The Invisible Fallen: Why Australia Must Recognise Police Suicide

When a psychological injury costs a police officer their life, why does the manner of death determine how we remember them?

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) has made a significant move to recognise officers who have died by suicide because of psychological injuries they suffered while serving.

By committing to a trauma-informed way of honouring service-related suicide, the RCMP gives us a chance to revisit a discussion that has been ongoing in Australian policing for years.

Too often, this conversation has ended the same way.

No.

For years, police commissioners in Australia and New Zealand have discussed whether to recognise officers who died by suicide on their memorials. Even with ongoing advocacy, they have not reached a national agreement.

However, one important exception has emerged.

In 2016, NSW Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione challenged the usual stance and announced that NSW would recognise officers whose deaths by suicide were linked to their police work. NSW then changed its memorial rules, showing that this kind of recognition could happen. However, Australia's National Police Memorial in Canberra still specifically excludes suicide.

I have long struggled to understand this difference.

My understanding of psychological injury has also been shaped by the loss of colleagues to suicide and witnessing the enduring impact of those deaths on their families, friends and fellow officers. These experiences have deepened my understanding of the human cost of service and reinforced the importance of recognising psychological injury, supporting those who live with its consequences, and ensuring that no one is defined solely by their injury or the circumstances of their death.

When a police officer is physically injured on duty and later dies because of it, we honour their service and sacrifice. But what if the injury is psychological? What if years of facing trauma, violence, death, and suffering lead to a psychological injury that causes an officer to take their own life? Does the type of injury lessen their service? Does how they died make their sacrifice less worthy of recognition? And what message does this difference send to their families?

I am not saying that every police suicide should always be seen as a duty-related death. The link between service, psychological injury, and death needs to be looked at carefully and fairly for each case. But if we exclude all suicides, we never get to consider these situations. Also, retiring or leaving for medical reasons should not automatically break the connection between an officer's service and the effects of an injury from that service.

For families who have lost someone, formal recognition cannot bring them back. But leaving them out of memorials that honour their colleagues can make their grief and isolation even worse.

The RCMP's new approach gives us a chance to look at this issue differently. It is not just about who is eligible for a memorial, but about how policing recognises psychological injury, understands the human cost of service, and supports the families affected by it.

Maybe the real question now is not whether we should talk about this, but why, after so many years, we still have to ask.

I would like to hear from current and former police officers, police leaders, researchers, mental health professionals, and especially families who have lost someone to suicide.

Should a psychological injury from service that leads to an officer's death be recognised the same way as a physical injury? And what would real recognition mean for the families left behind?