Victorian coroner considers perjury referral for birthkeeper

A Victorian coroner is considering referring a birthkeeper to prosecutors for possible perjury after new digital evidence contradicted her earlier testimony. The case involves the death of Stacey Warnecke, who passed away in September 2025 at Frankston hospital in Melbourne. Warnecke, a 30-year-old nutritionist and wellness influencer, had given birth at home under the care of Emily Lal. Warnecke paid Lal $6,000 for support throughout her pregnancy. Birthkeepers operate outside the medical system and do not have clinical training.

The inquest began in June but was paused to allow for a forensic analysis of Warnecke’s phone. Hearings resumed on Monday with the presentation of new findings. Rachel Ellyard, counsel assisting coroner Therese McCarthy, stated that the analysis uncovered numerous messages. These included chats in a WhatsApp group coordinated by Lal for women choosing freebirth. A recorded phone call between Lal and Warnecke was also played to the court.

Lal had previously told the court that Warnecke hired her primarily as a supportive friend. Lal claimed the payment covered her time rather than medical advice. However, Ellyard argued that the new material showed Lal actively groomed clients to resist medical intervention. Ellyard said Lal viewed her role as helping clients become strong enough to avoid seeking medical help, pain relief, or hospitalization during labor. In the recorded call, Warnecke expressed fear of the hospital. Lal responded that Warnecke should be scared of the hospital, describing it as a terrifying place. Lal also suggested that midwives sometimes advise women to go to hospital simply because the midwife is exhausted.

Lal had earlier testified that she was not clinically trained and that it was not her responsibility to make the birth safer. She stated she would not call an ambulance unless asked and that she shared her own freebirth experiences rather than giving medical advice. Ellyard rejected this account, stating that Lal provided advice, referrals, and sold supplements. Ellyard described the arrangement as much more structured and deliberate than a friendship. She noted that Warnecke’s husband, Nathan, was reassured or indoctrinated into believing his role was only to sit back and support.

The court heard that Lal asked Warnecke three times whether she wanted an ambulance after Warnecke delivered the placenta. Warnecke lost up to 1.5 litres of blood and began struggling to breathe. She agreed to an ambulance on the third attempt but was seriously unwell by the time paramedics arrived. Warnecke died in hospital several hours later after the facility exhausted its blood supply. Lal had told the court that it was not her role to call an ambulance against a client's wishes, even if the woman was unconscious.

Lal was invited to return to give further evidence after the phone analysis but declined. She had originally testified after the coroner granted a certificate of protection, which prevents her evidence from being used against her in future proceedings. Ellyard told the coroner that it would be open to her to find Lal was not truthful and to refer her to the Office of Public Prosecutions. The office prepares and conducts criminal matters on behalf of the director.

Ellyard stated that Warnecke would have survived if she had been in hospital. She noted that postpartum haemorrhage is the most common complication of childbirth and that women in well-resourced countries rarely die from it in a hospital setting. Medical evidence presented earlier indicated Warnecke would also have survived a home birth attended by a registered midwife. Ellyard said Warnecke suffered a known and treatable complication that required immediate identification and response. The coroner will deliver her findings at a later date.