once the shooting commenced, the officers' Glocks were woefully inadequate
In December 2022, two young constables answered what appeared to be a routine call in rural Queensland and were killed in an ambush by three individuals consumed by untreated psychosis and apocalyptic belief. More than two years on, the families of Matthew Arnold and Rachel McCrow have brought their grief before the Queensland Supreme Court, arguing that negligence by both Queensland and New South Wales police contributed to their deaths. A coroner has already found the system did not fail the officers in any causally decisive way — yet the law, unlike a coronial inquiry, must now weigh whether duty of care was breached, and what that breach cost.
- Two constables on a missing person check were met with lethal force by three people who believed police were demons sent to destroy them — an ambush no routine training could anticipate.
- The families' legal claims land in direct tension with the coroner's findings, which concluded that information-sharing failures between NSW and Queensland police could not be shown to have caused the deaths.
- At the heart of the lawsuit is 'nervous shock' — the law's term for the devastating emotional rupture suffered by those who learn, suddenly, that someone they love has been killed.
- The coroner found the officers adequately trained for the call they thought they were attending, but acknowledged their sidearms were 'woefully inadequate' against the assault that actually awaited them.
- Ten reform recommendations — covering weapons licensing, mental health assessments, and police drone capacity — signal that the system, whatever the courts decide, has already conceded there is room to do better.
In December 2022, Constables Matthew Arnold and Rachel McCrow drove to a rural property in Queensland's Western Downs to conduct a missing person check and serve an arrest warrant. It was the kind of job officers attend routinely. Within minutes of arriving, they were shot dead by Nathaniel and Gareth Train and Gareth's wife Stacey. Two other officers were wounded. A neighbour, Alan Dare, who approached to investigate, was also killed.
Now the families of Arnold and McCrow have filed personal injury claims in the Queensland Supreme Court against both the Queensland Police Service and the New South Wales Police Force, alleging that negligence caused them to suffer severe emotional distress upon learning of the deaths. The claims assert that proper care by the agencies could have prevented what happened.
The lawsuit follows the findings of state coroner Terry Ryan, whose inquiry examined not only the events of that day but the system that sent four officers into them. Ryan found that all three attackers suffered from undiagnosed psychotic illness, bound together by a shared delusional belief that police were demonic agents of an evil government. They were, Ryan concluded, intent on killing from the moment the officers set foot on their land — and prepared to die rather than be taken.
Ryan examined whether better information sharing between NSW and Queensland police might have changed the outcome. Nathaniel Train had been reported missing by NSW authorities, and threatening emails had been sent to relatives. But Ryan found no evidence that Queensland's information-sharing policies were inadequate, and — more critically — he could not determine what Queensland police would have done differently had they seen those emails. The causal link the families' lawyers need to establish remains, in the coroner's view, unproven.
The coroner also found the officers were adequately trained for the call as they understood it. The tragedy, he wrote, was that their standard-issue firearms were 'woefully inadequate' against the assault that actually met them. Ryan made ten recommendations for reform, including reviews of weapons licensing, mental health assessment procedures, and expansion of the police drone fleet. The court must now decide what the law makes of all this — and whether negligence, not just catastrophe, lies at the root of two officers' deaths.
In December 2022, Constables Matthew Arnold and Rachel McCrow responded to what should have been a routine call. They arrived at a rural property in the Western Downs region of Queensland to conduct a missing person check and serve an arrest warrant. Within minutes of stepping onto the land, they were ambushed by three people—brothers Nathaniel and Gareth Train, and Gareth's wife Stacey—who opened fire with intent to kill. Arnold and McCrow died at the scene. Two other officers were wounded but survived. A neighbour, Alan Dare, was also shot dead when he approached the property to investigate.
Now, more than two years later, the families of Arnold and McCrow have filed personal injury claims in the Queensland Supreme Court against both the Queensland Police Service and the New South Wales Police Force. Their legal representatives argue that negligence on the part of these agencies caused the families to suffer "nervous shock"—a legal term for severe emotional distress—upon learning of their loved ones' deaths. The claims assert that had police acted with proper care, the officers would not have been fatally shot.
