Police partner of slain officer Brett Forte sues state for $650,000

Senior constables Brett Forte and Catherine Nielsen pursued fugitive Ricky Maddison as he drove down the dirt track of Wallers Road, in Queensland’s Lockyer Valley.

The dust was thick and, at times, the pair lost sight of Maddison’s vehicle. But within minutes, he jumped out of his car and the officers came under heavy automatic gunfire.

“Urgent, urgent, urgent,” Nielsen can be heard saying in a recording of the moment bullets hit their vehicle.

As Maddison kept his Kris Corp KS30 automatic rifle aimed towards them, Forte made one last decision.

He reversed the car – an act that would ultimately save the life of Nielsen, a friend he had known for years.

The events of that day in May 2017 raised serious questions about the Queensland Police Service’s procedures and culture.

Catherine Nielsen (left) and Brett Forte’s wife, Susie, outside court after the inquest.Credit: Cloe Read

It can now be revealed that Nielsen is suing the state government over its alleged negligence, claiming more than $650,000 in damages.

The 54-year-old claims the QPS knew Maddison had a history of violence and of threatening officers, was known to carry a firearm, and had discharged a gun during a domestic violence incident two months earlier.

Senior Constable Brett Forte.Credit: Queensland Police Service

She also said the QPS had received multiple notifications from members of the public that an automatic weapon was regularly being discharged on a property in the area.

Nielsen said the QPS failed to record the reports from a Ringwood resident in the weeks before the shooting. She also claimed the service failed to investigate the source of the automatic gunfire from the property.

These details were aired during the inquest held in Toowoomba in 2021, with State Coroner Terry Ryan ultimately finding police had failed to respond appropriately to the gunfire reports, and several systemic factors could have contributed to Forte’s death.

In his findings, Ryan said that while Nielsen had been honoured for her bravery, the police investigation into Forte’s death had obviously had a significant and damaging impact on her career.

Nielsen spoke out alongside Forte’s wife, Susie, who is also a police officer, about changing police culture and procedures.

In her District Court claim, Nielsen said there had been a risk of injury from being shot at by Maddison. She said the QPS should have taken precautions and informed the pair that he may be armed with an automatic weapon, that he had a history of threatening officers, and had previously tried to ambush and shoot an officer.

Brett Forte’s 2017 funeral in Toowoomba included a police procession.Credit: Chris Hyde

According to the court documents, Nielsen fired her gun in Maddison’s direction in the seconds after Forte reversed the car, which ended up rolling onto the driver’s side. She felt trapped, she said, and feared Maddison would walk over and shoot them.

She put her head out the passenger-side window to see where he was, Nielsen said, but “feared that he would take the opportunity to shoot her”.

Nielsen was eventually able to get out of the vehicle and help other officers who had arrived at the scene pull Forte out too.

“[Nielsen] then noticed that SC Forte was badly injured, in that he had been shot in the torso and the shoulder, and was unresponsive,” the documents say.

Brett Forte with his wife, fellow officer Susan, with whom he had three children.

Forte was taken from the scene and Nielsen was later told he had died. The pair were close friends, having worked together for several years in the Tactical Crime Squad. She has since remembered “Bretty” as very ethical, and someone who knew the law inside out.

Nielsen claimed the Special Emergency Response Team (SERT) should have been engaged earlier to arrest Maddison, such as when automatic gunfire was reported in February, or when he had visited his ex-girlfriend’s place in March and fired his gun.

Ricky Maddison was wanted on domestic violence offences.Credit: Seven News

Nielsen said she was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the shooting. Were it not for the shooting and PTSD, she said she would now be a sergeant and on higher pay.

The state submitted its intention to fight the claim, and disputed aspects of Nielsen’s claims.

It said about 2pm on May 29, Forte had warned over the police radio to “be aware [Maddison] was involved in firearms-related offences, so any takedown [should] be very careful”.

This, the state submitted, meant Nielsen was aware, given she was in the same car.

She also knew, or ought to have known, of Maddison’s violent nature and the risk of gunfire, the state said, because five days earlier, she had spoken with him on the phone, and should have known he was “extremely aggressive” and “would not hand himself in to the QPS”.

The state denied Nielsen’s claim that the pair should have been informed Maddison was armed with an automatic gun, saying that at the time of the pursuit, the QPS did not know this.

The documents say that before and during the pursuit, the QPS informed Nielsen of the risk of Maddison being armed, and to exercise caution.

It denied Nielsen’s claim that had precautions been taken, the shooting would not have occurred and Nielsen would not have been injured.

The decision to continue the pursuit was based on a continual risk assessment by those involved in the pursuit, including Nielsen, the state said.

It denied Nielsen’s submission that the QPS should have engaged SERT, saying the tactical team had been advised and engaged to help apprehend Maddison as early as May 19, and the gunfire mentioned in her claim had not been attributed to Maddison.

It also said additional or more timely SERT engagement for arresting Maddison would not have prevented his “sudden and unexpected ambush manoeuvre”.

However, the state admitted it breached its duty of care in some aspects, including in regard to properly investigating the report of automatic gunfire.

It maintained that a further probe into the gunfire, including finding Maddison, “may not have resulted in his earlier arrest”.

The state denied Nielsen’s injuries had been caused by the alleged negligence and breach of duty by the QPS. It admitted she had suffered a psychological injury and endured pain and suffering, but the way her symptoms manifested were a matter for Nielsen to prove at trial.

She claimed $2780 for her psychological injury under worker’s compensation laws, but the state said an award of damages of “$1390 is more fairly representative” of Nielsen’s injury.

It also said her promotion to sergeant was not assured, and the calculation of losses on the “basis of a guaranteed promotion is tenuous”.

The case remains before the District Court.

Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.