Deceased
Nathan Alan Randall; Jesse Kyel Dixon
Coroner
Coroner Jenkin
Date of death
2022-08-18
Finding date
2025-02-03
Cause of death
Nathan: head injury; Jesse: multiple injuries
AI-generated summary
Two young men, Nathan Randall (17) and Jesse Dixon (22), died when a motorcycle collided with trees at approximately 2:10 am on 18 August 2022. Nathan was riding unlicensed but reportedly experienced on motorcycles; he was intoxicated with cannabis (THC detected) and alcohol (0.099-0.13% blood alcohol). After a police officer briefly followed the motorcycle to conduct enquiries due to suspicious circumstances (odd hour, covered faces, possibly altered number plate), Nathan accelerated away. The officer discontinued pursuit after approximately 4 seconds when he lost sight of the motorcycle in heavy fog. The motorcycle subsequently crashed into trees. The coroner found the police officer's actions were reasonable, lawful, and did not contribute to the deaths. Nathan's decision to speed off was likely motivated by his lack of valid licence and awareness of his intoxication. No preventable factors were identified regarding police conduct.
AI-generated summary — refer to original finding for legal purposes. Report an inaccuracy.
Drugs involved
[2025] WACOR 7 JURISDICTION : CORONER'S COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA ACT : CORONERS ACT 1996 CORONER : MICHAEL ANDREW GLIDDON JENKIN, CORONER HEARD : 29 JANUARY 2025 DELIVERED : 3 FEBRUARY 2025 FILE NO/S : CORC 2269 of 2022 & CORC 2267 of 2022
DECEASED : RANDALL, NATHAN ALAN DIXON, JESSE KYEL Cases: Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 Legislation: Coroners Act 1996 (WA) Counsel Appearing: Mr J Tiller appeared to assist the coroner.
Ms A Kildea (State Solicitor’s Office) appeared on behalf of the Western Australian Police Force.
SUPPRESSION ORDER On the basis it would be contrary to the public interest, I make an Order under s49(1)(b) Coroners Act 1996 that there be no reporting or publication of the details of discussion surrounding operational aspects of Western Australian Police Force urgent duty/emergency driving policies and procedures, including any cap on the speed at which police officers are authorised to drive.
Order made by: MAG Jenkin, Coroner (20.01.25)
[2025] WACOR 7 Coroners Act 1996 (Section 26(1))
RECORD OF INVESTIGATION INTO DEATH I, Michael Andrew Gliddon Jenkin, Coroner, having investigated the death of Nathan Alan Randall and Jesse Kyel Dixon (together referred to as the deceased persons) with an inquest held at Perth Coroners Court, Central Law Courts, Court 85, 501 Hay Street, Perth, on 29 January 2025, find that the identity of the deceased persons was as follows: Nathan Alan Randall and that death occurred in the vicinity of the intersection between Ennis Avenue and Patterson Road in East Rockingham on 18 August 2022 from head injury; and Jesse Kyel Dixon and that death occurred in the vicinity of the intersection between Ennis Avenue and Patterson Road in East Rockingham on 18 August 2022 from multiple injuries; in the following circumstances: Table of Contents
At about 2.10 am on 18 August 2022, Nathan Alan Randall (Nathan)1 was riding a motorcycle north along Ennis Avenue in East Rockingham and Jesse Kyel Dixon (Jesse)2 was his pillion passenger. As Nathan rode through the intersection of Ennis Avenue and Dixon Road, he passed a marked police car driven by Senior Constable Wigger (Officer Wigger).
