Corrections re-victimises the victims – Susan Couch’s story

On December 11, 2011 the NZ Herald reported that the families of those killed by Wililam Bell gathered to remember those they lost in the Panmure RSA ten years ago. Bell killed three people at the RSA and seriously injured another – Susan Couch.

In 2001, Ms Couch was working part time doing the club’s accounts. She survived Bell’s attack – but only just. Both her arms were broken; she received severe head injuries and lost about 80 per cent of her blood. Ambulance officers said she came as close to dying as she could get. She spent six months in Middlemore Hospital, followed by years of rehabilitation.

Permanent damage

The legacy of Bell’s assault on Ms Couch is still visible. The head injuries subsequently led to a stroke and permanent brain damage. She has no function in her left arm and can’t even wash the dishes. Her left leg is disabled and she walks with a stick. She also has paralysed vocal chords which impact on her speech. She was unable to get ACC for lost earnings or a lump sum payment because, shortly before the attack, she’d had to give up work to look after her young son. All she received from ACC was $60 a week.

Ms Couch brought a claim in the High Court seeking exemplary damages from the Corrections Department for failing to exercise “reasonable care” in Bell’s parole supervision. The Court of Appeal struck out the High Court action, saying her negligence claim could not succeed because the probation service owed her no duty of care. That was overturned by the Supreme Court last year when it gave her the go-ahead to sue the department.

But her quest for justice will need to show the Department had “consciously appreciated the risk” that releasing Bell on parole posed to her safety and that it “proceeded deliberately and outrageously to run that risk”. Ms Couch’s lawyer, Brian Henry, said she had “no illusions” that she had a difficult legal battle ahead but vowed he would show Corrections had deliberately contributed to the outcome.

So far legal proceedings have taken ten years and Ms Couch has still not had her day in Court. The hearing is finally expected to take place sometime this year.

How the Department failed Susan Couch

William Bell was in prison for 3½ years before he attacked Susan Couch and the three others he killed at the RSA. The Corrections Department failed to provide Bell with addiction treatment and psychological support in prison, and failed to monitor his release on parole. In this respect, the Department has contributed to his on-going drug addiction which subsequently led to his rampage at the RSA.

Section 5 of the Corrections Act of 2004 says “The purpose of the corrections system is to improve public safety and contribute to the maintenance of a just society.”

In regard to Susan Couch, the Department failed miserably on both counts – it didn’t do anything with Bell that would improve public safety and certainly didn’t provide Susan Couch or society with justice. All she wants is $500,000. For God’s sake, give her the money – and an apology.

Another untreated drug addict – the story of William Bell

In 1997, William Bell was sent to prison for five years nine months after he attacked and almost killed an attendant at a petrol station. At the time of this assault, he already had 102 convictions for a raft of offences including theft, fraud, burglary, aggravated robbery, assault, trespass, and possession of drugs. He was released in July 2001 after serving 3½ years. Based on the law at the time, he was set free after serving two-thirds of his sentence, and the Parole Board had no say in the matter, other than deciding what release conditions to impose on him.

Bell managed to find work experience at the RSA in Panmure – without the permission of his probation officer. However, staff at the RSA apparently didn’t trust him and after only two weeks, he was ordered to leave. Bell had experienced rejection for most of his life and couldn’t handle it. Two months later, he came back and stole $12,000. In the process, he bludgeoned and shot three people to death, and seriously injured a fourth – Susan Couch.

What the investigation missed

The investigation which followed blamed understaffing, low morale and poor management within the Mangere Probation Service. It also blamed the police for failing to act when he committed a minor offence a month before the murders. The focus of the investigation was on what happened after Bell was released. The fact that he had been incarcerated for 3½ years and not been required to do any rehabilitation programmes in prison was completely ignored. The most significant oversight was that he was not required to attend treatment for his alcohol and drug problem.

He obviously had one. In addition to telling prison staff about his drinking, Bell came from a family with gang connections where binge drinking and drug use were part of daily life. According to witnesses who testified at his trial, Bell was up all night drinking and smoking cannabis before the murders which occurred at about 8.00am the following morning. He admitted he was using methamphetamine and apparently told his family he ‘blacked out’ while inside the RSA.

In other words, Bell had a history of alcohol and drug use which began long before he was sent to prison for attacking the service station attendant in 1997. Presumably, he continued smoking cannabis in prison. At the time of his rampage at the RSA four years later, he was drunk, stoned and high on methamphetamine – and had been awake for over 24 hours. Such conditions are clearly not conducive to impulse control. The combination of three different drugs in his system, combined with a lifetime of abuse, abandonment, and low self-esteem turned out to be lethal.

What Corrections failed to do

The most damning part of this story is that the Corrections Department was well aware that Bell’s offending was alcohol and drug-related – but did nothing about it. He was supposed to see a psychologist and have alcohol and drug treatment when he got out. Common sense dictates that Bell should have seen a psychologist and had alcohol and drug treatment while he was still in prison – rather than leaving this up to an understaffed and demoralised Probation Service to organise once he got out.

