Clea Rose

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Clea Rose (29 January 1984-20 August 2005) was an Australian university student who died after a hit-and-run crime in 2005. A talented student, she was struck by a car driven by an underage driver who was being pursued by local police. She died three weeks later from a catastrophic brain injury.

The incident saw criminal charges laid against the driver of the car and two passengers, but also saw major public recriminations against the Australian Federal Police as to whether their pursuit had played some role in Rose's death. An internal police inquiry found that the police had acted according to procedures, but a full coronial inquest began on 7 May 2007 to examine the broader causes of the incident. Karen Fryar was appointed coroner for the inquest.

Contents 1 Rose's life and the hit-and-run crime 2 Legal proceedings 3 Recriminations and police inquiry 4 Walk with a Rose 5 References and notes 6 External links

[edit] Rose's life and the hit-and-run crime

Rose was raised in Canberra, and attended Lyneham High School and Dickson College, before embarking upon a tourism management degree at the University of Canberra. She was a keen traveller, having visited South Africa, Laos, Bali, the Cook Islands and two trips to Europe. Before her death, she had recently returned from an exchange semester at Colorado State University in the United States. A successful student with a distinction average, she was six months shy of graduating.^[1][2]

Early in the morning of 30 July 2005, two weeks after returning from the United States, the 21-year old student was out celebrating with friends when she was struck down by a speeding vehicle while crossing East Row, a street that, after midnight, is limited only to taxi and pedestrian traffic. The car that struck Rose was driven by a thirteen-year old with two underage passengers, and was being pursued by police. It was going at such a speed (approx. 90 km/h) that Rose had had no time to react. She was rushed to Canberra Hospital with severe head trauma, where she remained in intensive care for three weeks. Rose was subsequently moved to a hospice, and died from her injuries on 20 August.^[3]

Her death was widely reported in Canberra, and shocked many in the broader local community. The University of Canberra granted Clea her degree posthumously at its annual awards in December 2005.^[4] The University also instituted an award in her name for excellence among its tourism students, and the Rose/Dunn family funded a University scholarship in her name to encourage students to travel and do part of their degree in another country.^[5][6]

[edit] Legal proceedings

The three youths who had been present in the car at the time of the incident escaped the scene and were not captured by police until days later.^[7] None could be named, as all were juveniles at the time of the offence. The thirteen-year old driver had previously served time for stealing cars and was on bail for a similar offence at the time of the crime. His two passengers, a thirteen-year old boy and a fifteen-year old boy, were charged with riding in a stolen motor vehicle.^[8] The three had been smoking cannabis before stealing the car from Kaleen and driving into the city.^[9] The boys attracted the attention of police in the vicinity of London Circuit, which resulted in a pursuit after their refusal to stop.^[10]

Both passengers pleaded guilty to charges of riding in a stolen vehicle. The magistrates in the Children's Court gave both passengers the opportunity to prove that they were willing to modify their behaviour, and adjourned sentencing for some months to give them the opportunity to do so. The fifteen-year old passenger was able to satisfy the court of this, first earning a second adjournment, and then being sentenced to a two-year good behaviour bond on 10 March 2006. The court was unimpressed with the progress of the thirteen-year old passenger, and he was subsequently sentenced to eighteen months detention on 10 April 2006, suspended from the end of July.^{[citation needed]}

The driver was initially charged with culpable driving causing grievous bodily harm, but this was upgraded to manslaughter after Rose's death.^[11] He did not enter a plea for more than a month, but ultimately agreed to plead guilty to the lesser charge of culpable driving causing death on 7 October after being ordered by the judge to enter a plea.^[12][13] Children's Court magistrate John Burns then committed him for sentencing in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory due to the severity of the offence, stating that the Children's Court maximum of two years was "woefully inadequate".^[14] On 31 January 2006, he was sentenced to three years in juvenile detention with a non-parole period of eighteen months. Justice Terry Connolly took into account that he was remorseful, having sent a letter of apology to the Rose/Dunn family.^[15] The family for the most part endorsed the sentence, and to the surprise of many, offered to help with the boy's rehabilitation.^[16] This meant that restorative justice measures that had previously only been used in more minor crimes were able to be used, something which had not been seen before in the ACT.^{[citation needed]} Rose's father, Ross Dunn, did, however, suggest that the boy would have received a stronger sentence had the crime occurred in New South Wales.^[17]

A fourth youth who had been involved in the initial theft of the car but had got out after a short distance was given a four-month suspended sentence on 14 June 2006.^[18]

[edit] Recriminations and police inquiry

In the days following the accident, some of the blame began to be laid at the feet of the Australian Federal Police, who are responsible for policing in the ACT and who had conducted the pursuit which led to Rose's death. Numerous witnesses at the scene reported that the unmarked police car conducting the chase had sped through East Row at a speed of up to 90km/h, only seconds behind the stolen car, with lights and sirens blaring.^[19]

The city police took even more blame when it emerged that police CCTV footage from three cameras at the intersection where the accident occurred were not working at the time of the accident.^[20] This forced the subsequent investigation to rely on footage from a cinema and the police headquarters further along East Row and out of sight of the accident site.^[21]

The police initially claimed that they had not been in pursuit of the car at all, before suggesting that the pursuit had been terminated by the time of the accident, both of which directly contradicted the testimony of numerous eyewitnesses.^[22] They then embarked on what has been referred to as a "media blackout" over the incident, citing a forthcoming inquiry.^[23] This, on top of the CCTV fiasco, sparked a scathing response from the local newspaper, the Canberra Times, and much of the local public.