For reasons I will explain, Officer Wigger decided to follow the motorcycle to conduct further enquiries, but Nathan accelerated away and Officer Wigger lost sight of the motorcycle. A short time later, Nathan collided with a tree and died from head injury. His passenger Jesse died from multiple injuries.3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19
Under the terms of the Coroners Act 1996 (the Act), the deaths of both Nathan and Jesse were “reportable deaths”. Further, on the basis that there was a possibility that a member of the Western Australian Police Force (the Police) may have caused or contributed to these deaths, a coronial inquest was mandatory.20
I wish to make it clear that section 22(1)(b) of the Act is enlivened whenever the issue of causation or contribution in relation to a death arises as a question of fact, irrespective of whether there is any fault on the part of any member of the Police.21 1 Mr Randall’s family requested that he be referred to as “Nathan” at the inquest and in this finding 2 Mr Dixon’s family requested that he be referred to as “Jesse” at the inquest and in this finding 3 Exhibit 1, Vol. 1, Tab 1.1, P100 - Report of Death - Mr N Randall (18.08.22) 4 Exhibit 1, Vol. 1, Tab 1, P100 - Report of Death - Mr J Dixon (18.08.22) 5 Exhibit 1, Vol. 1, Tab 2, Report - Det. Sgt. S Malcolm (15.02.24) 6 Exhibit 1, Vol. 1, Tab 3, P92 - Identification of Deceased Person - Mr J Dixon (18.08.22) 7 Exhibit 1, Vol. 1, Tab 3, Affidavit - Sen. Const. S Durka (18.08.22) 8 Exhibit 1, Vol. 1, Tab 3, Affidavit - Sen. Const. D Forbes (16.09.22) 9 Exhibit 1, Vol. 1, Tab 3, Coronial Identification Report - Mr J Dixon (18.08.22) 10 Exhibit 1, Vol. 1, Tab 3.1, P92 - Identification of Deceased Person - Mr N Randall (18.08.22) 11 Exhibit 1, Vol. 1, Tab 3.1, Affidavit - Sen. Const. R Allison (18.08.22) 12 Exhibit 1, Vol. 1, Tab 3.1, Affidavit - Sen. Const. D Forbes (16.09.22) 13 Exhibit 1, Vol. 1, Tab 3.1, Coronial Identification Report - Mr N Randall (18.08.22) 14 Exhibit 1, Vol. 1, Tab 4, Life Extinct Form Report - Mr J Dixon (18.08.22) 15 Exhibit 1, Vol. 1, Tab 4.1, Life Extinct Form Report - Mr N Randall (18.08.22) 16 Exhibit 1, Vol. 1, Tab 5, Post Mortem Report - Mr J Dixon (22.08.22) 17 Exhibit 1, Vol. 1, Tab 5, Supplementary Post Mortem Report - Mr J Dixon (28.09.22) 18 Exhibit 1, Vol. 1, Tab 5.1, Post Mortem Report - Mr N Randall (01.09.22) 19 Exhibit 1, Vol. 1, Tab 5.1, Supplementary Post Mortem Report - Mr N Randall (14.10.22) 20 Sections 3 & 22(1)(b), Coroners Act 1996 (WA) 21 Section 22(1)(b), Coroners Act 1996 (WA)
When assessing the available evidence and considering whether to make any adverse findings or comments, I have been mindful of the “Briginshaw test”. This principle is derived from a High Court judgment of the same name, in which Justice Dixon said: The seriousness of an allegation made, the inherent unlikelihood of an occurrence of a given description, or the gravity of the consequences flowing from a particular finding are considerations which must affect the answer to the question whether the issue has been proved to the reasonable satisfaction of the tribunal. In such matters “reasonable satisfaction” should not be produced by inexact proofs, indefinite testimony, or indirect inferences.22
Essentially the Briginshaw test provides that the more serious the allegation, the higher the degree of probability that is required before I can be satisfied as to the truth of the allegation.
For reasons I will explain, after carefully considering the available evidence I have been unable to conclude, to the relevant standard, that any member of the Police caused or contributed to the deaths of either Jesse or Nathan. I have also concluded that there is no basis for me to make any adverse finding or comment against any person.
22 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 per Dixon J at 362
[2025] WACOR 7 BACKGROUND Nathan23
Nathan was born on 19 December 2004, and was 17 years of age when he died.24 Although Nathan’s mother declined the opportunity to provide police with any background information about her son, police enquiries established that Nathan had four siblings, and that he was in a relationship at the time of his death.
When speaking with investigating police, Nathan’s mother emphasised that although Nathan had never held a Western Australian driver’s licence, Nathan “was an experienced motorcycle rider, having ridden trail bikes most of his life.25 Jesse26
Jesse was born on 14 January 2000, and was 22 years of age when he died.27 Jesse was described by his mother as a “gentle giant”, and as a humble person “who tried never to disappoint anyone”. Jesse had been diagnosed with a mild form of autism which affected his social interactions, but he had a very strong sense of empathy and social justice, and was always willing to help others.
Jesse enjoyed sports, including golf, and he “was good at anything he did with his hands”. Jesse had completed courses in landscaping and horticulture and he was actively seeking work in these fields. Jesse had a sister, and he was said to have a particularly close relationship with his grandmother.
