Stanley Russell inquest: one of the police who shot Aboriginal man ‘very comfortable’ with firearms, court hears
A New South Wales court has heard one of the police officers who shot a Gomeroi man last year was a former army reserve member who counted shooting among his hobbies, owned several rifles and was “very comfortable” with firearms.
Stanley Russell, 45, was shot dead by police in his aunt’s home in western Sydney on 9 November 2021 after officers had come to arrest him on an outstanding warrant.
Police shot Russell at least five times during the attempted arrest, after he allegedly threatened them with a hatchet and knife.
The counsel assisting the coroner, Kristina Stern SC, told the court on Monday that Russell had lived with a number of mental health illnesses and experienced substance abuse issues after the death of his brother in prison custody in the 1990s.
The court heard that earlier on Tuesday Stern and others had visited the home where Russell lived with his aunt.
Const Allister Asprec was one of the four officers who attended the attempted arrest of Russell. Asprec began his police career in early 2020 before being confirmed as a constable in February 2021, the court heard.
He was a member of the army reserve for a year prior to his police service and had “a number of firearms” in his home, including four rifles.
Stern asked if the officer was “very comfortable with firearms” and if he had used firearms in the army and his personal life as part of his “hobbies”. Asprec agreed, saying: “Yes, correct.” Sign up for Guardian Australia’s free morning and afternoon email newsletters for your daily news roundup
The inquest heard the officer is one of two who fired four shots at Russell, while another attending officer fired two shots. It has not been determined which bullet killed Russell, who later died from his injuries.
The court heard the police officer did not take contemporaneous notes in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, with Asprec saying he thought it was not necessary, as he anticipated being interviewed soon.
“I decided not to, because I was anticipating I would be interviewed quite soon after … two days after is still contemporaneously,” he said.
Asprec was asked if opening statements by Stern was the first time the officer was hearing some of the evidence from other involved officers. He replied “no”. Asked whether he had read any interviews or information about the incident prior to giving evidence, he replied he had.
He also gave evidence that he had watched the body-worn vision and vision captured by the discharge of a Taser.
“Is it correct at the time you were interviewed on 11 November 2021 you had seen the body-worn camera vision worn by officers and Taser footage?” Stern asked.
He said he did not discuss what he had seen with anyone before or after the incident as directed.
“Correct, I watched it in the presence with the interviewing officer.”
When asked if his memories of the incident had become interwoven with experiencing the incident and watching it, he agreed but denied any conflict.
“Do you agree that your account of the incident was a merger of your actual recollections and body-worn camera?” Stern asked.
“Yes but there was nothing in the body-worn camera that conflicted with my recollections.”
The coroner heard that Asprec had not checked if there were any warnings listed against Russell prior to the attempted arrest, saying he was not the officer in charge. He agreed it was “best practice” but said he had not done so as he was driving and was in the presence of three “competent” senior police officers.
When asked by Stern if it would have been important to know if there was any risk of weapons or risk assessment conducted prior to executing the arrest, the officer said he did not need to know his “life story” .
“It would be good to know but, like I said, arrests are very common, I don’t need to know everyone’s life story before I go arrest them.”
The deputy state coroner, Carmel Forbes, reminded the officer that the arrest was being carried out in a home setting, “not just a common arrest, so let’s keep that in mind”.
The court heard there was an increased risk associated with home arrests due to the likelihood of kitchen knives or household tools.
The inquest is continuing.