The Crown in the Susan Couch case are arguing her suit for damages should be heard by a Judge alone by reason that it is complicated. Taking an overall view of what has been published about the case it is far from complicated. On the face of it Department of Corrections put ex prisoner William Bell to work in the Panmure RSA in a manner that was negligent as to what the result could have resulted for Susan Couch and three of her workmates that were murdered by Bell in December 2001.
Documents alleged that Bell's parole officer was inexperienced and somewhat controlled by Bell in a manner that was failed to be supervised by her bosses. The officer has name suppression and it is alleged she altered documents on the parolee's file, presumably after the event, in order to cover up the allegation of negligence. The Crown have argued that the issues a jury would need to consider are 'complex issues that were affecting the probation service at the time of the killings.' Quite what that has to do with the victim of the alleged negligence doesn't seem to have been spelt out. The case has already been to the Supreme Court who overturned earlier decisions and declared that Susan could indeed sue Corrections for negligence and personal injury 'but there would be a high test for the claim to succeed.'
Of course alleged altering of documents, poorly supervised staff who became somewhat subservient to their charge, rather than in control, would presumably be a fairly straight forward observation for any Jury, it either happened or didn't, and if it did what there was a measure liability? Of course there is another picture here, the real one, the 'complexity' is the floodgates that might be sprung as to the liability of Government Departments, or it's employees, that lead to damage or loss one way or the other to members of the public it serves.
Of course Susan Couch is not ordinary member of the public, she is the victim of a crime un-shadowed to this point in this century. She doesn't have a complaint with dog control, a parking warder, housing nz as a tenant, or even for that matter some medical misadventure. She is the victim of a crime by an offender under the control of the Government, that seems to me to be fairly straight forward to decide by a fully informed Jury. But I just have to wonder if the Crown are unable to appreciate the public perception of what their position appears to be as it unfolds.
The Crown have fought Susan Couch every step of the way. The Crown do not want to admit fault, they are already entrenched against their fear of opening floodgates. To me that doesn't seem the purpose of the Crown who, one would be entitled to expect, are not resistant to recognise their failings that accompanies any large bureaucracy. In the process of this denial of its role, the Government forces Susan to go to Court rather than be apologise to and compensated. She is re-victimised her in a way a Jury could well easily recognise - and that is why the Crown hope to complicate the case into oblivion, or until Susan dies or goes away. I think it is clear that Susan has not gone away and will not until the Government induces courage in itself to admit blame.
To plead the case for Probation Officers, one could argue it was the responsibility of the CEO (dept of Corrections) to ensure the safety of the community.
ReplyDeletePrior to this particular case, the government enacted policy and law that required mental health patients to be assimilated into the community. Included in this measure were violent offenders. Previously violent offenders diagnosed with pschopathy and other such mental illnesses were incarcerated in special facilities where they not only served their sentences, but received on-going supervision from professionals suitably qualified to deal with the logistics of mental illness.
The change in policy put most of these people back into the main stream of the justice and corrections system. Probation Officers, without experience or knowledge of violent mental behaviour/illness were expected deal with these people, and even when issues were identified, a complicated system prevented assistance being immediately available. Resources were not targeted to the right areas.
This dreadful crime was in that era. Whilst it is completely remiss for any probation officer to alter records, and in fact, it is also illegal, one has to question the decisions by department heads and the government to allow this process in the first place.
Susan deserves to be compensated, not for the mistakes of one person (who has been the DOC's excuse) but for their incompetence and mismanagement by enforcing a system without adequate safeguards.
The reason was obviously financial. To employ probation officers, qualified to cope with, and manage violent mentally ill offenders, it would require a huge financial input - especially to train their existing employees - so they didn't bother. New applicants were given priority if they had psych qualifications, but existing probation staff were left unskilled and unqualified. Hence Bell slipped through - was able to manipulate a PO unable to recognise the pathology.
Who is to blame? In my opinion the people that make these legislative changes without ensuring the necessary alterations are made to all parts of the network involved.
The Department of Corrections has made some changes, but still struggles to manage the large numbers of mentally ill offenders who are forced into their system. They still employ Probation and Prison Officers who lack qualification and experience in the management of such offenders. Until they (the law makers) recognise the requirement to indentify, and separate such cases from main stream , we will continue to have innocent lives ruined, and the authorities play 'tootsie' to avoid admitting the problem and compensating the many victims (Susan is just one, sadly there are others)
Let's not also forget Kylie Jones. Raped and viciously murdered by a man recently released from prison. Prior to his release Taffy Hotene had begged never to be allowed his freedom. Taffy recognised he was not safe. He had diagnosed his own mental illness, but they released him anyway.
ReplyDeleteLess than a month later Kylie, a beautiful, talented and promising young woman was walking home from work, just on dark. People heard a scream, but didn't investigate. When she was late home her fiance went to find her, and found her mutilated bleeding naked body by a stream in the local park.
Taffy had exhibted every known sign of a mentally ill violent offender, not just in prison, but since his release. In hindsight, his Probation Officer thought it might have been a "good idea" to have recalled him when he again verbalised his violent thoughts during a post release appointment, but he wasn't really sure because "these guys tell us all sorts of crap".
Kylie's parent's are still waiting for an apology from the Department of Corrections.
Here's what Justice Tipping, who wrote the Supreme Court's leading judgment, said about the issue:
ReplyDelete'exemplary damages may be awarded if, but only if, the defendant deliberately and outrageously ran a consciously appreciated risk of causing personal injury to the plaintiff. Whether running such a risk should be regarded as outrageous will depend on the degree of risk that was appreciated and the seriousness of the personal injury that was foreseen as likely to ensue if the risk materialised.'
I can imagine why the Crown would prefer the narrowest possible interpretation. They would not for example like a Jury to consider a contention that even its narrowest form, the misadventure caused a situation whereby a 'potential bomb' was created and set upon the public, and whether that decision was directed at Susan Couch or not, the Jury were entitled to consider a common sense approach that the bomb although not considered explosive at all perhaps, and certainly not potentially explosive against Susan, nevertheless remained a bomb likely to explode upon the unwary as it ultimately did in 2001 upon Susan and her workmates.
I think Tipping's language and point of view is both naive and protective of the defendant. Because it is Susan who should have been protected and Susan who has suffered outrageously and deliberately to at least the point where the parole officer was clearly unable to control the parolee and did nothing despite evidence that he was not complying with any of his parole conditions.
There's nothing complicated about this case. She deserves to be compensated (end of story)
ReplyDelete