Finding into death of Stuart Rattle

IN THE CORONERS COURT

OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE Court Reference: COR 2013 5647

FINDING INTO DEATH WITHOUT INQUEST Form 38 Rule 60(2) Section 67 of the Coroners Act 2008 Findings of: JUDGE SARA HINCHEY, STATE CORONER Deceased: STUART RATTLE Date of birth: 16 November 1960 Date of death: 4 December 2013 Cause of death: Compression of the neck Place of death: 411 Malvern Road, South Yarra, Victoria Catchwords Family violence homicide; death resulted directly from

injury; was unexpected, violent, and not from natural

causes

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Background

The purpose of a coronial investigation

Matters in relation to which the Coroner must, if possible, make a finding

• Identity of the deceased, pursuant to section 67(1)(a) of the Act

• Medical cause of death, pursuant to section 67(1)(b) of the Act

• Circumstances in which the death occurred, pursuant to section 67(1)(c)

of the Act

Comments pursuant to section 67(3) of the Act

Findings and conclusion

HER HONOUR: BACKGROUND

1. Stuart Rattle (Mr Rattle) was a 53-year-old man who lived with his partner of over 15 years, Michael O’Neil (Mr O’Neil), at the time of his death. Mr Rattle and Mr O’Neil lived together at both 411 Malvern Road, South Yarra (their South Yarra home), and at their country estate, ‘Musk Farm’, at Daylesford (Musk Farm).

2. Mr Rattle was a successful and well-known interior designer and had his own interior design

business, Stuart Rattle Interior Design, which Mr O’Neil managed.

3. Mr Rattle was described by his loved ones as a perfectionist who was generous, enthusiastic

and talented. He encouraged and took great interest in those he loved.

4. However, Mr Rattle was also described as having a dominant and controlling personality, Mr Rattle’s dominant and controlling personality characterised his relationship with Mr O’Neil and he often belittled Mr O’Neil, both privately and publicly, Friends described witnessing family violence in Mr Rattle and Mr O’Neil’s relationship, with Mr Rattle being the perpetrator. However, neither Mr Rattle nor Mr O’Neil reported family violence to

Victoria Police or sought support or professional intervention.

5. In the weeks prior to Mr Rattle’s death, Mr Rattle and Mr O’Neil spent long hours preparing Musk Farm for an open garden event as part of a charity fundraising event. Both Mr Rattle and Mr O’Neil were reportedly “utterly” exhausted and drained from the preparation for the event in November 2013, shortly prior to Mr Rattle’s death.

THE PURPOSE OF A CORONIAL INVESTIGATION

6. Mr Rattle’s death constituted a ‘reportable death’ under the Coroners Act 2008 (Vic) (the Act), as the death occurred in Victoria, resulted directly from injury and was unexpected,

violent and not from natural causes.!

7. The jurisdiction of the Coroners Court of Victoria is inquisitorial.? The Act provides for a

system whereby reportable deaths are independently investigated to ascertain, if possible, the

1 Section 4 Coroners Act 2008.

2 Section 89(4) Coroners Act 2008.

identity of the deceased person, the cause of death and the circumstances in which death

occurred.?

8. Itis not the role of the coroner to lay or apportion blame, but to establish the facts.’ It is not the coroner’s role to determine criminal or civil liability arising from the death under

investigation, or to determine disciplinary matters.

9. The expression ‘cause of death’ refers to the medical cause of death, incorporating where

possible, the mechanism of death.

10. For coronial purposes, the circumstances in which death occurred refers to the context or background and surrounding circumstances of the death. Rather than being a consideration of all circumstances which might form part of a narrative culminating in the death, it is confined

to those circumstances which are sufficiently proximate to be considered relevant to the death.

11. The broader purpose of coronial investigations is to contribute to a reduction in the number of preventable deaths, both through the observations made in the investigation findings and by the making of recommendations by coroners. This is generally referred to as the ‘prevention’

role.

12. Coroners are also empowered:

(a) to report to the Attorney-General on a death;

(b) to comment on any matter connected with the death they have investigated, including

matters of public health or safety and the administration of justice; and

(c) to make recommendations to any Minister or public statutory authority on any matter connected with the death, including public health or safety or the administration of

justice. These powers are the vehicles by which the prevention role may be advanced.

