Urgent questions are being raised following a communication error that led Lily Hooper's family to believe the missing hiker had been found alive, only for police to later confirm she had died. The 18-year-old was last seen on Aug. 12, departing her parents' home in Oakdale, south-west of Sydney.
On Aug. 13, eight days into the search, her family was reportedly informed that Hooper had been found alive in Nattai National Park. This information was subsequently relayed by NSW Premier Chris Minns during a budget estimates hearing, who stated she had been found with "half a bottle of water." Minutes later, Minns returned to correct the record, and NSW Police confirmed that a body had been found.
Assistant Commissioner Joseph Cassar stated there was a brief period between the discovery of Hooper's body by State Emergency Service (SES) volunteers and the confirmation of her death. "They were informed (of) initial information (from) the searchers believed that she was alive, and that's what was communicated," Cassar said. He added that it took approximately eight to 10 minutes to provide Hooper's parents with the updated status.
Police sources indicated that "another responding agency" initially informed police that the teenager had been found alive. This unverified information was then disseminated through police command channels to Hooper's family. An SES source suggested that the mention of a "water bottle" by Premier Minns might have been a code word intended to shield the family from hearing the tragic news.
Dr. Brianna Chesser, an Associate Professor of Criminology and Justice at RMIT, suggested that the miscommunication likely stemmed from a breakdown in information flow. "It seems that there has been an issue with the information either obtained by or given to the police," Chesser told the Daily Mail. "This erroneous information was then passed onto the Premier, who delivered it to Parliament."
Cassar expressed regret over the situation, stating, "I cannot turn the clock back." He noted that while police had hoped for a more positive outcome, providing more detailed information immediately upon the initial report might have altered the communication.
While the family could potentially pursue legal action for negligence, Dr. Chesser indicated that such claims face significant legal hurdles. Australian courts have historically been reluctant to find a duty of care in police communications during rapidly evolving situations. Furthermore, Section 148 of the Police Act 1990 generally protects police officers from liability for acts performed in good faith. The state also holds broad immunity unless gross operational negligence can be proven, which is a high threshold.
Chesser suggested that the circumstances surrounding the communications failure would likely be examined through the coronial process, as Hooper's death is expected to be subject to an inquest.
This incident follows a similar case in May, where Victorian Police mistakenly informed a Melbourne woman's family that she had died, due to a misidentification with a deceased homeless individual. That case is currently being investigated by the family's law firm.