Unascertained - death occurred in the course of an assault by her husband; evidence suggests strangulation by ligature despite decomposition preventing definitive determination
AI-generated summary
Zahra Rahimzadegan, a 46-year-old Iranian-Australian woman, was killed by her husband in a domestic homicide on 16 December 2011. The death occurred in the context of a 16-year history of physical abuse, threats, and controlling behaviour. The coroner identified significant service system gaps: couple's counselling was inappropriately arranged despite known family violence history; family violence screening at intake was inadequate; no risk assessment was conducted despite disclosed violence disclosures; Child Protection was not notified when a 2010 intervention order application alleged child abuse. The coroner emphasised that while the perpetrator bears sole responsibility, service providers failed to recognise escalating risk, particularly when the deceased was attempting to leave the relationship. Key lessons include: mandatory family violence screening in all community counselling; avoidance of couple's counselling when violence is present; proper information-sharing across services; and risk assessment during ongoing contact.
AI-generated summary and tagging — may contain inaccuracies; refer to original finding for legal purposes.
long history of physical abuse and threats by perpetrator
escalating controlling and obsessive behaviour by perpetrator
deceased's attempt to leave the relationship
perpetrator's jealousy and suspicion of affair
inadequate family violence screening by counselling service
inappropriate couple's counselling referral despite known violence history
failure to assess and manage family violence risk during counselling
failure to inform counsellors of prior family violence history
lack of coordination between intervention order process and child protection
failure to identify escalating risk when deceased was attempting to leave
Coroner's recommendations
CityLife Community Care (CLCC) should ensure that the organisation's couple's counselling intake form prompts screening questions to be asked which give effect to the requirement to 'establish a risk or history of family violence', and further ensure that potential participants have the opportunity to provide that information in a safe and confidential environment.
CLCC should ensure that the organisation has clear and established referral policies and pathways to allow referral to culturally appropriate men's behaviour change, or similar programs.
CLCC should ensure that the organisation has clear and established referral pathways which allow for disclosures or identified risks of family violence to be referred to appropriately qualified agencies.
CLCC should develop and publish a clear policy on whether or not couple's counselling can be provided where there is a history or risk of family violence, and to the extent that the organisation determines that couple's counselling may proceed in those circumstances, the additional safeguards and safety planning that are required.
CLCC should ensure that their counsellors understand that, irrespective of the screening processes employed at intake and the characterisation of the presenting issue, family violence screening and risk assessment is their ongoing responsibility, and further ensure that their counsellors have the professional training and tools to be able to competently and consistently undertake this task and respond appropriately to any disclosures.
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 —