23 Exhibit 1, Vol. 1, Tab 2, Report - Det. Sgt. S Malcolm (15.02.24), p8 24 Exhibit 1, Vol. 1, Tab 1.1, P100 - Report of Death - Mr N Randall (18.08.22) 25 Exhibit 1, Vol. 1, Tab 2, Report - Det. Sgt. S Malcolm (15.02.24), p8 26 Exhibit 1, Vol. 1, Tab 2, Report - Det. Sgt. S Malcolm (15.02.24), p8 27 Exhibit 1, Vol. 1, Tab 1, P100 - Report of Death - Mr J Dixon (18.08.22)
[2025] WACOR 7 EVENTS ON 18 AUGUST 2022 Jesse and Nathan are observed28,29,30,31,32
The weather was cold, and drizzly rain had left a film of water on the road.
The roadway was lit by street lights but a heavy fog affected visibility.33,34
Officer Wigger had been in the turning lane and had been intending to turn right onto Dixon Road in order to head home at the end of his shift.35
It seemed an odd time for two people to be going for a motorbike ride and the weather wasn’t ideal. The rider and passenger glanced at me and it looked like they had their faces covered. The number plate attached to the bike looked oddly shaped and possibly altered.36
As Officer Wigger drove through a slight left-hand bend in Ennis Avenue, he realised that the Motorcycle was “a long way” in front of him and made the decision to “just let it go”.39
In his statement, Officer Wigger said he did not activate his vehicle’s emergency lights and/or siren, and that: “at no point did I engage the motorbike or have any intention to stop it”. At the inquest Officer Wigger said it would not have been safe for him to have attempted to stop the Motorcycle because he was patrolling alone. In his statement, Officer Wigger confirmed that at the relevant time, his intention was to: “[S]imply garner more information, assess its speed and if possible, obtain a registration before deciding what to do next”.40
At the point he lost sight of the Motorcycle, Officer Wigger was about 500 m from the intersection of Ennis Avenue and Patterson Road (the Intersection). In his statement, Officer Wigger says he “had no idea” where the Motorcycle had gone and there was a “significant fog” in the road in front of him. Officer Wigger also said: “At no point did I engage with the motorbike or have any intention to stop it”.41
As he approached the Intersection, Officer Wigger saw an unidentified male emerge from the shadows on the opposite side of Ennis Avenue.
Officer Wigger said he thought this person may have been the rider or passenger of the Motorcycle, and that it was “not uncommon for a rear passenger to be dropped off or for a vehicle to be dumped and for the occupants to flee on foot”.42
A few minutes later Officer Wigger spoke briefly with police officers in another vehicle travelling in the opposite direction, and he told them about his earlier conversation with the male at the Intersection. Officer Wigger also told the officers he had no idea where the Motorcycle was.44
A short time later, Officer Wigger heard a police radio call requesting assistance for two males who were “in a critical condition”. After receiving further information, Officer Wigger realised the location of this task was near where he had last seen the Motorcycle. Officer Wigger asked to be assigned to the task, and he proceeded directly to the crash scene. By the time Officer Wigger arrived, ambulances and police vehicles were already there.45,46 Evidence from Ms Lavering47,48
For the sake of completeness, I note that in his Major Crash Investigation report, Detective Sergeant Malcolm (Officer Malcolm) refers to evidence from a witness called Ms Lavering, who says that at the relevant time she was riding an electric bicycle on Ennis Avenue. In her unsigned statement, Ms Lavering says the Motorcycle passed her “very fast” and she believed it was travelling too fast for the foggy conditions at the time.
Ms Lavering then says she saw a police car, that did not have its emergency lights and siren activated, follow the Motorcycle. Given the available evidence, this police vehicle must have been Officer Wigger’s police car (i.e.: “TK102”).
Ms Lavering says after the Motorcycle had passed her, TK102 followed behind it and was “getting faster and changing lanes a few times”.
