Dr. Gurchand Singh:

I still had two broad sets of concerns. When I looked at the incident classification and some of the surrounding information, I could not square how an incident had been classified in the way that it had, given the information available. I felt some contradicted our own crime counting rules on the basis of the information available. For example, I was looking at incidents in which an injured party was deceased and the offence was down as an assault causing harm. Our own crime recording rules state an assault causing harm where subsequently someone dies because of the assault should be upgraded to a homicide. We had such examples on the system. There were sudden deaths which looked as if they were being investigated as homicides. As a sudden death is seen as non-crime, there were times when I could not reconcile what had been included.

The other concern I had was about the methodology used. There were views that the methodology used and approach members of my team took were limited. I felt that was incorrect. The limiting factor suggested we were reliant on only two sources. We always said we would be reliant on only two sources - PULSE and the State Pathologist's reports. We always said that to get a more rounded view of the classification, we needed to go to the case files. That is what we were arguing for.