Mr Farquharson Homicide Investigation Process

Introduction

A thorough investigation can be the difference between proving an individual innocent or guilty (Reference). Investigations are highly important, however, need to be precisely accurate and contain no mistakes to prevent a wrongful conviction of an individual (reference). This essay will focus on Mr. Farquharson’s homicide Investigation process. By doing so, this essay will analyse and identify the process in which the investigation took place, failures or weaknesses made by police, recommendations that could have been made to improve the validity of the investigation and lastly the role in which social media influenced individuals to believe a certain viewpoint and convict Robert Farquharson of murder.

The Investigation Process

According to R v Farquharson (2009) On the night of Father’s Day, 2005, Robert Farquharson was driving his three children back to their mother’s property. On the way, back Farquharson allegedly suffered from a coughing attack which caused him to lose breath and further lose consciousness. This caused Farquharson to veer off the road and into a nearby dam. He told police he woke up when the car was already in the water, realizing this he tried to get his children out of the sinking car however after multiple attempts failed to do so. (R v Farquharson, 2009). This incident was first approached by police as a freak accident, however due to later, police suspicion was changed into a homicide investigation. (Reference)
As Per the Queensland Police Service Manual (2017) after the first response of police and evaluation of incident, if reasonable police will establish a crime scene and preserve any evidence left behind.

As stated in the court transcript of R v Farquharson (2009) First response officers, including Senior Sargent Exton were preserving evidence by highlighting the tyre tracks left behind by the vehicle in which Farquharson was driving. Sargent Exton used yellow spray paint to make the tracks stand out and last longer so that an investigation of these tracks could begin. Photos of the tracks were taken and later used as evidence. The Major Collision Unit investigated these tracks, through the photos taken and suggested that there was a three-steer pattern. (Tyson, 2009) They reached the conclusion that only a person who was conscious could have made these markings. (Tyson, 2009) This statement suggested that Farquharson had to have been lying about his coughing fit, making him unconscious and therefore this accident was his intention all

along.
Another part of a police investigation is to interview appropriate individuals that may benefit and support the case.

(Operational Procedures Manual, 2017) This police investigation, interviewed doctors for some medical opinions on Farquharsons coughing fit and an old friend of Farquharsons who had a key witness statement. (R v Farquharson, 2009) Dr Naughton and Dr King both stated that it was highly unlikely that Mr Farquharson would have become unconscious because of the coughing fit. (reference) Therefore, supporting the homicide investigation further in depth. Police also interviewed an old friend of Farquharson who testified before court that he had a conversation with Farquharson about how he wanted to kill his children as an act of revenge towards his ex-wife.

(reference)

Investigative Failures/Weaknesses
Failures in investigative processes happens more frequently than anticipated and more than anyone wants to admit (reference). The Farquharson investigation itself sounded convincing, however multiple weaknesses/ failures did occur throughout the police investigation.
Firstly, the investigative process was bias in believing Mr Farquharson had intentionally driven his car of the road and into a dam because of the way he was acting at the crime scene, showing no sense of emotion about losing his children. (reference). This behaviour from Farquharson gave off the assumption that this wasn’t an accident but instead a murder. (reference)
Secondly, as part of the police investigation Senior officers or detectives in the field are to perceive evidence without tampering (Operational Procedures Manual, 2017). Police officer Sargent Exton was responsible for gathering evidence at the crime scene. However, failed to do so because the evidence was deliberately tampered with. (reference) The yellow lines that were drawn on the tire markings were drawn with “mathematical precision” instead of accuracy. (Reference) Sargent Exton didn’t know where these lines continued so “guessed”. (reference)
Thirdly, the photos also taken by Sargent Exton were taken on such a precise angle to make it look as if there was a three-steer pattern, however instead the tire marks left an arc shape pattern. (reference) According to the defence engineer, the arc shape that was left could very well have been done by an individual who was unconscious at the time. (reference).
Another mistake or weakness made by the police was the use of medical opinions. Police interviewed doctors that were unfamiliar or haven’t come across cough syncope before, just to benefit their argument (which was the medical condition that Mr Farquharson suffers from). Farquharson’s private doctor stated that the symptoms that he had behind the wheel, would have caused him to lose consciousness. (R V Farquharson, 2009).
The Operational Procedures Manual (2017) sets guidelines for police officers for a reason, so that an investigative process may be as accurate as possible, therefore trying to prevent people who are guilty being found innocent because there wasn’t enough evidence supporting the accused. (reference) When police officers tamper with evidence deliberately they run the risk of letting a guilty offender off (reference)