Daily Reporting: Jeffrey Winmar inquest, Day 3, April 1st, 2026

Disclaimer: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander readers please be advised this article mentions the name of an Aboriginal person who has died in custody. This article also mentions acts of violence. Accounts and names have been published with permission given to the author from the family.

Day 3 – 1st April

On the morning of the third day of the inquest Detective Senior Constable Johnston-Bailey is called to continue his evidence this morning. 

Johnston-Bailey is questioned about his earlier evidence that Jeffrey was placed in the recovery position.

Counsel Assisting: Was he still handcuffed?

Johnston-Bailey: From my memory, I couldn’t tell you that I can see it but I would assume yes.

Counsel Assisting: And why would it be your assumption that someone who is in that position and lying down because they want to lie down would still be handcuffed?

Johnston-Bailey: Well, I guess it doesn’t negate the need for them to be handcuffed just to lie to them on their side. 

During his examination of Johnston-Bailey Mr Cameron asks about evidence he gave yesterday around why, in his view, it was not appropriate for himself and Senior Constable Danyi to approach the front door of the house where they believed Jeffrey was located. 

Mr Cameron: You indicated that part of the reason why that wasn’t appropriate in Jeffrey’s particular case was because a few days prior to November Jeffrey had fought off police who had attempted to arrest him at a bus stop? 

Johnston-Bailey: Yes. 

Mr Cameron: The use of those words in your evidence yesterday that Jeffrey fought police off or fought off police, was that a deliberate choice of words?

Johnston-Bailey: Yes. 

Mr Cameron: What made you say in your evidence yesterday that Jeffrey fought police off at that bus stop incident?

Johnston-Bailey: Ah my understanding of that incident is that um two uniform members attempted to arrest him on a bus and when they were attempting to arrest and put handcuffs on him he was able to fight them off, left the bag there and ran away. 

Mr Cameron: What was the basis for that understanding that you had?…What had you been told or what you read in terms of that incident at the bus stop?

Johnston-Bailey: I can only speculate that that was told in a briefing, but I don’t recall reading specifically that incident. 

Mr Cameron: If I suggested to you that there’s no evidence from the police involved in relation to the bus stop incident that there was any fighting of any nature whatsoever, do you have any information or evidence to contradict that?

Johnston-Bailey: No. 

During his examination, Mr Cameron asks Johnston-Bailey a series of questions in relation to the arrest under the tree. 

Mr Cameron: Despite this possibility that Jeffrey was unconscious at that point that you’re first making physical contact with him 8 to secure him, you knelt on him, as you’ve indicated? 

Johnston-Bailey: Yep. 

Mr Cameron: What is the aim of kneeling on him?

Johnston-Bailey: I guess well, it’s called a three point hold. It’s a tactic in handcuffing first people that we’re taught from the very first day at the academy. Um, and I guess the aim basically in that is to prevent the person from posturing up. But it’s also to isolate the shoulders so that the movement of bringing the arm behind doesn’t cause any further damage or I guess dislocation to the shoulder 

Mr Cameron: And indeed, immediately after you do that or as you are doing it you asked Senior Constable Danyi to handcuff him? 

Johnston-Bailey: Yep. 

Mr Cameron: Senior Constable Danyi does that?

Johnston-Bailey: Yes. 

Mr Cameron: And you make that request despite Jeffrey possibly having just collapsed unconscious?   

Johnston-Bailey: Yes. 

***

Detective Senior Constable David Rollo is then affirmed and examined. Rollo was one of the 11 VicPol Officers involved in the planned arrest and police pursuit of Jeffrey on 9 November. 

When called as a witness, Rollo objects to giving evidence on the basis of self-incrimination. He is granted a certificate to protect himself against self-incrimination.  

During Rollo’s evidence we learn that after the initial ambulance was called Senior Constable Sylvie then provided a radio update that Jeffrey was talking and responsive. When asked what he would of done if he was aware that the initial ambulance call was cancelled, he responds: 

Rollo: Um nothing. I would have backed those members that they made…they were speaking with Jeffrey and if they decided that it wasn’t required…that he didn’t require an ambulance, then I’d be fine with that.

Counsel Assisting: Was the fact that Jeffrey was awake again, did that affect I guess cancel out the concerns that you’d had about him while he was unconscious?

Rollo: Um not necessarily. No.

Counsel Assisting: Because the cancellation of the ambulance will mean that there won’t there be any medical assessment of him?

Rollo: Yes.

Counsel Assisting: At the scene? Is that fair to say?

Rollo: Yep.

Counsel Assisting:…with the benefit of hindsight, what’s your opinion about whether or not it would have been better for that ambulance call to have been left rather than cancelled?

Rollo: Oh well I still am of the opinion that it wouldn’t have made a difference to the outcome unfortunately.

Counsel Assisting: Would you agree that it would have been better if…the ambulance call had not been cancelled?

Rollo: It’s a hard question to answer…I mean benefit of hindsight of course it would be nice if the outcome was different, but um I still think that the right decision was made with what was available at the time.

When Mr Nathwani, Counsel Acting for Jeffrey’s Father, Jeffrey Anderson, takes over questioning the witness, we learn Jeffrey was handcuffed for 21 minutes while he medically deteriorated.

Rollo gives evidence that at no point did the VicPol Officers consider removing the handcuffs from Jeffrey. 

Nathwani cites an expert report that being handcuffed and facedown invokes a feeling of shortness of breath and adds to the androgenic stress response. 

Nathwani: In other words it makes an event much more stressful… Is it appropriate when someone’s unconscious facedown, for someone who effects arrest to arrest him in the way he was arrested?

Rollo: Yes.

Nathwani: The rules on handcuffs are you don’t have to use it with every single person you detain, do you agree with that?

Rollo: No.

Nathwani: You don’t agree with that?

Rollo: I don’t agree with the way you phrased it, no.

Nathwani: Well, tell me how you don’t agree. When should you or shouldn’t you use handcuffs?

Rollo: You should handcuff someone unless you can justify a reason not to. 

Nathwani: And them being unconscious on the floor with their arms underneath their stomach isn’t a reason not to, is that right?

Rollo: Yes.

The inquest into the death in custody of Noongar man Jeffrey Winmar will run from 30 March until 10 April. 

Please join us in supporting his family by attending the Victorian Coroner’s Court at 10am each day.