Ms Lavering also says that “the bike was going fast but the police car was gaining on it”, and “the police car must have been going fast because it was gaining on the bike”.49,50 44 Exhibit 1, Vol. 1, Tab 11, Statement - Sen. Const. F Wigger (15.09.22), paras 44-45 and 29.01.25 (Wigger), pp21-22 45 Exhibit 1, Vol. 1, Tab 11, Statement - Sen. Const. F Wigger (15.09.22), paras 47-50 and 29.01.25 (Wigger), pp21-24 46 Exhibit 1, Vol. 1, Tab 11.2 & Exhibit 3, Vehicle location data from TK102 (18.08.22) 47 Exhibit 1, Vol. 1, Tab 2, Report - Det. Sgt. S Malcolm (15.02.24), p6 48 Exhibit 1, Vol. 1, Tab 20, Report - Det. Sgt. S Perejmibida (02.03.23), pp24-26 and 29.01.25 (Perejmibida), pp37-37 49 Exhibit 1, Vol. 1, Tab 2, Report - Det. Sgt. S Malcolm (15.02.24), p6 50 Exhibit 1, Vol. 1, Tab 20, Report - Det. Sgt. S Perejmibida (02.03.23), pp24-25
In his Internal Affairs Unit report, Detective Sergeant Perejmibida (Officer Perejmibida) makes the following observation about Ms Lavering’s recollections about TK102’s speed and proximity to the Motorcycle: (Ms Lavering’s) recollections regarding speeds and distances are inconsistent with evidence obtained from dash cam and CCTV footage, and ARL51 data. Portions of (Ms Lavering’s) statement pertaining to these portions cannot be relied upon.52
The Dashcam footage from TK102 clearly shows that as the Motorcycle passes TK102 at the intersection of Ennis Avenue and Dixon Road, TK102 briefly accelerates and follows the Motorcycle, before the Motorcycle disappears into heavy fog and TK102 decelerates.53,54
Having carefully reviewed dashcam footage from TK102, I have concluded that Ms Lavering’s evidence about TK102’s speed and proximity to the Motorcycle is unreliable and cannot be correct.
Emergency service response55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69
After travelling through the Intersection, the Motorcycle had collided with trees and sustained serious damage. It was found on its side in a grassed area about 35 m from the Intersection. Ambulance and police officers were attending to Nathan and Jesse, who were both lying on the ground about 15 m in front of the Motorcycle. Both Nathan and Jesse had sustained very serious injuries. Despite resuscitation efforts Nathan and Jesse could not be revived, and they were each declared deceased at the scene.72,73,74 Inspection of Motorcycle75,76
Nathan purchased the Motorcycle on 6 August 2022.77 Following the crash, the Motorcycle was inspected by a police vehicle examiner who noted that although its front tyre was “low in thread depth condition to the centre area”, the tyre’s shoulders were compliant and serviceable.
The vehicle examiner also stated it “appears all damaged items are crash related”. Further, although the Motorcycle’s front master cylinder was damaged rendering the front brakes inoperable, its rear brakes, and the remaining undamaged front brake components appeared to be “serviceable in condition and operation pre-crash”.
Motorcycle licence78,79
A forensic pathologist (Dr Junckerstorff) conducted a post mortem examination of Nathan’s body on 1 September 2022 at the State Mortuary and reviewed post mortem CT scans.
Dr Junckerstorff noted a laceration to the back of Nathan’s head, and bruises and abrasions on his limbs. Post mortem CT scans showed Nathan had sustained skull fractures and there was bleeding on the surface of his brain (subarachnoid haemorrhage). Fractures of Nathan’s left shoulder blade, left collarbone, breast bone and thoracic vertebrae were also noted.
Nathan tested negative to the COVID-19 virus, and toxicological analysis detected tetrahydrocannabinol in his system, indicating recent use of cannabis.84,85
Nathan had a blood alcohol level of 0.099% in one sample and 0.13% in another, and a urine alcohol level of 0.188%. Other common drugs were not detected.86
At the conclusion of his post mortem examination, Dr Junckerstorff expressed the opinion that the cause of Nathan’s death was “head injury”.87
I accept and adopt Dr Junckerstorff’s conclusion as my finding in relation to the cause of Nathan’s death, and I find that his death occurred by way of accident.
82 Exhibit 1, Vol. 1, Tab 5.1, Post Mortem Report - Mr N Randall (01.09.22) 83 Exhibit 1, Vol. 1, Tab 5.1, Supplementary Post Mortem Report - Mr N Randall (14.10.22) 84 Exhibit 1, Vol. 1, Tab 6.2, COVID-19 Report - Mr N Randall (19.08.22) 85 Exhibit 1, Vol. 1, Tab 6.2, Toxicology Report - Mr N Randall (04.10.22) 86 Exhibit 1, Vol. 1, Tab 6.2, Toxicology Report - Mr N Randall (04.10.22) 87 Exhibit 1, Vol. 1, Tab 5.1, Supplementary Post Mortem Report - Mr N Randall (14.10.22)
Dr Junckerstorff conducted a post mortem examination of Jesse’s body at the State Mortuary on 23 August 2022, and reviewed post mortem CT scans.
Dr Junckerstorff noted that Jesse had sustained lacerations, abrasions and palpable fractures of his left collarbone, left shoulder blade, and the left side of his pelvis.
