No failings in care of Afghanistan veteran who took his own life, inquest decides
AN AFGHANISTAN war veteran with severe PTSD was not failed by health services before he took his own life, an inquest has heard.
George Du Preez was found dead in his flat by his wife on November 17, 2019 after suffering with his mental health for several years.
Du Preez, 37, a former British Army veteran who served in Afghanistan, was diagnosed with PTSD and emotionally unstable personality disorder (EUPD) as a result of his time in the service, from which he was medically discharged in 2014.
He was found dead in his living room in Bridgend by his wife Katriona Du Preez after she had gone to his flat to check on him, having not heard from him for several days.
An inquest at Pontypridd Coroner’s Court on December 7 heard Du Preez, who was originally from Namibia, had taken a number of overdoses in recent years, tried to take his own life previously and had spent time in psychiatric wards. He was also on medication for his mental health.
The inquest heard Mr Du Preez moved to the UK in 2007, later meeting Katriona in Colchester. They moved to Bridgend the following year to be nearer her family, but stopped living together and eventually separated in 2017.
Mr Du Preez, of Tyn Y Haul in Bridgend, had been diagnosed with PTSD as a result of his service and had engaged with local mental health services intermittently.
In September 2019 he was sentenced to 14 weeks’ imprisonment for an incident in May that year which had led to the death of his dog. He had been in contact with mental health professionals up until this point but had been discharged earlier in 2019 after he missed an appointment.
On the day of his release from prison on October 22, 2019 he met with probation officer Paul Rhys, who told the first day of the inquest on Wednesday that Mr Du Preez seemed in good spirits. “At no point did he present to me that he was in crisis,” he said, adding that he was aware of Mr Du Preez’ vulnerability given the medical history outlined in a pre-sentence report, and his having just been released from prison, and therefore encouraged Mr Du Preez to contact his GP in order to access mental health services.
The inquest heard Mr Du Preez had met with his GP, who made a routine non-urgent referral for him to local mental health services in November 2019 but raised no major concerns with his mental state. This appointment had not taken place before Mr Du Preez took his own life.
Katriona Du Preez told the inquest she had met up with her husband after his release from prison and that they had been in regular contact in the lead-up to his death. She described him at the time as “not himself” and that he “felt like a failure” and “ashamed” about the incident involving his dog, although she said he struggled to remember the details of what had happened.
In the days prior to his death, Mr Du Preez spoke to his sister on Whats App. She described their conversation as “casual” and that he had been having issues with his WhatsApp, but she became concerned about him later on in their conversation.
No concerns were raised to any health professionals about Mr Du Preez at the time but after not hearing from him for several days, Ms Du Preez went to his flat on November 17, 2019 and found him dead in his living room. Paramedics attended and he was pronounced dead just after 9.30am.
Senior coroner Graeme Hughes said his view was that Mr Du Preez had “acted alone” on the day he died and that it was “reasonable and necessary” to conclude that his intentions were “purposeful and required planning”.
He acknowledged comments from Mr Du Preez’ sister that he had seemed “happy” in the days leading up to his death and did not directly alert anyone to what he would do, but said his view was that he intended to take his own life and recorded a conclusion of suicide.
Regarding any failures in Mr Du Preez’ care in the weeks leading up to his death, Mr Hughes said Mr Du Preez had suffered from PTSD and EUPD resulting from his time in the forces and that this was “not disputed”.
He agreed Mr Du Preez’ probation officer and GP had not raised any major concerns about his mental state after his release and added: “I find that the actions of the GP surgery with George to have been reasonable and not contributory to George’s death.”
He added that there was “no evidence that George’s presentation” during the period from October 14, 2019 to November 17, 2019 came to the direct attention of mental health services. He acknowledged Ms Du Preez’ assertions that her husband was “not himself” in the weeks prior to his death but said: “In my judgement, these concerns, while understandable, do not equate to George suffering from an acute mental health crisis.”
While he agreed with Ms Du Preez’ view that her husband was “always at risk of self-harm”, Mr Hughes said no concerns from any family members were raised to health professionals before he died.
He said the conversation with Mr Du Preez’ sister, during which his behaviour caused concern, may have been a “missed opportunity” but that this was “speculation” and that there was no evidence of any actions or omissions by the mental health services that contributed to his death.
Mr Hughes said he also felt the probation service had acted reasonably when Mr Du Preez was released, particularly as they are “not mental health experts” and had encouraged him to see his GP and signposted him to veteran support services.
He said he was satisfied that “there were reasonable systems and measures in place” to provide Mr Du Preez with this support.
He added that Mr Du Preez would also have been able to engage with these services of his own accord and had intermittently engaged with mental health services over the years. He said there were “too many moving parts and stakeholder involvement” for him to make any recommendation about the sharing of information between different services.
Citing veteran services such as Op NOVA and the Veterans Gateway that he said Mr Du Preez would have been aware of, he said issues surrounding veteran support services had been “on the national government radar and [have] been for several years” and therefore it was not appropriate for him to make any recommendations on preventing future deaths in this regard.