Brett Forte inquest: Family objects to decision not to allow Susie Forte’s victim impact statement

Brett Forte’s widow has slammed a decision not to allow her to read aloud a victim impact statement, claiming the Queensland Police Service is trying to silence her.

Members of slain police officer Brett Forte’s family – including his widow Susie – have leapt to their feet in the Queensland Coroner’s Court to object to a decision not to allow her to read aloud a victim impact statement.

The inquest into the murdered officer’s death has now been adjourned for seven days to allow the coroner to properly consider the contents of Susie’s 9000 word statement.

Lawyers for various members of the Queensland Police Service objected to the statement being read aloud – or even accepted in any way by the Coroner – over concerns its contents were defamatory.

“I have waited four and a half years to have my say,” Mrs Forte, also a Senior Constable with Queensland Police Service, said.

“The QPS has not looked out for me whatsoever.

“They have tried to silence me. The truth hurts. What is in that statement is the absolute truth.

“I would not be here if my husband hasn’t been murdered.”

Susie Forte arrives at Brisbane Magistrates Court. Picture: Zak Simmonds

Murdered police officer Brett Forte.

Mrs Forte told the court she has had to endure being smirked at during the inquest proceedings.

“This is so unfair. I am being silenced yet again,” she said.

Brett’s sister in law, Katy Forte, also pleaded with the Coroner to allow Susie to read her statement.

“We have stood here for two weeks in Toowoomba and had everyone else speak.

“They have all had their opportunity. It is her turn to have her voice. It is her right to be heard.”

Brett’s brother Luke said: “Susie’s husband, my brother, is lying in a box in Toowoomba. Surely she gets the right to say what she’s going to say.”

Earlier, an Ethical Standards Command detective has admitted she told Brett’s father she would file “official complaints” against his widow and police partner following evidence they’d given at the inquest.

Detective Senior Sergeant Fiona Hinshelwood, admitted she approached Brett’s father Stuart at the end of the first two sitting weeks in April to tell him she would lodge the complaints.

She denied she did it to intimidate the women, who had both made claims of bullying.

“On the last day of the inquest up in Toowoomba, you approached him and said to him words of the effect that you would be completing a raft of 466s (official police complaints) with Susie and Cath Nielsen as the subjects,” Susie’s barrister David Funch said.

“I did not say ‘a raft’,” Det Sen Sgt Hinshelwood replied.

“I said I would be completing a 466 in relation to the allegations that had come out at the inquest and it was my obligation to do so.”

Det Sen Sgt Hinshelwood said she told Stuart so there was no “surprise element”, although she agreed she did not approach Susie or Sen Const Nielsen with the same warning.

The moment paranoid gunman Ricky Maddison opened fire on Senior Constable Brett Forte on a country road in the Lockyer Valley in 2017.

She said she told him so as not to cause “further distress” to the grieving family.

Brett, a father of three, was murdered on Wallers Rd in the Lockyer Valley by paranoid gunman Ricky Maddison on May 29, 2017.

Maddison was later killed by elite Special Emergency Response Team officers following a 20-hour siege.

Police had been searching for Maddison for some time – Toowoomba’s most wanted man – after he fired a gun inside the home of his former partner.

The inquest has heard Maddison took the police vehicles down the same road where officers from Gatton station had been investigating reports of machine gun fire.

Brett and the other pursuing officers were not aware of the investigation or the significance of the road they were driving along.

Catherine Nielsen arrives at Brisbane Magistrates Court for the final day of the inquest into Brett Forte’s murder. Picture: Zak Simmonds

Brett, in the lead car, was fatally shot. His police partner, Senior Constable Cath Nielsen, smashed the vehicle’s windscreen while under automatic gun fire to pull him from the car.

The inquest has heard claims from both Sen Const Nielsen and Brett’s police officer wife, Senior Constable Susie Forte, that they were bullied after asking questions about whether his murder was preventable.

Det Sen Sgt Hinshelwood agreed she had since filed complaints against both women, saying the complaint against Susie related to her not making allegations in a “timely manner”.

She could not say what “timely” meant, explaining the rules were contained in a “lengthy document”.

She said she had also filed a complaint against Senior Constable Andre Thaler who appeared at the inquest. None of the complaints have been substantiated.

Acting Inspector Geoff Davies told the court he did a review of the police intelligence holding systems in place in the weeks leading up to Brett’s murder.

“What information was known and when,” he said.

Insp Davies looked into whether the connection between Maddison and his friend Adam Byatt could have been more easily made.

Mr Byatt, who has denied police claims he is a bikie associate, owned the property where Maddison was hiding from police.

Mr Byatt was not living at the “weekender” property at the time.

The inquest heard the QPS had multiple systems and no one single database to search for information.

Asked whether there had been a “lack of consistency” as to where various police had recorded different information about Maddison, Insp Davies said “definitely”.

“Different people had done it in different processes,” he said.

The inquest heard Det Sen Sgt Hinshelwood in her report suggested Brett had “had access to documents with which to inform himself” if he’d wanted to know about Maddison.

She agreed those documents would not have included reports of automatic gunfire on Wallers Rd because police had not managed to link that location to Maddison.

“Look, you’re effectively saying it’s Brett Forte’s fault for not properly informing himself on the intelligence,” Mr Funch put to her.

She denied her report blamed Brett and agreed with the barrister that there was extensive material on Maddison that would have taken a long time to read.

Mr Funch asked Insp Davies, who did the intelligence review, whether Brett would have needed to “sit at the computer for an entire week” to read all the intelligence on Maddison.

“Potentially yes,” he said.