Bexley (Parliament Politics Magazine) – Met Police destroyed the phone of a Bexley man who died by suicide, sparking outrage from his mother over lost memories and evidence for the inquest.
On February 16, 2023, Michael William Goodchild committed suicide.
His inquest has not yet been held more than two years later. This year, it was first planned for March, then moved to June, and now it has been rescheduled for August 13, 2025.
Michael’s mother claims that only one of the two phones that the police took after his death was returned, and that this was only in March of this year. The other phone was downloaded and given to the Coroner’s Court.
The second was never returned, according to his mother, and it included heartfelt movies, pictures, and words.
She claims that an officer informed her that a “system update” had destroyed the phone.
Mary Osullivan, Michael’s mum, saidr:
“That phone had everything. Now it’s like they’ve erased him. I’ve never been given anything in writing — no proper explanation, no apology, nothing.
That phone was his memories. All his photos, everything. That’s something I’m never going to get back.”
Mary believes the contents of the destroyed phone were never reviewed or passed on to South London Coroner’s Court, and fears that the loss of this evidence may have impacted the investigation itself.
She explained:
“There were supposed to be downloads from both phones, but I was told that last year but now I’m being told one of them was destroyed.
I don’t think the coroner ever received anything from it. It’s been two years.
Our family just wants some answers and if anything, it feels like we keep getting given less and less.”
Plans have been thrown off when the inquest was delayed for August, which falls during the school vacations.
The coroner was “double-booked in his diary” which caused the most recent postponement. According to Mary, it seems that closure is always eluded.
She spoke of the heartless treatment she received the night Michael passed away. She claims she was put in a car and told to leave the area while she was in shock outside his apartment.
Mary explained:
“I felt like I was underwater. I was in so much shock I couldn’t even hear what they were saying. They told my brother to take me away. There wasn’t even a liaison officer to support me.”
She says there has been no contact or follow-up support from police since. When the singular phone was eventually returned to her, she says the process lacked privacy and sensitivity.
She explained:
“They met me at a clinic where I had an appointment. They spoke to me there in front of other people, before a member of staff directed me into a room.
I was getting really stressed. I could see people looking at me. It wasn’t handled with care — it felt rushed and insensitive. I was overwhelmed.”
Law enforcement and organizations should establish official procedures that specify who can access, handle, or transmit evidence as well as how it should be recorded and kept safe.
As new systems or data sources appear, protocols might be modified.
To avoid accusations of tampering or spoliation, the parties involved must be informed before moving or examining evidence. This allows opposing counsel or specialists to examine or inspect the evidence.
It is recommended to save copies of pertinent papers and refrain from erasing electronic correspondence too soon.
According to Mary, she made it clear that she would not accept a constable’s offer to complete a compensation form on her behalf.
Mary added:
“I told them — I don’t want compensation. I want accountability. That’s what I put in writing.”
Michael has a reputation for being creative and caring. Before he passed away, he wrote and recorded a song on mental health since he loved music. The melody is still in his mother’s possession.
When his brother and pals got home from university, he would frequently visit the booth because he too loved DJing.
She said:
“He was always smiling. He had such a presence. A lot of people knew him.”
According to Mary, the family is having a terrible time dealing with the strain of the continuous delays and lack of closure, as well as their mental health.
A spokesperson for the Metropolitan Police said:
“Our thoughts remain with Michael’s family and friends.
We understand they are rightly upset and frustrated about the service they received from us at an incredibly distressing time and have apologised directly to them.
We will fully support the inquest to understand more and learn any lessons.”
The Bexley Coroner’s Court has not responded to News Shopper’s message.
Police cooperation with coroners is not the only issue.
Senior coroner Graeme Irvine openly criticized the Metropolitan Police just last week for similar shortcomings in the case of Anna Bellamy, 23, who was discovered dead in her Upminster apartment in October 2023.
After the Met neglected to check her electronic devices in spite of a direct court order, two officers were summoned to East London Coroner’s Court for a hearing on April 11.
Mr. Irvine cautioned that officers who defy orders in the future may face incarceration and contempt of court actions.
He said evidence standards at the Met had “collapsed” over the last two years and described the situation as “the straw that broke the camel’s back.”
He told the court:
“I haven’t seen much magic over the past two years, to be brutally honest. It’s not good enough.”
What measures are in place to prevent the destruction of evidence in future cases?
Strict procedures for preservation, handling, and documenting are the mainstay of measures to stop evidence from being destroyed in future situations, particularly when litigation or investigations are expected.
A “litigation hold” must be put in place to halt regular data destruction procedures and protect all potentially pertinent evidence, including tangible objects and electronic data like computers, phones, and storage devices, as soon as litigation or an inquiry is reasonably expected.
Ensuring the integrity and authenticity of evidence throughout its lifecycle requires keeping accurate and comprehensive chain-of-custody records that trace who handles it and when.
Forensic imaging preserves the metadata and file integrity required for admission in court by producing precise copies of data for digital evidence, such as phones, without changing the original.
Hashing values used in authentication techniques guarantee that the proof doesn’t change.