Coronial
VIChospital

Finding into death of DRF

Deceased

DRF

Demographics

95y, female

Coroner

State Coroner Judge John Cain

Date of death

2022-01-02

Finding date

2025-06-03

Cause of death

Acute intracranial haemorrhage

AI-generated summary

DRF, a 95-year-old woman with dementia, hearing impairment, mobility limitations, and mild cognitive impairment, died from acute intracranial haemorrhage following blunt head trauma. She had been living with her son UJN, who was her primary carer. Police received multiple reports of alleged verbal abuse and threats between September and December 2021. Critical failures in police response included: failing to conduct welfare checks despite concerns, not obtaining professional interpreters despite DRF's language barrier, conducting interviews with UJN present, incomplete family violence documentation, and delayed referrals to support services. A structured adult safeguarding response with timely outreach, direct assessment, safety planning, and formal protective interventions could have identified and mitigated abuse risk. The coroner found no direct causal link between police failures and death but identified significant systemic gaps in responding to vulnerable older adults experiencing alleged family violence and elder abuse.

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

Specialties

geriatric medicineneurosurgeryforensic medicine

Error types

communicationsystemdelay

Drugs involved

warfarinoxycodoneirbesartandomperidoneparacetamol

Clinical conditions

dementiamild cognitive impairmenthearing impairmentmobility impairmentchronic sciatic painamyloid angiopathysubdural haemorrhagesubarachnoid haemorrhageelder abusefamily violence

Contributing factors

  • Blunt force head trauma with subdural haemorrhage
  • Warfarin anticoagulation increasing bleeding risk
  • Advanced age and frailty
  • Fall risk from mobility impairment and dementia
  • Alleged elder abuse and family violence not adequately investigated or escalated
  • Failure of police welfare checks and safeguarding response
  • Lack of comprehensive adult safeguarding framework in Victoria
  • Communication barriers (hearing impairment, language barrier, dementia) not adequately addressed
  • Delayed and inadequate family violence support service engagement

Coroner's recommendations

  1. Victoria Police consider modifying body worn camera units to emit an audible alert tone when muted, or alternatively amend section 3.7 of the Victoria Police Manual to prohibit muting during phone calls or contact with other police members while responding to incidents requiring BWC activation
  2. Victorian Government implement adult safeguarding legislation to establish comprehensive assessment, investigation and coordination of responses to allegations of abuse, neglect and exploitation of at-risk adults
  3. Victorian Government review circumstances of this case and CFT case together with safeguarding recommendations from ALRC, OPA and Disability Royal Commission when framing legislation
  4. Adult safeguarding agencies be adequately funded to function effectively
  5. New safeguarding agencies work cooperatively with service providers to facilitate timely support provision to at-risk adults
  6. Victorian Government introduce legislation permitting adult safeguarding agencies to receive and share information timely with police, healthcare entities, government departments, OPA and other agencies
  7. Victorian Government implement OPA recommendation to build capacity of mainstream service providers to identify and respond to abuse of at-risk adults
  8. Victorian Government fund regular community awareness, media engagement and education campaigns about adult safeguarding function
  9. Office of the Public Advocate conduct thorough investigations whenever aware of allegations of neglect or abuse of represented persons
  10. Office of the Public Advocate review and update guidance about allocating orders and balancing risk of harm when making decisions
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.