Lake Alice survivor legally challenges Crown redress
Lake Alice survivor Malcolm Richards (pictured in his shed) is legally challenging Cabinet's decision on redress for those tortured at the Manawatū psychiatric facility.
Photo:
RNZ / Anneke Smith
A Flaxmere man tortured as a child at the Lake Alice Psychiatric Hospital is taking the Crown to court, arguing its redress framework is unlawful.
Malcolm Richards will file a claim in the High Court at Wellington later this morning, seeking a judicial review of
Cabinet's redress decision
.
Those tortured at the Manawatū psychiatric facility had until last week to choose a rapid payment of $150,000 or head to arbitration.
The redress scheme only applies to survivors who are still alive that had been subjected to electric shocks and/or paraldehyde injections.
Some have
already welcomed the money
but Richards has refused the redress on principle.
"No way I'm taking part in it because it's not legal. We can't allow the perpetrator of this crime, which is the government, to set their own sentence."
Richards was 15-years-old when he went to Lake Alice and said he still lived with the impacts of being drugged, raped, beaten and shocked all over his body.
He was the second survivor to
successfully argue his case
at the United Nations committee that urged the New Zealand government to compensate him.
Richards believes December's redress package breaches
Article 14
of the United Nations' Torture Convention, which New Zealand ratified in 1989.
This article states each country must ensure in its legal system that victims of torture obtain redress and have an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation, including the means for as full a rehabilitation as possible.
It also states that if a victim of torture dies, their dependants are entitled to compensation.
Richards' lawyer Chris Griggs said Cabinet's redress decision hasn't been legislated, excludes survivors who were tortured by means other than shocks and injections and provides ex-gratia compensation that can't be enforced or effectively challenged in court.
New Zealand ratified the Convention against Torture in 1989 but with a reservation, that the government reserves the right to award compensation to torture victims only at the discretion of the Attorney-General of New Zealand.
The government has said New Zealand is the first country in the world to acknowledge torture of children and provide compensation to recognise their suffering.
Chris Griggs
Photo:
RNZ / Samuel Rillstone
Griggs said the case was a simple one that boiled down to the government needing to comply with international human rights laws.
"A lot of survivors are telling me what's happening is like a serious crime has been committed by the government so the government goes into a room with the victim and tells them this is what the penalty will be and no correspondence will be entered into.
"That's not justice. So we're challenging it."
Griggs said he would be asking the court to essentially "quash" Cabinet's decision and declare the government needed to comply with international minimum standards.
While the United Nations didn't have any teeth by way of enforcing these standards, Griggs said it was New Zealand's reputation on the line.
"New Zealand holds itself out to be a champion of human rights. We're a defender of human rights. We're the first country to speak out on breaches of human rights standards overseas.
"And yet, when it comes to our own country, what do we do? We don't comply with the International minimum standards for remedying torture."
"I have heard stories of children being lined up against a wall with their backs to the staff and having syringes full of paraldehyde thrown at their bottoms like a dartboard. That happened in this country.
"We have to take a stand. New Zealand must live up to what happened and the only way we can do that is by complying with the international minimum standards laid down by the Torture Convention."
Griggs has drafted a bill to set up an independent tribunal to assess torture claims and compensation and says there's already precedent for this type of arrangement.
"You might remember many years ago we we had a big problem in New Zealand with leaky buildings so the government set up the water weathertight homes tribunal to deal with that problem.
"Here we have a situation where the government has tortured a whole bunch of New Zealanders over a number of years and international law requires there to be an equivalent process.
"All we're saying is just treat the survivors of Lake Alice and the other institutions in New Zealand where people have been tortured in the same way you've treated people who've had problems with the weather tightness of their homes. It's not a big ask."
Malcolm Richards says his shed is his rehab and he heads there to create timber trinkets when "things become too much".
Photo:
RNZ / Anneke Smith
Richards has taken up woodworking in his shed as a means of coping with stress and trauma, creating wooden trinkets he sells online.
"It's just what I found that I can lose myself in and when things become too much, I just go out to my shed and start cutting out stuff and making stuff."
He does not see the point in taking the rapid payment that has been offered by the Crown.
[The Minister responsible Erica Stanford] rang me before she made that announcement and I told her no way I'm taking part in it because it's not legal. We can't allow the perpetrator of this crime, which is the government, to set their own sentence.
"What's the point of taking $150,000 and living with this... it gets so much for me that I've gotta go out and lock myself in the shed away from my family."
Richards said he had been trying to access support through ACC for special items like screwing teeth - normal dentures give him flashbacks to being gagged at Lake Alice - and a phone plan - he is forgetful and uses his phone to remind him about appointments and medications.
But challenging the Crown's redress was about more than just money, he said.
"There's more to this than $150,000 cash, the rehab is just an important. The investigation is the most important thing."