13. All coronial findings must be made based on proof of relevant facts on the balance of probabilities. In determining these matters, I am guided by the principles enunciated in

Briginshaw v Briginshaw. The effect of this and similar authorities is that coroners should

3 See Preamble and s 67, Coroners Act 2008.

4 Keown v Khan (1999) 1 VR 69.

5 (1938) 60 CLR 336.

not make adverse findings against, or comments about, individuals unless the evidence

provides a comfortable level of satisfaction that they caused or contributed to the death,

In conducting this investigation, I have made a thorough forensic examination of the evidence including reading and considering the witness statements and other documents in the coronial

brief.

MATTERS IN RELATION TO WHICH THE CORONER MUST, IF POSSIBLE, MAKE A FINDING

Identity of the Deceased, pursuant to section 67(1)(a) of the Act

18;

On 10 December 2013, Mr Rattle’s body was identified through dental record comparison.

Identity is not in dispute and requires no further investigation.

Medical cause of death, pursuant to section 67(1)(b) of the Act

Ei

On 11 December 2013, Dr Noel Woodford, a Forensic Pathologist practising at the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine, conducted an examination of Mr Rattle’s body and provided a written report, dated 15 April 2014. In that report, Dr Woodford concluded that a reasonable

cause of death was ‘Probable compression of the neck in a man with a head injury’.

Dr Woodford commented that Mr Rattle’s body was “significantly decomposed and showed evidence of fire damage” and “there were no findings to indicate that the deceased was alive

at the time the fire started’.

Toxicological analysis of the post mortem samples taken from Mr Rattle showed the presence ofa small amount of alcohol. This was considered consistent with post mortem decomposition

changes. The samples were negative for other common drugs or poisons.

Circumstances in which the death occurred, pursuant to section 67(1)(c) of the Act

At approximately 6.00am on Wednesday, 4 December 2013, at their South Yarra home, Mr Rattle and Mr O’Neil had an argument after Mr Rattle had attempted to initiate sex and Mr O’Neil refused. Mr Rattle reportedly called Mr O’Neil a “frigid bitch” and Mr O’Neil left

the room to make breakfast.

uo

On returning to the room a few minutes later, Mr Rattle reportedly again called Mr O’Neil a “frigid bitch”. The comment caused Mr O’Neil to ‘snap’ and he hit Mr Rattle over the head with a pan, which he was holding in his hand at the time.

While Mr Rattle was dazed, Mr O’Neil picked up a nearby dog lead and strangled him until he believed Mr Rattle was dead.

Mr O’Neil then placed Mr Rattle in a large plastic furniture bag and placed him on the bed.

Mr O’Neil then cleaned the room and went to work in the office downstairs.

Over the next few days, Mr O’Neil continued to keep work and social engagements, telling

people that Mr Rattle was tired or unwell and was resting.

Mr O’Neil spent the weekend at Musk Farm, before returning to their South Yarra home on Sunday evening. Mr O’Neil brought a candle back from Musk Farm and, shortly before midnight, used it to light a fire in the bedroom next to the bed, on which Mr Rattle’s body

remained.

Mr O’Neil left their South Yarra home after lighting the fire and walked to a nearby service station to buy sweets. On returning to their South Yarra home a short time later, the bedroom was well alight and Mr O’Neil and a number of neighbours telephoned emergency services to

attend.

When the fire was extinguished, Mr Rattle’s body was located on the bed in the master bedroom. Mr Rattle’s body had received burns to 100% of the surface area.

COMMENTS PURSUANT TO SECTION 67(3) OF THE ACT

Family violence

The unexpected, unnatural and violent death of a person is a devastating event. Violence perpetrated by a person within an intimate personal relationship is particularly shocking, given

that it is expected to be a place of trust, safety and protection.

For the purposes of the Family Violence Protection Act 2008, the intimate personal relationship between Mr Rattle and Mr O’Neil was one that fell within the definition of ‘family member’. Moreover, Mr Rattle’s behaviour toward Mr O’Neil constituted ‘family violence’, as defined by the Family Violence Protection Act 2008, because there was a history of

emotional abuse.

33,

As a result, I requested that the Coroners Prevention Unit (CPU)° examine the circumstances

of the death as part of the Victorian Systemic Review of Family Violence Deaths (VSREVD).’

The CPU identified that while there was a limited presence of known risk factors for family violence, there was a current and historical family violence context, specifically emotional abuse and controlling behaviour. The available evidence indicates that Mr Rattle and Mr O’Neil were experiencing problems in their relationship that were, in some cases, made evident in front of friends. It is possible these risk factors may have been exacerbated by the vulnerabilities and lack of support often experienced by members of the Lesbian, Gay,

Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex (LGBTI) community.

