Convicting police officer Kristian White in the manslaughter of Clare Nowland is complicated

The time it took a jury to reach a verdict in the manslaughter trial of NSW Senior Constable Kristian White appears to be at odds with the rapid presentation of evidence, but suggests the case is far more complex than it appears.

A Supreme Court jury on Wednesday found Kristian James Samuel White guilty on the fifth day of deliberations after hearing eight days of evidence in a trial originally planned to last four weeks.

It was not in dispute that White, a 34-year-old police officer, tasered 95-year-old Clare Nowland at the aged care home at Yallambee Lodge in Cooma in May 2023.

It was also undisputed that the senior police officer owed Ms Nowland a duty of care.

So why did it take so long for the jury to deliberate?

The crux of this hearing was whether White’s actions were reasonably necessary.

To find out, 12 jurors were asked to step into White’s shoes and ask themselves whether a reasonable person would do the same thing.

Was Ms. Nowland a threat?

The Crown said that given Ms Nowland was a “frail, elderly woman”, any threat to people nearby when the shock was administered was “limited”.

But the defense argued that “the people there didn’t think so.”

Ms. Nowland relied on her walker for mobility, weighed 47.5 kilograms at autopsy, and was believed to have suffered from frontotemporal dementia after her death.

The Crown argued that Ms Nowland did not pose an imminent threat due to her advanced age, lack of mobility, mental state and risk of falling, as well as the combined strength of the officers present and their ability to move elsewhere. safe distance.

But the defense said he was a threat in the context of the incident.

Police arrived at Yallambee Lodge just before 5am to ask for an ambulance after a staff member contacted Triple-0 due to reports of an aggressive resident holding a knife (initially two) and entering other residents’ rooms and pointing the knives at staff.

White claimed he was told by lodge staff that they were “threatened” by Ms Nowland, but the Crown argued the language was inconsistent with the evidence heard during the trial.

White later registered the incident at the police station, and when he selected the reason for using the stun gun, he selected “imminent threat to police/public” from the drop-down menu.

The defense told the court that the threat posed by Ms Nowland was credible because she did not drop the knife when repeatedly asked and intimidated other witnesses.

White told the court he believed Ms Nowland was going to stab anyone who approached her, but the Crown argued she had not done so in the two hours she had a knife with her and was not physically capable of doing so, meaning it was unlikely to happen any time soon. threatening.

Why did he say ‘never mind’?

The Crown argued that White used the word “nevermind” before using the stun gun because he was “fed up, impatient and not prepared to wait any longer.”

The defense disputed this claim, saying White had done the best he could and had “run out of options.”

During the hearing, body-worn camera footage of two police officers, including White, was played to the court, showing unsuccessful attempts to verbally get Ms Nowland to sit down and drop the knife.

The footage also shows Ms. Nowland’s attempts to physically grab the knife, hold her in the room and activate the warning spring feature of the stun gun.

Ms. Nowland could be seen slowly using her walker and occasionally stopping to raise the serrated steak knife in her right hand.

White could be heard saying “never mind” on the footage before firing the stun gun.

The entire conversation lasted about three minutes.

On the sixth day of the trial, the defense asked White why he said those words.

“In my mind I was essentially weighing the increasing danger at the time,” he said.

“That’s why I said it.”

During cross-examination the Crown asked whether this meant that was sufficient.

White said that wasn’t possible.

In closing arguments, the Crown told the jury White did not adequately explain why he said those words.

Was shocking the only option?

Why didn’t White walk away instead?

He explained that as a police officer this was not possible because he did not feel it was safe to allow Ms Nowland to wander around the premises with a knife and put others at risk.

“That wouldn’t have resolved the situation,” White said on the sixth day of the hearing.

The Crown objected to the justification for using the taser and asked why the officer did not back down when he had the ability.

“I could back out, but that wouldn’t solve the situation. He still had a knife in his hand,” White said.

“You can avoid getting stabbed by walking away, right?” asked the Crown.

“It’s a possibility,” White said.

“This is more than a possibility, it’s a possibility,” Crown said.

“That’s a possibility,” Mr. White repeated.

What is reasonable use of force?

Under NSW law, police officers are allowed to use a certain amount of force to keep the peace; therefore they are trained to use and carry a variety of weapons or “appointments” including stun guns.

Judge Ian Harrison referred to Section 230 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 in his summary speech to the jury on the eighth day of the trial.

The law states the following:

It is lawful for a police officer performing a function under this Act or any other Act or law relating to a person or thing, and anyone assisting the police officer, to use such force as is reasonably necessary to carry out that function.

It was a “balancing act” for a police officer to make an assessment of when and what level of force to apply, this hearing heard, and where to take into account the age, disability and mental illness of the officer making that assessment. Decision.

As part of the hearing, White argued that his actions were necessary under the circumstances because of his duty as a police officer, with the information he had at the time.

The Crown described the use of force against Ms Nowland as “wholly unnecessary and clearly excessive” and said footage of her being tasered “speaks for itself”.

Ultimately, it was up to the jury, chosen to represent a segment of society in terms of wisdom and justice, to decide what to believe based on the evidence presented before them and to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt.