Inquest into the Death of Thomas Charles WILLIAMS
Deceased
Thomas Charles WILLIAMS
Demographics
37y, male
Date of death
2012-08-07
Finding date
2015-04-05
Cause of death
Immersion (drowning)
AI-generated summary
Thomas Charles Williams, 37, drowned in the Canning River on 7 August 2012 after fleeing from police. He was spotted by officers responding to a suspicious person report while in possession of illicit drugs and with an outstanding warrant. When approached, he ran toward the river and was last seen being pursued. His body was found submerged a week later. Post-mortem examination showed fluid-laden lungs consistent with drowning. The deceased had a long history of amphetamine use and previous asthma-like symptoms following drug use. Methylamphetamine was present at recreational levels. The coroner concluded the death was by misadventure - he voluntarily entered the river to escape police and got into difficulties while crossing. No evidence of foul play, injury, or third-party involvement was found. Police conduct was found appropriate and reasonable.
AI-generated summary and tagging — may contain inaccuracies; refer to original finding for legal purposes.
Specialties
Drugs involved
Clinical conditions
Contributing factors
- Flight from police
- Possession of illicit drugs and outstanding warrant creating motivation to escape
- Methylamphetamine use affecting judgment and risk-taking behavior
- Possible asthma or respiratory symptoms precipitated by amphetamine use
- Voluntary entry into river in winter conditions
- Unknown difficulty encountered while crossing river
Full text
Related cases
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 —