Lake Alice survivor legally challenges Crown redress

1News05-05-2025

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.
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 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."
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon told Morning Report no amount of money could make up for what survivors endured.
"Their stories of abuse were harrowing and heartbreaking. Obviously the UN made a determination on Lake Alice quite rightly around torture, we've worked hard to make sure we've put in place a redress system to make sure people are compensated for that.
"Whatever we do, no amount of money frankly makes up for what survivors have endured."
The government's focus was on making sure it acknowledged and formally apologised, supported survivors with a better redress system and prevent abuse through improving the operating practices of key government agencies, Luxon said.
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," Richards said.
"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 as 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.
rnz.co.nz

Hashtags

#TortureConvention

#ConventionagainstTorture

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Mushroom trial: Motive and murder - what the jury must decide

1News

a day 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.

RNZ News

5 days ago

RNZ News

Cabinet considered limiting gang members' abuse in care redress

Lead Coordination Minister for the Crown Response Erica Stanford says she sought the advice about gang members on behalf of ministers who wanted to "consider the matter" of limiting redress. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Cabinet sought advice on limiting redress for gang members and serious criminals, but ultimately chose to treat gangs the same as any other survivor and create a new pathway for serious offenders. Information obtained by RNZ reveals the government was advised against a "blanket exclusion" because it risks compromising trust in the integrity of the Crown's response to the Royal Commission into Abuse in care. The advice described any proposal that would deny serious offenders or gang members access to the redress system would run "directly counter" to the Royal Commission's reports. Abuse survivor and former gang member Feke Taito says it is "unconscionable" the government considered leaving them out at all: "It just stunned me, actually." Minister in charge of the Crown's response Erica Stanford announced the coalition's plan for survivor redress last month , specifying a new process for claims from survivors who are also serious sexual and/or violent offenders who have been sentenced to five years or more in prison (high tariff offenders). A spokesperson for Stanford told RNZ she sought the advice about gang members and serious offenders on behalf of ministers who wanted to "consider the matter" of limiting redress. The spokesperson said Stanford accepted findings from the Royal Commission regarding the connection between abuse in care and subsequent gang membership. A briefing paper from the Crown Response to the Abuse in Care inquiry was titled 'Redress options for high tariff offenders and gang members'. It was addressed to Stanford, Lead Coordination Minister for the Crown Response; Simeon Brown, Minister of Health; and Louise Upston, Minister for Social Development and Employment, who also has responsibility for redress decisions under the Children's portfolio (transferred from Karen Chhour). Minister of Justice Paul Goldsmith was also looped in. In November last year, coalition members would not say whether gang members would be excluded or not. The briefing - dated 3 April - said it provided initial advice and options on the "legal and operational implications" of policy changes that would "limit" high tariff offenders' and gang members' entitlement to redress payments under the system. It recommended maintaining the status quo in which state claims agencies treat claimants "equally" and provide redress payments based on the "merits of their claim." "Claimants receive and have free use of any redress payments due to them. An exception is prisoners who do not have an external bank account to be paid into." It specified a "blanket exclusion of high tariff offenders and/or gang members from the state redress system" would likely reduce trust in the integrity of the Crown's response to the Royal Commission and was not recommended by officials. It also noted officials had not been able to identify any options for "imposing controls on access to redress" based only on someone's status as a gang member that were "operationally workable". This was also advised against. It later explained the officials had not been able to identify a "solid basis" for establishing whether someone is a gang member. Corrections holds some information on gang affiliation of the current prison population it said, but noted there would be issues with the comprehensiveness, accuracy and timeliness of that information. It also said the Privacy Commissioner was unlikely to be supportive of new legislation enabling that information to be shared. The briefing explained the Royal Commission had recommended redress should be "open to all survivors" including those in prison or with a criminal record. It stated the Royal Commission had pointed to the "high correlation" between abuse in care and high rates of criminal behaviour, imprisonment and the membership of gangs later on, and recommended that context be considered in the design of any new redress system. "Accordingly, any proposal to deny high tariff offenders or gang members access to the redress system would run directly counter to the Royal Commission's reports," the briefing said. "Moreover, it would likely compromise trust in the integrity of the Crown's response to the Royal Commission and whether the Crown has fully engaged with the Royal Commission's proceedings and the case studies and evidence set out in its reports." The briefing referenced two findings from the Royal Commission, the "Pathways to Prison" and "Pathways to Gang Membership" through State-care. "Previous research has found that one in five, and sometimes as many as one in three, individuals who went through social welfare residences during the Inquiry period went on to serve a criminal custodial sentence later in life," it said, and noted that experience was worse for Māori survivors. "Many Māori survivors shared how their time in care introduced them to gangs and gang life. "Joining was often in response to the violence, isolation and disconnection they experienced in care, including disconnection from their identity, culture, whānau, communities and society." Fa'afete (Feke) Taito is now the chairman of survivor-led organisation Te Rōpu Toiora. He said he was stunned to learn the government had considered excluding gang members, but felt it confirmed what he thought the government was trying to do. "Trying to suppress us at the margins, trying to drive us even further down. "You know, the whole thing to me is unconscionable." He said it read like the government was trying to prevent offenders with criminal records and gang members from receiving any type of redress. "How can they do that? "After they the Royal Commission inquiry clearly states the majority of these offenders and gang members, myself included, we joined and we connected with these gangs because of the abuse we suffered there, in state care, in these boys homes." Taito said it made him distrust the government more, and felt like the government was looking for options of "getting out of having to pay or compensate" survivors the state itself had harmed. He said this, along with the decision not to set up an entirely new system for redress - despite the prime minister promising to do so - showed he could not expect any justice from this government. He was glad the advice from Crown officials told the government it couldn't go ahead with those options, and that the Crown Response Office engaged with survivors. "Because it's nothing about us unless it's from us." The briefing paper said the lead coordination minister for the government's response had commissioned advice on the matter for redress Ministers and the Minister of Justice. A spokesperson for Stanford said gang members weren't treated differently to any other survivor in regard to seeking redress and that will continue to be the case. However, there will be a "new pathway" for new claims from serious violent and/or sexual offenders sentenced to five years or more in prison. That was decided after further advice from officials which highlighted "similar regimes" in Scotland and Australia. That information should be proactively released by Cabinet this week. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.