Evidence paints ‘clear picture’ Bondi killer Joel Cauchi needed emergency help

Evidence has painted a “clear picture” that Bondi Junction killer Joel Cauchi needed an emergency mental health assessment after he called police to accuse his father of stealing his knives, an inquest has been told.

Six people were killed and 10 others were injured in the attack at Westfield Bondi Junction on April 13, 2024.

Dawn Singleton, Yixuan Cheng, Faraz Ahmed Tahir, Ashlee Good, Jade Young and Pikria Darchia died in the incident.

Cauchi, 40, had gone on a rampage through the palatial shopping centre with a WWII knife purchased at a camping store before being gunned down by NSW Police Inspector Amy Scott.

A five-week coronial inquest into the deadly stabbing began last Monday, with the first week revealing never-before-heard details about the incident.

Cauchi was diagnosed with schizophrenia when he was 17. He was medicated for more than a decade to treat the condition until he stopped taking all psychotropic medication in June 2019.

He has been described as being “floridly psychotic” on the day of the fatal attack.

Police were called to Cauchi’s parents’ home in January 2023 after he claimed his father had stolen his knives.

His father had given them to a friend over concerns for Cauchi’s mental health, the court was told on Monday.

Cauchi had also pushed his father after the knives were confiscated.

However because he was not deemed a risk to himself, the attending officers told the court on Monday they had no powers to take Cauchi for an emergency assessment, as per changes to the Emergency Examination Authority (EEA) criteria in 2017.

Changes to the EEA criteria, repeatedly described as “confusing” in court, appeared to suggest only those who have an “immediate threat to self” can be taken for emergency assessment, and cites the example of “a person is threatening to commit suicide”.

Before 2017 it referred to those who were an immediate threat to themselves or somebody else.

An email was sent to an officer acting as one of the force’s mental health intervention co-ordinators (MHIC) requesting a follow-up on the Cauchi family; however, the email was missed.

“Unfortunately, it was an oversight and I did not manage to follow up,” the relieving intervention officer told the court on Monday.

He also accepted the incident was a “missed opportunity” and agreed that it had been difficult for him to process that he had something to do with this missed opportunity.

A better system for follow-up had since been put in place, he said.

QPS manager of the vulnerable persons group Inspector Bernard Quinlan said in hindsight it was clear that an EEA for Cauchi was needed “at some point in time”, given the types of knives confiscated were pigging knives, along with other facts he had since learnt.

Without having been there himself, he said he “may have pursued a different action”.

“It paints a clear picture that there was a need for an emergency examination at some point in time,” Inspector Quinlan told the court.

Importantly, he noted he was still supportive of the attending officers’ actions on January 8, 2023.

“In light of all that information I’m still supportive of the decision taken by the police at the time … and just with how direct that legislation, it doesn’t allow much – you can’t defer from that actual specific wording of the legislation too much,” he said.

“The presentation of Joel at the time was as such that their actions on that day, at that time, were reasonable.”

Inspector Quinlan agreed an opportunity for an EEA was present, but the framing of the risk criteria may have impacted the police perception that one could be made, and the call-out was an example of why amended legislation was needed.

He said Cauchi appeared to be “intelligent” and “very measured” on the day.

In regards to the missed email, Inspector Quinlan said there had been steps taken since to put additional safeguards in place.

These included recording mental health call-outs that needed to be followed up on a list that can’t disappear until the task is started, completed, and finalised with a supervisor checklist, rather than through emails.

Inspector Quinlan earlier agreed the EEA terminology was confusing.

“It’s very specific in its terminology, and as police we are bound by the laws … that govern what actions we can take in particular circumstances,” he told the court.

“The law needs to be interpreted … if the example provided is a person threatening to commit suicide that sets a principle that is when police have to intervene.”

Counsel assisting the coroner Peggy Dwyer SC said it sounded like some police may interpret the legislation more broadly, but it can be restrictive, to which he agreed some may take it “literally”.

Inspector Quinlan said “it is confusing … it is a very high threshold that needs to be met” based on what the EEA says “on paper”, and some feedback on this had already been provided.

There’s been a resounding push from officers during the inquest for the need for other ways to respond to mental health incidents outside of Queensland Police.

“It shouldn’t be police responding. It should be a health-led response,” Inspector Quinlan said.

‘Possibility’ Cauchi could have been forced to undergo assessment

The QPS officer who typically works in the MHIC role earlier told the court there may have been a way to force Cauchi to undergo an emergency assessment.

“In my capacity with my expanded knowledge base … there would’ve been a possibility to expand on serious harm beyond harm to self to collateral harm,” the officer, who cannot be identified, told the court.

“There may have been an opportunity for an emergency examination authority based on my skill set.”

She emphasised that she has a completely different knowledge base to general duties officers, and that she can see why officers would read the legislation as being restrictive to someone needing to pose serious harm to themselves including by way of threats of suicide.

She supported a proposed legislation change to “remove that ambiguity” to expand the risk of harm to unintentional harm to self and harm to others.

Ms Dwyer said this was shaping up to be a “significant recommendation in this inquest given there’s such unanimous support for that”.

She agreed that the relieving MHIC’s oversight was “devastating”, and she would have followed up on the email had she been there.

However, she also noted that it was the type of email that she would receive daily in her role, and she could receive up to 40 emails on any given day.

“As I said before, I can guarantee it was an unintentional oversight,” she told the court.

She said the MHIC role was “fast becoming an overwhelming role” and even said there was no one to fill her role for some of the time she was in Sydney for the inquest.

The number of mental health call outs are also increasing, with the court told calls for service increased by 51 per cent between 2016 and 2020 in Queensland.

The MHIC said in a “perfect world” she’d also like to have three extra staff, as at the moment it is just her working 6.30am-2.30pm responding to calls to service related to mental health, dementia, those with intellectual disabilities, and other cases that fall outside the scope of a general police response.

“Through that, because there’s so much of it effectively at times I have to triage my follow up, I have to risk assess who is repeatedly coming into contact with police … who is a risk to themselves and the community,” she told the court.

“Ideally I’d love to engage with every person (the day after a call out) … it’s just not possible.”

mental health support