But no treatment was provided, and the Corrections Department failed to provide the Parole Board with an alcohol and drug assessment describing the extent of his addictions. At his hearing, the Board members were effectively in the dark – ‘flying blind’ to quote Judge Carruthers. If an AOD assessment had been provided even at that late stage, the Board could have released him directly to a residential treatment programme in the community. Instead, he was released to unsupervised accommodation in Auckland where he was free to drink and take whatever drugs he could find.

The point is that the mistakes made once Bell was released may never have occurred had the Corrections Department made better use of his 3½ years in custody. The Department’s failure to address his problems with substance abuse in prison far outweighed subsequent mistakes made by the Mangere Probation Service on his release. The failure to monitor Bell in the community simply added to a long chain of errors – and highlighted a systemic failure by Corrections to address addiction issues in prison. If he had been required to attend treatment in prison, and/or if he had been released directly into a residential programme in Auckland, William Bell’s victims might still be alive today. And Susan Couch wouldn’t have had to waste ten years of her life trying to sue the Corrections Department for damages.

Garth McVicar clones himself as a woman

The attack on the five year old Belgian girl on holiday with her family at the Habitat Club in Turangi is hard to fathom. Friends of the 16 year old who admitted raping the young girl describe him as a ‘nice guy’ and are struggling to believe he would do such a thing. His mother also felt that her son was not the monster he had been portrayed by the media.

Despite the general disbelief that this ‘nice guy’ could do such a thing, angry locals abused his family and threw things at their home. According to the NZ Herald, the attack also stirred a young Auckland woman to call for harsher sentences for violent offenders. Tamsin Marshall started an online petition to introduce cumulative sentences for serious offenders.

She was quoted as saying: “When it happened, I was horrified – I actually lay in bed imagining it was my little girl. I’ve been reading the papers for years and have watched the increase in violent crimes and being horrified … and this case was the point where enough is enough, something has to be done.”

Garth McVicar’s clone

Ms Tamsin sounds like a clone of Garth McVicar of the so-called sensible sentencing trust. McVicar has been banging on about the increase in violent crime and lobbying for cumulative sentences for some time. The problem is that Garth McVicar is truely misinformed – there is no increase in violent crime. Over the last 20 years the murder rate has dropped by nearly 50% and crime rates in general are down.

And yet the public believes violent crime is on the rise. A Ministry of Justice study in 2003 found that 83% of New Zealanders held inaccurate and negative views about crime levels in society and ‘wrongly believed’ that crime was increasing. A more recent study in 2009 by Dr Michael Rowe, also from Victoria University, found an overwhelming public belief that crime has got worse despite New Zealand’s murder rate dropping by almost half in the past 20 years.

Global perceptions of safety

As a result of these inaccurate beliefs, a United Nations report assessing global perceptions of crime and safety found that between 2006 and 2009, only 57% of New Zealanders reported feeling ‘safe’. This means that New Zealanders feel no more secure than the citizens of former communist states like Bulgaria (where only 56% feel safe) and Albania (54%). We’re also on a par with Middle Eastern countries like Iran (55%) and Lebanon (56%) and African countries such as Angola (53%), Nigeria (51%) and Uganda (51%).

There’s something wrong here. In the United States, where the murder rate is four times higher than in New Zealand, 75% of the population report feeling safe. In other words, public perceptions of safety in New Zealand are seriously out of touch with reality.

Sensationalist reporting in the media

It’s the media and their obsession with violent crime and Garth McVicar, which is largely to blame for this. A 2002 study into the role of the media’s coverage of crime reported:

“The selective and disproportionate media coverage of crime, particularly violence, when set alongside actual Police statistics, raises questions of skewed reporting in NZ (and elsewhere) at a time when crime rates are falling”.

When respondents to these surveys were asked where they get their information about crime, they said ‘from the media’. When journalists are asked the same question, they openly admit they rely on Garth McVicar. In April 2010, TVNZ broadcast a Media 7 interview by Russell Brown about Mr McVicar’s extraordinary access to the media. In his introduction, Mr Brown said:

“In the past nine years, journalists have been really lucky. Every time they’ve needed someone to tell them that their justice system is failing… they’ve been able to rely on just one man…Garth McVicar, a cocky from Hawkes Bay.”

The last thing New Zealand needs is a female clone of Garth McVicar. What it needs is less sensational reporting of crime in the media.

James Whenuaroa – sent to prison for stealing orange juice

On January 7, the New Zealand Herald reported the story of James Whenuaroa – sentenced to prison for six weeks for stealing a bottle of orange juice from a supermarket. He told the judge he took it because he was hot and thirsty. Perhaps the most pertinent part of the story was that Mr Whenuaroa has 350 previous convictions.

What the Herald didn’t report was that Mr Whenuaroa is a chronic alcoholic who has a history of drinking methylated spirits and as a result, has some measure of cognitive impairment. Virtually his entire history of offending has occurred because of his drinking – mostly for shoplifting alcohol, being drunk and disorderly and willful trespass. He has been sent to prison nearly 40 times in the last 20 years; he’s usually in and out three or four times a year. When he gets out, he starts drinking again the same day.

