Coronial
VIChome

Finding into death of Sargun Ragi

Deceased

Sargun Ragi

Demographics

22y, female

Date of death

2012-10-04

Finding date

2015-10-30

Cause of death

Effects of burns

AI-generated summary

Sargun Ragi, a 22-year-old woman recently arrived from India on a spousal visa, was killed by her husband Avjit Singh in October 2012 after obtaining an intervention order and leaving their relationship. The coroner found Victoria Police inadequately responded to multiple breaches of the intervention order, specifically telephone contact breaches that indicated escalating risk. Police failed to submit updated L17 risk assessment forms and did not arrest Singh despite repeated violations. The response was passive rather than active, contrary to the Code of Practice. Systemic deficiencies included failure to track cumulative breaches, lack of information sharing between police officers, and insufficient escalation. Cultural and patriarchal attitudes contributed to Singh's behaviour. Key lessons: repeated contact breaches can indicate serious escalating risk; dynamic risk assessment is essential; proper documentation and review of previous risk assessments enables better protection.

AI-generated summary and tagging — may contain inaccuracies; refer to original finding for legal purposes.

Contributing factors

  • Failure to adequately investigate and respond to multiple breaches of intervention order by Victoria Police
  • Inadequate police response to repeated telephone contact breaches which signalled escalating risk
  • Failure to submit updated L17 risk assessment forms following second and subsequent breaches
  • Narrow incident-by-incident approach to risk assessment rather than dynamic comprehensive assessment
  • Failure to arrest respondent despite multiple breaches of intervention order
  • Lack of information sharing and continuity between police officers handling breaches
  • Victim required to attend police station in person to report breaches, creating administrative barriers
  • Absence of single point of contact between police and family violence support services
  • Use of private investigator to locate victim despite intervention order prohibitions
  • Possible use of telecommunications company contacts to locate victim
  • Perpetrator's patriarchal and culturally-influenced entitlement attitudes
  • Victim's vulnerability, isolation, and language/cultural barriers

Coroner's recommendations

  1. Chief Commissioner of Police amend Victoria Police Manual and Code of Practice for Investigation of Family Violence to require police officers completing an L17 to review previous L17s relating to the same offender and contact authors of previous L17s to ensure information regarding risk is shared and considered
  2. State of Victoria give consideration to creation and resourcing of a Family Violence Advocate service to provide advocacy services for women and families modelled on UK Domestic Advocate position
  3. State of Victoria, working with family violence sector, give consideration to development of education programs for CALD men who are perpetrators of family violence and who currently have limited or no access to such programs
  4. Department of Immigration and Border Protection provide to Coroners Court and public its policies developed in response to recommendations regarding integrated management of migration and family violence issues
Full text

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. 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 —