Susan Couch - a complicated case?

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.