In early August, police announced plans for an inquiry, initially to be undertaken by the Police Standards Unit, but later changed to an independent internal review panel under the nominal oversight of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, John McMillan.^[24][25] Police Minister John Hargreaves stated that the report would not be made public in full, but that findings would be released. He stated as justification for this that "It's about security. It's about not revealing to the criminal element in town where certain weaknesses in police activities may or may not be ... It's not about secrecy."^[26] The announcement was slammed by the territory opposition and by Civil Liberties Australia.^[27]

Rose's death also resulted in bitter recriminations in parliament, with then-Opposition Leader Brendan Smyth attacking police handling of the issue and calling for a coronial inquest, and Chief Minister Jon Stanhope countering with allegations of trying to use the tragedy for political point-scoring.^[28] The opposition went so far as to declare on 28 August that they were reviewing their policy of subcontracting territory policing out to the Australian Federal Police.^[29]

The inquiry spent the latter part of 2005 preparing the report, but the issue blew up again after the sentencing of the driver in February 2006. Rose's father made a public call for the release of the report, stating "I don't want to say when and how the pursuit commenced, but it's quite clear [the boy] wouldn't have gone screaming down the interchange if the police weren't up his tail. I want it clearly worked out and expressed; what exactly is the acceptable risk to the police or any other government agency in doing its operations, like chasing cars. I want that spelled out - one in a thousand, one in a million - what is it? Certainly in our case it wasn't worth it."^[30] His comments were backed up by Police Minister Hargreaves, who publicly criticised the length of time it had taken to issue the report.^[31]

The report was finally finished in the wake of the February controversy, and in March, after receiving it, the ACT government began seeking legal advice as to whether the report could be made public.^[32] It was announced on 24 March that the inquiry had found that police had followed relevant rules and procedures, but copies were only given to the Rose-Dunn family and the ACT government.^[33] These announcements were contradicted to an extent, however, by the Commonwealth Ombudsman, John McMillan, who distanced himself from the report and stated publicly that it had not addressed all his concerns.^[34]

On 26 March Rose's family publicly urged the general public not to accept the police's assertions that they had acted appropriately, and called for both the release of the full report and a full coronial inquest.^[35] They did not, however, blame Rose's death on the police officers involved in the pursuit, or call for police pursuits to be banned. The following day, the Canberra Times published an editorial savagely critical of both the police and the ACT government, alleging among other things that the police had engaged in a cover-up in the weeks following the accident.^[36] Later that day, Hargreaves agreed to release the report in full with information that would identify officers and witnesses blacked out. The report found that the police had been travelling at "a moderate speed" and had complied with all relevant procedures.^[37] The Canberra Times remained critical, however, suggesting that the policies themselves needed to be changed, a topic which had been ignored by the report.^[38] This was met with a promise from Hargreaves to raise the matter at the Australiasian Police Ministers Council.^[39]

Four months later, on 29 July, the Canberra Times used the eve of the first anniversary of the accident to repeat the family's call for an inquest, in response to a letter to the family from the Coroner's Office questioning. It again renewed its criticism of the police's handling of the affair in the weeks following the accident, and pushed for a broader inquest to investigate issues not looked at in the internal report.^[40]

At this stage, the decision on whether or not an inquest was to be held lay with the ACT coroner. The coroner's argument against an inquest was that the cause of Clea's death - head injuries received from being struck by the stolen car - was already known, and did not require further investigation.^[41]

Under the ACT Coroner's Act, the ACT Attorney General Simon Corbell has the power to overrule the Coroner's Office and to demand that a coronial inquest be held. On 31 July, The ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope announced that his government was prepared to use this power, and would direct that an inquest be held irrespective of the Coroner's decision. This decision was welcomed by the Rose/Dunn family, but was criticised by the police association.^[42] Chief Coroner Ron Cahill subsequently announced on 3 August that an inquest would begin in September.^[43]

[edit] Walk with a Rose

On the morning of the accident, Amy Banson, an Australian Catholic University student unknown to Clea, had been the first person on the scene, and stayed with Clea until the ambulance arrived.^[44] Banson had originally planned to walk from Brisbane to Canberra as a personal challenge, but after witnessing the accident and its aftermath, decided to carry out the walk as a fundraiser and awareness campaign for the National Brain Injury Foundation. This was in light of the fact that, had she survived, Clea would have been left with a severe brain injury,^[44], although some later questioned Banson's motives.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] References and notes

[edit] External links

• Walk with a Rose