The Lake Alice redress scheme is separate from Cabinet decisions about the wider redress system for those abused in state care.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero,
a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
16 hours ago
- RNZ News
One dead, more injured in wave of house fires overnight
A close-up of the Fire and Emergency NZ logo. Photo: Marika Khabazi / RNZ One person died in a house fire in Marton, in the Rangitikei District, on Saturday morning. Emergency services were called to the property on Calico Line, between Bredins Line and Nga Tawa Road at 6.10am. The home was well alight when crews arrived and one person was found deceased at the property. Fire teams from Whanganui also attended. A scene guard was put in place and fire investigators were carrying out a scene examination to determine the fire's cause. Three people were taken to hospital after a fire broke out at a home in St Clair, Dunedin, overnight. Fire and Emergency was called to Allandale Road just before 3am on Saturday. When teams arrived the house was fully alight, with 26 crew and eight trucks fighting the fire at its peak. They remain at the scene. The three people taken to hospital had minor injuries. Crews were also at the scene of a house fire in Mahora, Hastings, overnight. Fire and Emergency was called to that blaze just before 2am, crews from Napier also attending. One person was treated for an injury at the scene and an investigator will head there later on Saturday. An investigator will also be heading to the scene of a house fire in Levin. Fire and Emergency was alerted to the blaze at 4.15am. It was now out and there were no reports of injuries. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
2 days ago
- RNZ News
Māngere assault prompts police manhunt
Emergency services responded to reports of an assault near Māngere Bridge about 6pm yesterday. Photo: RNZ / Angus Dreaver Police are still hunting for an offender, after a person was found with critical injuries in the Auckland suburb of Māngere last night. Emergency services responded to reports of an assault on Coronation Road, near Māngere Bridge, at about 6pm. Police said one person was taken to hospital in a critical condition, where they remained stable. A spokesperson said enquires were ongoing. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
1News
2 days ago
- 1News
Mushroom trial: Motive and murder - what the jury must decide
With all evidence now complete, closing arguments are underway in one of the most high-profile murder trials in Australia. But jurors in Victoria aren't being asked to find a motive. They're being asked to decide whether Erin Patterson is guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt. Experts agree the legal threshold is one of the most misunderstood elements of criminal trials - so what does that actually mean? Australia Correspondent Aziz Al Sa'afin explains. What's the job of the jury? To weigh the evidence presented and decide whether guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt Under Victorian law, jurors must not speculate, assume or 'fill in gaps' - they rely only on what was presented in court What does 'beyond reasonable doubt' actually mean? ADVERTISEMENT Speaking to 1News, Criminal barrister Rishi Nathwani KC explained it like this: 'It doesn't mean beyond any doubt at all - just beyond a reasonable one. If the jury finds there is a real possibility the accused is innocent, they must acquit.' Nathwani said while the phrase remains in use in Victoria, in other jurisdictions it's sometimes simplified as: 'Are you sure?' If jurors are not sure, based on the evidence presented in court, then the verdict must be not guilty. Why is this important in the Patterson case? The Crown has alleged Erin Patterson deliberately served a meal containing death cap mushrooms that killed three of her relatives and left a fourth man fighting for life. But prosecutors have explicitly told jurors not to focus on motive. 'You don't need to find a motive to find someone guilty of murder,' the prosecution has said. Instead, they argue that Patterson's behaviour - including her shifting explanations, deleted data and acquisition of a food dehydrator point to intent. ADVERTISEMENT Defence: Beware the danger of hindsight In closing arguments, Patterson's barrister Colin Mandy SC warned the jury not to judge her through the lens of hindsight. 'This trial isn't about what might have happened. It's about what the evidence shows.' He said much of the Crown's argument is based on 'speculation' and assumptions that don't amount to proof. So what is the jury considering? Under Victorian law, jurors must decide whether Erin Patterson: Intended to kill or cause serious injury to her lunch guests And whether the prosecution has proven this beyond reasonable doubt ADVERTISEMENT That's it. Even without a clear motive, even with odd behaviour - Nathwani said if there's a reasonable explanation that fits the evidence, Patterson must be acquitted. What has the prosecution said? Over the course of the trial, the Crown argued: Patterson lied about where the mushrooms came from She deliberately misled health officials and police Her phone was factory reset to hide evidence She visited areas where wild death caps were known to grow The prosecution also suggested the sixth beef Wellington - prepared for her estranged husband - was kept separate and potentially safe, though he did not attend the lunch. Crown prosecutor Nanette Rogers and Erin Patterson. Montage by Crystal Choi. (Source: 1News) ADVERTISEMENT What has the defence said? The defence has said: Patterson panicked and lied, but that doesn't mean she's guilty She had no motive to harm her family Scientific and forensic evidence is inconclusive Death cap residue in the dehydrator does not prove intent or timing They also say surviving guest Ian Wilkinson - who testified the accused used different coloured plates - was 'honestly mistaken'. They raised the possibility a third, unknown mushroom species may have been present in the leftovers, citing expert testimony from a virologist. What happens if the jury can't agree? In Victoria, murder charges require a unanimous verdict. Justice Beale will try to avoid a hung jury by directing the jury to continue deliberating and try to reach agreement. But it is possible it could result in a mistrial if all options have been "exhausted". ADVERTISEMENT As Nathwani explained: 'The judge would, if [the jury] made it aware they were struggling to reach a unanimous verdict, direct them... There's a direction he can give of law, which says, you know, you've got to listen to each other... But if they can't, then it's a retrial, and they do it all again in many months' time.' Recap: What's happened so far in the trial? Week 1–2: Opening arguments and early witnesses, including police and hospital staff. Week 3: Toxicology and forensic experts testified on the symptoms of death cap poisoning. Week 4: Phone and tech evidence, including the factory reset, was presented. Week 5: Botanical and mushroom experts, including Dr Tom May, confirmed death cap DNA in cooking equipment. Week 6: Testimony from Patterson's children and others about her behaviour. ADVERTISEMENT Week 7: Erin Patterson testified across eight days. She denied intent and maintained it was a tragic accident. Week 8: Closing arguments. Prosecution accused her of inventing key parts of her story. Defence said speculation and hindsight are not proof. What next? Judge Christopher Beale is expected to give final directions to the jury next week. Deliberations could begin by the end of June.