The timing of the lawsuit follows the release of findings by state coroner Terry Ryan, who completed his investigation into the tragedy earlier this month. Ryan's inquiry examined not only what happened that day, but why—and whether the system that sent those four officers to that property had failed them. His conclusions were complex and, in some respects, contradictory to the families' legal position.
Ryan found that the three attackers were driven by severe mental illness. All three suffered from an undiagnosed and untreated psychotic disorder, compounded by a shared delusional system rooted in end-times religious beliefs. They held the conviction that government was evil, that police were demons sent to kill them, and that they were under attack. When the officers arrived, the Trains believed they were defending themselves and their salvation in accordance with God's will. Ryan stated plainly: "I consider that Gareth, Stacey and Nathaniel were, from the time the QPS officers entered their property, intent on killing the officers and, if necessary, intent on dying rather than being taken into custody."
Ryan also examined whether the shooting constituted a terrorist act under Australian law. He concluded it did not, finding the legal definition of terrorism too narrow to capture what had occurred. He could not rule out that the Trains posed an extreme risk to any police officer or authority figure who might attend their property—yet he also found that the four officers who responded were "adequately equipped and trained" for the job they believed they were attending. The problem was not their preparation for a routine call; it was that they faced an ambush for which no routine training could prepare them. "Tragically," Ryan wrote, "once the shooting commenced, the officers' Glocks were woefully inadequate for the purpose of defending themselves or each other from the attack they faced."
A significant part of Ryan's inquiry concerned information sharing between New South Wales and Queensland police. Nathaniel Train had been reported missing by NSW authorities, and his brother Gareth had sent threatening emails to relatives. The question was whether Queensland police should have known about these communications before responding to the property. Ryan examined this closely and concluded that the inter-jurisdictional information sharing could not be said to have caused the deaths. He found no evidence that Queensland police policies or procedures for sharing information were inadequate. More pointedly, he could not determine with any certainty what Queensland police would have done differently had they received the emails. "It is not possible to know whether, even if the additional information had been read, it would have resulted in a different approach being taken," he stated.
Despite these findings—which suggest that better information sharing might not have changed the outcome—the families' legal claims proceed on the argument that police negligence was a factor in the deaths. The court will now weigh whether the families can establish that connection. Ryan made ten recommendations for reform, including reviews of Queensland Police policies on weapons licensing and mental health assessments, and expansion of the police drone fleet. But the question of whether negligence caused the deaths remains contested ground.
Notable Quotes
I consider that Gareth, Stacey and Nathaniel were, from the time the QPS officers entered their property, intent on killing the officers and, if necessary, intent on dying rather than being taken into custody.— Coroner Terry Ryan
It is not possible to know whether, even if the additional information had been read, it would have resulted in a different approach being taken to the request for assistance than that which was taken.— Coroner Terry Ryan
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
The coroner found the officers were adequately trained and equipped for what they thought was a routine call. How do the families argue negligence caused the deaths?
They're not saying the officers themselves were negligent. They're arguing that the police services—the institutions—failed to gather or act on information that might have prevented the call from happening at all. It's about what happened before the officers arrived.
But the coroner said even if Queensland police had known about the threatening emails, he couldn't determine they would have done anything differently.
That's the tension at the heart of this. The coroner found the Trains were intent on killing from the moment police entered the property. So the question becomes: could any amount of prior knowledge have stopped them? Or was the violence inevitable once that call was made?
So the families are essentially arguing the system should have prevented the call from being made in the first place.
In a sense, yes. They're saying the police services had a duty to share information, to assess risk, to do something that would have kept their loved ones off that property. Whether a court agrees is another matter entirely.
The coroner ruled out terrorism. Does that matter legally for the families' claim?
It might. If it had been terrorism, there could be different legal frameworks at play. But by ruling it out, the coroner narrowed the lens to mental illness and delusional belief. That makes it harder to argue the system should have seen this coming.
What happens now?
The court will decide whether the families can prove negligence caused the deaths. It's not about blame—it's about whether there was a legal duty that was breached, and whether that breach led to the deaths. The coroner's findings will weigh heavily on that decision.