A 19-year-old university student with chronic bilateral uveitis presented to university counselling with depression. She disclosed detailed written suicide plans (helium asphyxiation) to the Head of Counselling, who appropriately escalated to ACIS. However, she was classified as 'non-urgent' and never received a psychiatric assessment. A two-page document expressing sophisticated suicidal intent was described by expert psychiatry as extraordinary and requiring urgent response. She died by helium asphyxiation 21 days after initial disclosure. The coroner found ACIS structurally inadequate for such cases: the system lacked rapid escalation pathways despite clear, articulate expression of intent. Expert opinion held that psychiatric assessment should have occurred immediately, and the case was rare enough to warrant fast-tracking protocols.
AI-generated summary and tagging — may contain inaccuracies; refer to original finding for legal purposes.
chronic bilateral uveitis with resultant cataracts and permanent vision damage
reactive depression secondary to visual impairment
pre-existing chronic dysthymia and suicidal ideation since age 13
failure of ACIS to provide urgent psychiatric assessment despite explicit written suicide plan
inappropriate risk classification (Level 2 non-urgent) by Mental Health Triage Service
missed psychiatric appointment due to scheduling error (Thursday 28 May vs Friday 29 May)
patient declining rescheduled appointment on 2 June without follow-up escalation
structural inadequacy of ACIS to manage rare high-risk cases
absence of mandatory psychiatric review despite detailed written suicide plan
Coroner's recommendations
The Chief Psychiatrist of South Australia should consider this finding and the views of Professor Goldney
The Assessment and Crisis Intervention Service should develop a risk management framework to identify outlying cases such as Natassja's with a view to fast-tracking psychiatric assessment
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. All court orders for redaction and non-publication are respected; documents with technically defective redaction have been excluded from the database entirely. Always refer to the original court publication for the authoritative record.
Copyright in original materials remains with the relevant government jurisdiction. AI-generated summaries and tagging are for educational purposes only, may contain inaccuracies, and must not be treated as legal documents. We welcome feedback for correction —