Post mortem CT scans showed that in addition to multiple rib fractures, Jesse had sustained tears to his lungs (traumatic pneumatoceles), air in the chest cavity (bilateral pneumothoraces), a laceration to his spleen, and there was blood in his abdomen and pelvis.
Jesse tested negative to the COVID-19 virus, and toxicological analysis found he had a blood alcohol level of 0.060%, and a urine alcohol level of 0.083%. Other common drugs and cannabinoids were not detected.90,91,92
At the conclusion of his post mortem examination, Dr Junckerstorff expressed the opinion that the cause of Jesse’s death was “multiple injuries”.93
I accept and adopt Dr Junckerstorff’s conclusion as my finding in relation to the cause of Jesse’s death, and I find that death occurred by way of accident.
88 Exhibit 1, Vol. 1, Tab 5, Post Mortem Report - Mr J Dixon (22.08.22) 89 Exhibit 1, Vol. 1, Tab 5, Supplementary Post Mortem Report - Mr J Dixon (28.09.22) 90 Exhibit 1, Vol. 1, Tab 6.1, Final Toxicology Report - Mr J Dixon (12.09.22) 91 Exhibit 1, Vol. 1, Tab 6.1, Urgent Interim Toxicology Report - Mr J Dixon (25.08.22) 92 Exhibit 1, Vol. 1, Tab 6.1, COVID-19 Report - Mr J Dixon (19.08.22) 93 Exhibit 1, Vol. 1, Tab 5, Supplementary Post Mortem Report - Mr J Dixon (28.09.22)
[2025] WACOR 7 ASSESSMENT OF POLICE CONDUCT Relevant considerations94,95
At the conclusion of his investigation, Officer Malcolm concluded that the deaths of Nathan and Jesse should be investigated as a coronial matter on the basis that there had been no direct contact between TK102 and the Motorcycle at any time, and “therefore there is no criminality in the actions of the police vehicle in relation to the crash”.96
Officer Malcolm’s conclusion was supported by Inspector Brierley from State Traffic, who noted that Officer Wigger had not activated the TK102’s emergency lights or siren, and had discontinued his attempt to follow the Motorcycle after about four seconds when the Motorcycle accelerated heavily away.97
After assessing the available evidence, Inspector Brierley noted that Officer Wigger had advised Police Communications of his intentions in a timely manner, and that dashcam footage, location data from TK102, and the “initial scene account” corroborated Officer Wigger’ account.98
Inspector Brierley noted that TK102 was a significant distance from the Intersection when the crash occurred, and there had been no direct contact between TK102 and the Motorcycle at any time. Inspector Brierley concluded: “The driver of the police vehicle (i.e.: Officer Wigger) has not breached policy and his actions throughout the incident are lawful”.99
The matter was referred to Officer Perejmibida at the Internal Affairs Unit, who conducted a managerial investigation to determine whether Officer Wigger had adhered to relevant Police policies on the morning of 18 August 2022. Officer Perejmibida assessed the available evidence including dashcam footage from TK102 and CCTV footage, the accounts of witnesses (including Mr Turner and Ms Lavering), and the contents of Officer Malcolm’s report.
94 Exhibit 1, Vol. 1, Tab 20, Report - Det. Sgt. S Perejmibida (02.03.23) and ts 29.01.25 (Perejmibida), pp29-40 95 ts 29.01.25 (Wigger), pp25-26 96 Exhibit 1, Vol. 1, Tab 20, Report - Det. Sgt. S Perejmibida (02.03.23), p6 97 Exhibit 1, Vol. 1, Tab 20, Report - Det. Sgt. S Perejmibida (02.03.23), pp6-8 98 Exhibit 1, Vol. 1, Tab 20, Report - Det. Sgt. S Perejmibida (02.03.23), p7 99 Exhibit 1, Vol. 1, Tab 20, Report - Det. Sgt. S Perejmibida (02.03.23), p7
[2025] WACOR 7 IAU report findings100
Following the crash, Officer Wigger was taken to the Rockingham police station and at 6.17 am he underwent drug and alcohol testing, the results of which were negative.101,102 Officer Perejmibida also noted that at the relevant time, Officer Wigger was a qualified pursuit driver (having gained that qualification in 2014) and at the inquest, Officer Wigger confirmed he had completed annual pursuit driver refresher training.103,104
After carefully reviewing the available evidence, Officer Perejmibida expressed the following conclusion (with which I agree) in relation to Officer Wigger’s conduct: The managerial investigation concluded Wigger's driving was reasonably necessary to perform a function of his duty in the circumstances and no breach of policy was identified.105 Conclusions about the conduct of Officer Wigger
At the start of the inquest, I made a non-publication order in relation to any evidence relating to police policies concerning urgent duty/emergency driving procedures, including any cap on the speed at which police officers are authorised to drive. Therefore, I do not intend to canvas the relevant provisions of those policies in this finding.
