Inside the police mix-up that wrongly informed Lily Hooper’s family that she was still alive

Urgent questions are being asked after Lily Hooper’s family were mistakenly told she had been found alive after eight days searching for the missing bushwalker.

The experienced hiker was last seen leaving her parents’ home on Burragorang Road at Oakdale, south-west of Sydney, at 8am last Wednesday. 

Her family were reportedly told the 18-year-old had been found alive at Nattai National Park just after 11am on Thursday, before police clarified they were still working to determine her condition.

The mix-up led NSW Premier Chris Minns to announce at a budget estimates hearing that Lily had been found alive in the bush with ‘half a bottle of water’. Minutes later, he returned to correct the record. 

NSW Police then confirmed she had been found dead.

Assistant Commissioner Joseph Cassar said there was a ‘short window’ between SES volunteers finding Lily Hooper and confirming she was deceased.

‘I think it would be fair to say that they were informed (of)… initial information (from) the searchers believed that she was alive, and that’s what was communicated,’ he said.

‘We, of course, get further information over time and it has been a very, very short period of time – in fact, between eight and 10 minutes – that we’re able to provide Lily’s parents with the updated status.’

The explanation from the police was branded as ‘unforgivable’ by former detective Charlie Bezzina.

‘That gross delivery of misinformation is unforgivable,’ he told the Daily Mail.

‘From the agony of her being missing, to the elation of being told she’d been found alive, then the slap in the face of being told it was wrong. That’s a double whammy for the family.

‘When you’re dealing with human life, it’s just unforgivable. How do you muck it up? That’s something you can’t muck up.’

Mr Bezzina said he had never heard of such an incident in his career. 

Assistant Commissioner Cassar said police spoke to Lily’s parents with the ‘hope for a more positive outcome’.

‘Unfortunately, that’s not the case. I cannot turn the clock back,’ he said.

‘If we were able to provide them more detailed information on that first report, I can tell you that would have been the case. But unfortunately, it did take that small period of time for us to give them an update.’

RMIT Associate Professor of Criminology and Justice Dr Brianna Chesser said any potential legal action taken by the family following the mistake would face substantial hurdles.

‘Potentially, yes, they could sue under a claim of negligence,’ she told the Daily Mail. 

‘However, Australian courts have historically been reluctant to find that police owe a duty of care in relation to communications made in rapidly evolving or fluid situations.’ 

Dr Chesser said Section 148 of the Police Act 1990 generally protects police officers from liability for acts undertaken in good faith while carrying out their duties.

‘The State would also maintain a broad immunity unless gross operational negligence can be established, which is a high threshold,’ she added. 

Rather than ending up in a courtroom, Dr Chesser said the circumstances surrounding the communications failure could ultimately be examined through the coronial process.

‘It is likely that Lily’s death will be the subject of a coronial inquiry and could be investigated as part of an inquest,’ she said. 

The communications blunder is not the first time Australian authorities have come under scrutiny for providing incorrect life-and-death information.

In May, Victorian Police wrongly told Melbourne woman Michelle Buckley’s family she had died after she was mistakenly identified as the deceased homeless woman found in Melbourne’s west. 

Michelle Buckley has since hired law firm Slater and Gordon to investigate not only how the misidentification initially occurred but how it was able to continue for so long. 

Public liability lawyer Kieren McKenzie said he had never seen a case of this kind and likened it to a ‘Hollywood script’.