DistantNews
Support us

From ‘elation’ to ‘terrible news’ in 10 minutes: how the confusion over missing bushwalker Lily Hooper unfolded

From The Guardian · () English

Summarized and contextualized by DistantNews.

At a glance

News Named sources Outcome reported
  • Police in New South Wales, Australia, mistakenly announced a missing hiker had been found alive due to communication errors.
  • The error led to premature public announcements by police, the premier, and media outlets.
  • The bushwalker's body was later found, and authorities are investigating the communication breakdown.

Police in New South Wales, Australia, have blamed dense bushland and radio confusion for wrongly informing the parents of missing bushwalker Lily Hooper, the state premier, and the media that the 18-year-old had been found alive. The subsequent discovery of her body has led to an investigation into the communication breakdown.

I’ve got some terrible news. I apologise … Lily’s body has been found.

— Chris Minns, New South Wales PremierPremier Minns retracted his earlier 'fantastic news' announcement after learning the bushwalker's body had been discovered.

Hooper disappeared on August 12 after setting out for a hike in the rugged Nattai National Park, southwest of Sydney. A large-scale search involving nearly 1,000 people, including many volunteers, was launched after she was reported missing that night. Eight days later, on Thursday morning, police media initially reported to reporters that a hiker had been found.

Around midday, Premier Chris Minns, while addressing a parliamentary committee, announced he had "fantastic news" that Hooper was "found in the bush with half a bottle of water with her." His remarks were widely published. However, just minutes later, Minns had to retract the statement, delivering "terrible news" that Lily's body had been found.

SES search volunteers had told police they believed they had found Hooper alive at 11.30am.

— Joseph Cassar, Police Assistant CommissionerCassar recounted the sequence of events leading to the initial, incorrect report of the bushwalker being found alive.

Questions quickly arose regarding how such a significant error could have occurred. Police Assistant Commissioner Joseph Cassar explained that SES search volunteers had informed police around 11:30 a.m. that they believed they had found Hooper alive. This message was then shared with Hooper's parents, who had been closely following the search efforts. Cassar noted that the hundreds of searchers, using handheld radios in the "thick, dense terrain," faced communication challenges, with information sometimes becoming fragmented.

It’s very rugged and rough terrain up there and radio communication – like mobile phone communication, as we all experience – when you’re in black spots or tricky areas, the information does get broken up a little bit.

— Colin Malone, SES Assistant CommissionerMalone explained the communication challenges faced by search teams in the dense terrain.

SES Assistant Commissioner Colin Malone confirmed that the volunteers were from a "highly trained" bush search and rescue team. He acknowledged that radio communication, much like mobile phone service in remote areas, can be unreliable in difficult terrain. Within approximately 10 minutes of the initial report, the same SES volunteers made a second, more accurate report, indicating they were likely very close to Hooper's body. By that time, however, the incorrect information had already begun circulating publicly. Police Commissioner Mal Lanyon apologized for any additional trauma the erroneous announcement may have caused Hooper's family, stating that the initial elation had quickly turned to deflation.

I unashamedly apologise for any additional trauma that may have caused Lily’s family, but certainly for the emb

— Mal Lanyon, Police CommissionerCommissioner Lanyon apologized for the distress caused by the mistaken announcement.
DistantNews Editorial

Originally published by The Guardian. Summarized and contextualized by our editorial team with added local perspective. Read our editorial standards.