It is enough for me to say that after carefully considering the available evidence, I am satisfied that Officer Wigger’s conduct was not in breach of any Police policies or procedures, and further that his actions were reasonable and appropriate in all of the circumstances.
Although Nathan sped off after seeing TK102, Officer Wigger did not activate TK102’s emergency lights or sirens, nor did he pursue the Motorcycle for an extended period. Because of the speed Nathan was travelling, Officer Wigger lost sight of the Motorcycle moments after he had made the decision to follow it and conduct further enquiries.
100 Exhibit 1, Vol. 1, Tab 20, Report - Det. Sgt. S Perejmibida (02.03.23) and ts 29.01.25 (Perejmibida), pp29-40 101 Exhibit 4, WA Police Alcohol and Drug Testing form 6243 (6.17 am, 18.08.23) 102 The test includes alcohol, amphetamines, opiates, benzodiazepines, methylamphetamine, cocaine, and cannabis 103 Exhibit 1, Vol. 1, Tab 20, Report - Det. Sgt. S Perejmibida (02.03.23), pp9, 13 & 31 104 ts 29.01.25 (Wigger), pp10-11 & 25 and ts 29.01.25 (Perejmibida), pp30-31, 36 & 38-39 105 Exhibit 1, Vol. 1, Tab 20, Report - Det. Sgt. S Perejmibida (02.03.23), p41
It follows that there was nothing about Officer Wigger’s decision to conduct further enquiries, or his decision to follow the Motorcycle that was causally connected to Nathan’s subsequent actions, and/or the collision between the Motorcycle and some trees which led to the deaths of Nathan and Jesse.
For the avoidance of doubt, I wish to make it clear that having carefully considered the available evidence, I find that the actions of Officer Wigger on 18 August 2022 did not contribute to, or cause the deaths of either Nathan or Jesse.
In this tragic case two young men (Nathan and his passenger Jesse) were killed, when Nathan collided with trees after deciding to ride his motorcycle well in excess of the posted speed limit whilst intoxicated by cannabis and alcohol.
It is impossible to know why Nathan decided to speed off on his motorcycle after seeing TK102. Nathan may have been motivated to evade police because he did not have a valid driver’s licence. He would also have been aware that he had recently used cannabis and consumed alcohol, and may have been concerned that his intoxication would be detected if he were to be stopped by police.106
Whatever factors may have motivated Nathan to act as he did, after carefully considering the available evidence I concluded that the actions of Officer Wigger were reasonable and did not contribute to, or cause the deaths of either Nathan or Jesse.
At the inquest, Jesse’s sister read out a letter from her mother setting out in loving terms who Jesse was, and what his loss has meant to his loved ones. I commend Jesse’s sister for her bravery in reading out this beautiful tribute to her brother, and I sincerely thank her for doing so.
106 Exhibit 1, Vol. 1, Tab 20, Report - Det. Sgt. S Perejmibida (02.03.23), p29
It is impossible for me to comprehend the impact that the deaths of Nathan and Jesse have had (and continue to have) on their respective families and friends. The lives of these two much loved men were snuffed out at a time when they were yet to realise their full potential, and to lose loved ones at such a young age is a truly awful thing.
As I did at the conclusion of the inquest, I wish to again extend, on behalf of the Court, my most sincere condolences to the families and loved ones of Nathan and Jesse for their terrible loss.
MAG Jenkin Coroner 3 February 2025
Barry Podmore, aged 73, disappeared on 6 December 2024 while prospecting in remote bushland near Karroun Hill Nature Reserve in Western Australia. He left his home with metal detectors but without his mobile phone or Per…
Bailey Bryan Burns, 23, died in a single-vehicle crash on Canning Highway after losing control of his vehicle while driving at excessive speed (approximately 150 km/h in a 60 km/h zone) on wet roads while navigating a be…
John Frylinck, a 70-year-old man with Alzheimer's disease and poorly controlled type 2 diabetes, disappeared on 18 January 2024 while walking at Mundaring Sculpture Park. Despite an extensive search involving 120 volunte…
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.