Coronial
VIChome

Finding into death of Daniel Charles Richards

Deceased

Daniel Charles Richards

Demographics

48y, male

Coroner

State Coroner Judge John Cain

Date of death

2019-06-24

Finding date

2021-12-06

Cause of death

Ischaemic heart disease complicating restraint of an acutely agitated male

AI-generated summary

Daniel Richards, 48, died from ischaemic heart disease precipitated by restraint during a mental health assessment at home. He had underlying significant coronary artery disease with left ventricular hypertrophy and old myocardial infarction. A CAT team assessment order was initiated after his family contacted mental health services. When police assisted with the order, Danny resisted vigorously during a 4-6 minute struggle in his kitchen while being handcuffed. OC foam was deployed twice without effect. Danny developed respiratory distress and cardiac arrest during restraint. Clinically, the case highlights: (1) the need for collateral physical health risk identification in mental health crisis responses; (2) the importance of assuming underlying cardiovascular disease in those with mental illness; (3) de-escalation and communication training for police (PRIME training); and (4) paramedic-led emergency response models. The coroner found actions of police and CAT team were reasonable, though planning and inter-service coordination could be improved.

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

Specialties

psychiatryemergency medicineparamedicineforensic medicine

Error types

systemcommunication

Clinical conditions

schizophrenia or psychotic disorderparanoid delusionsischaemic heart diseasecoronary artery diseaseleft ventricular hypertrophymyocardial fibrosiscardiac arrhythmiacardiac arrestobesity

Procedures

assessment order under Mental Health ActhandcuffingOC foam applicationcardiopulmonary resuscitation

Contributing factors

  • underlying cardiovascular disease with coronary artery narrowing and left ventricular hypertrophy
  • strenuous physical exertion and resistance during restraint
  • acute agitation and mental health crisis
  • possible anxiety and stress from police presence
  • use of OC foam which may have had aggravating effect
  • restraint procedures including handcuffs
  • potential impaired respiration during struggle

Coroner's recommendations

  1. That recommendations 8, 9 and 10 from the Royal Commission into Victoria's Mental Health System be prioritised and implemented in their entirety as recommended
  2. That in implementing RCVMHS Recommendation 10, where a person is being assessed in the community by a mental health service with police and paramedics involved, specific consideration be given to: (a) circumstances of police and paramedics involvement; (b) inter-service planning ensuring mutual understanding; (c) trauma-informed care principles; (d) identification of best practice; (e) practical guidance to all onsite services
  3. That the Chief Psychiatrist alert Area Mental Health Services to risks of restraint in people with mental illness and cardiovascular/respiratory/metabolic diseases, and assume physical disease may be present
  4. That mental health services include identification of physical health risks as part of collateral information gathering from family and other sources
  5. That identified physical health risks be communicated to police and paramedics prior to engagement
  6. That consideration be given to mitigating strategies by all onsite services if physical health risks are identified or remain unknown
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. 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 and tagging are for educational purposes only, may contain inaccuracies, and must not be treated as legal documents. We welcome feedback for correction — report an inaccuracy here.