognises that some victims may not leave violent relationships at the first intervention. I understand that this strategy includes a case-management component for both victims and perpetrators, while aiming to improve referral and collaboration with other services to address the underlying causes of violence. Arguably, both Barbara and Peter Lubik could have benefited from such an
approach to violence prevention.
Coroners Court (Amendment No. 1) Rules 2011
Pursuant to section 73(1) of the Coroners Act 2008, I order that this Finding be published on theinternet:
1 direct that a copy of this finding be provided to the following:
Stryczek family
Chief Magistrate Peter Lauritsen, Magistrates Court of Victoria Magistrate Kate Hawkins, Magistrates Court of Victoria Magistrate Felicity Broughton, Magistrates Court of Victoria Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police Ken Lay APM
Detective Inspector Kerryn Hynam, Chairperson of the Victoria Police and Magistrates Court of Victoria Family Violence Committee
Signature:
JUDGE IAN L. GRAY, STATE CORONER ep ne 2013
Coroners Court (Amendment No. 1) Rules 2011
Natasha Stojkoski, a 38-year-old sales assistant at The Good Guys, sustained a workplace injury in October 2018 involving a Work Assisted Vehicle incident affecting her back, shoulders and neck. Subsequently, she reporte…
A 44-year-old woman died from pulmonary thromboembolism 27 days after sustaining a Weber B ankle fracture from a fall. She was managed conservatively with a CAM boot then below-knee cast, with progressive immobilisation …
Simon Gaskill, aged 50, was found deceased in sand dunes at Ocean Grove Beach in April 2022 after sleeping rough for months. He had been discharged from hospital in December 2021 following treatment for severe alcohol wi…
Source and disclaimer
This page reproduces or summarises information from publicly available findings published by Australian coroners' courts. Coronial is an independent educational resource and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or acting on behalf of any coronial court or government body.
Content may be incomplete, reformatted, or summarised. Some material may have been redacted or restricted by court order or privacy requirements. Always refer to the original court publication for the authoritative record.
Copyright in original materials remains with the relevant government jurisdiction. AI-generated summaries are for educational purposes only and must not be treated as legal documents. Report an inaccuracy.