The VSRFVD noted that Mr Rattle’s death occurred in circumstances whereby friends and family identified having witnessed family violence in the form of emotional abuse. Previously, Coroners have made comments and recommendations in relation to the under-reporting of family violence out of concern for possible repercussions for the victim and a perception that

outside involvement may exacerbate a situation (which the victim appears to be managing).

In the Finding into the death of Nicole Joy Millar,* the then State Coroner, Judge Ian Gray,° recommended that Victoria Police, together with Crime Stoppers, conduct a trial extending the ‘Say Something’ campaign to family violence. In its response to Judge Gray’s recommendation, Crime Stoppers, which is a not for profit that relies substantially on government crime prevention grants for project and campaign delivery costs, highlighted budgetary constraints as a barrier to implementing this action. Crime Stoppers recently

advised the Court that has been unsuccessful in securing the required funding.

A public awareness campaign promoting the definition of family violence in the broader community may assist family and friends of victims of family violence to better understand what constitutes family violence. Such a campaign may also assist them to identify when

people are at risk and encourage them to seek assistance.

® The Coroners Prevention Unit is a specialist service for Coroners established to strengthen their prevention role and provide them with professional assistance on issues pertaining to public health and safety.

‘The VSRFVD provides assistance to Victorian Coroners to examine the circumstances in which family violence deaths occur. In addition, the VSRFVD collects and analyses information on family violence-related deaths. Together this information assists with the identification of systemic prevention-focused recommendations aimed at reducing the incidence of family violence in the Victorian community.

§ COR 2010 2064.

° Judge Ian Gray retired as the State Coroner in December 2015.

35. Although Mr Rattle was not a victim of family violence before the fatal incident, if Mr O’Neil had been identified as a victim of family violence prior to the event, then his having access to support services may have provided an opportunity to prevent the escalation of the situation

and the fatal event.

36. The Royal Commission into Family Violence (the Royal Commission) made a number of recommendations emphasising the vulnerability of same sex couples and inadequacy of services and supports available to them. The Royal Commission’s recommendations 166-168 relate to research, funding and evaluation of services available to the LGBTI and of responses to same sex family violence in Victoria. Recommendation 169 relates to the Victorian Government’s commitment to remove any capacity for accommodating same sex family

violence or for service providers to discriminate against LGBTI Victorians.

37. I support the Royal Commission’s recommendations regarding same sex family violence and

support services for vulnerable LGBTI Victorians.

Criminal proceedings

1. On 11 December 2013, Mr O’Neil was arrested and questioned in relation to Mr Rattle’s death. Mr O’Neil subsequently confessed to having killed Mr Rattle the previous week.

Following charges being laid, Mr O’Neil was diagnosed as suffering from adjustment disorder

and dependent and narcissistic personality disorders.

2. At the plea hearing in September 2014, Mr O’Neil pleaded guilty to Mr Rattle’s murder. On 11 February 2015, Mr O’Neil was sentenced to 17 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 13 years. Mr O’Neil was also convicted of arson and sentenced to two years’

imprisonment for that offence.

3. In sentencing Mr O’Neil, Justice Hollingworth remarked:

Murder is avery serious offence, involving as it does the intentional taking of another person's life. A domestic murder is not to be treated as comprising a less serious category of murder,

merely because of the relationship between the parties.

4. There was no indication that Mr O’Neil intended to harm Mr Rattle prior to the fatal incident and, despite the presence of a number of known risks factors for family violence, the CPU identified limited opportunities for the legal system, health system or family violence service

providers to intervene to reduce the risk of family violence between Mr Rattle and Mr O’Neil.

5. In the course of my investigation, having considered all of the available evidence, I did not

identify any prevention matters arising from the circumstances of Mr Rattle’s death.

6. 1 am also satisfied, having considered all of the available evidence, that no further

investigation is required.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

7. Having investigated the death, without holding an inquest, I make the following findings pursuant to section 67(1) of the Act:

(a) _ the identity of the deceased was Stuart Rattle, born 16 November 1960;

(b) the death occurred on 4 December 2013 at 411 Malvern Road, South Yarra, Victoria,

from compression of the neck; and

(c) the death occurred in the circumstances set out above.

8. lconvey my sincerest sympathy to Mr Rattle’s family and friends.

9. lorder, pursuant to section 73 of the Act, that this Finding be published on the Court’s website.

10. I direct that a copy of this finding be provided to the following:

(a) Jill Rattle, Senior next of kin.

(b) Sergeant Justin Wool, Victoria Police, Coroner’s Investigator.

(c) Detective Inspector Michael Hughes, Homicide Squad, Victoria Police.

Signature:

JUDGE SARA HINCHEY STATE CORONER Date: 1C/i2 /2e1 fe.