The battle for a neuropsychological assessment

Mr Whenuaroa was referred for an alcohol and drug assessment at least three times – in 2006, 2007 and 2008. After interviewing him in 2006, I recommended to the Court that Mr Whenuaroa should have a neuropsychological assessment (to see what he’s capable of learning) and be referred to Moana House which is a long term rehabilitation programme in Dunedin. The judge ignored the recommendation and sent Mr Whenuaroa to prison instead.

In 2007 I again recommended a neuropsychological assessment. This time the judge agreed, but when Mr Whenuaroa appeared for sentencing two months later, the assessment had not been done as the psychologist was too busy. Moana House refused to accept him without one. He was released on to the street and relapsed immediately. Not surprisingly Mr Whenuaroa re-offended soon afterwards and was remanded in prison once again.

The assessment was finally completed nearly a year later. However, this time the Court refused to release a copy of it either to his lawyer, to Moana House or to myself. Once again, Mr Whenuaroa was released into the street and relapsed immediately. Not surprisingly, he reoffended and appeared in court again in 2008. Finally, the court agreed to release a copy of the psychologist’s report to those who were trying to help him and Mr Whenuaroa eventually made it to Moana House. However, he left after a few weeks as he wanted to go and see his alcoholic girlfriend in Taupo.

The need for compulsory treatment

Over the years Mr Whenuaroa has been referred to residential treatment programs a number of times. But because of years of alcohol abuse, he has significant memory problems. His short term memory is so poor he struggles to remember anything he was told more than 30 minutes before. So even when he attends rehabilitation, he can’t remember what he is taught. Because of his condition, he needs long term treatment and long-term support afterwards. But he never lasts the distance. He gets frustrated and generally walks off after a few weeks. And no one makes him stay.

Mr Whenuaroa can be made to stay in prison – for a few weeks at a time. That’s easy to achieve – even though rehabilitation is not available to the 7000 prisoners a year given short sentences. Let’s not forget that 80% of those sent to prison each year are given short sentences and our prison system simply doesn’t cater for them. With a few exceptions, only those given a sentence of more than two years are allowed to attend rehabilitation programmes.

So although Mr Whenuaroa has been forced to stay in prison 40 times, he has never been ‘forced’ to complete a treatment programme. That’s just crazy. Mr Whenuaroa could be compelled to stay in treatment – by committing him to a rehab programme in the community under the Alcohol and Drug Act or the Mental Health Act. To put that in place takes a bit of time, thought and energy but Mr Whenuaroa has never been committed. Instead the justice system recycles him – in and out of prison, and occasionally, in and out of rehab.

The $3 million cost

Recycling is expensive. He’s already 47 years old and as a lifetime offender, he will end up costing the taxpayer more than $3 million in police, court, prison and legal aid costs. Once his health deteriorates, he will need even more assistance – from the health system. If he was compelled to attend long term treatment for 18 months under the Alcohol and Drug Act, that might cost about $50,000. Not a bad investment – both for Mr Whenuaroa and for society. All it would take is for the justice system to have enough compassion and resolve to find out what Mr Whenuaroa really needs – instead of sending him to prison for stealing a bottle of orange juice.

Court of Appeal throws the book at Corrections Department

The Sunday Star Times ran this story on New Year’s Day.

“Dismayed judges have ordered Corrections bosses to read an expert’s book on rehabilitation after being shocked a P-addicted prisoner would be forced to wait years for drug treatment. In a Court of Appeal decision last month, three judges cited Roger Brooking’s book Flying Blind, which slams the government’s hard-line approach to law and order.

Long-term inmates must now wait until they are eligible for parole before being offered drug and alcohol rehabilitation in prison, but judges quashed Glen Fleming’s minimum non-parole term of four years so he could seek treatment sooner. The Bay of Plenty man is serving an eight-year sentence for manufacturing and supplying methamphetamine.

A Corrections spokesperson said the organisation would consider the judge’s ruling but Brooking fears Corrections will dismiss the message. “Corrections operates, as far as I can see, as a law unto itself,” Brooking said. The drug and alcohol counsellor said he comes across cases like Fleming’s on a weekly basis. His frustration at the lack of support and rehabilitation for prisoners led him to write Flying Blind.

Brooking said he was pleased the Court of Appeal had taken the book seriously. “It’s a bit of a poke in the eye for National. They refused to accept copies of the book.” Brooking provided free books to MPs in September, but National members were the only ones to refuse the offer. “Since the Court of Appeal has recommended Corrections management should read the book, hopefully National MPs who refused to even look at it will reconsider.”

Brooking’s affidavit to the court supported removing the non-parole period for Fleming on the basis the P-addict urgently needed rehabilitation. The judges said Fleming’s chances of rehabilitation would be reduced if he was forced to wait until he was up for parole. They removed his non-parole period, and although they refused to express their view on Flying Blind, they called for Corrections to speak up on the issue.

“The wider issue of the availability of rehabilitation programmes in prison for drug offenders, and the timing of such programmes, is a matter of importance and some public controversy,” the judges wrote. “It is important the department’s policies on this issue be known to sentencing judges so they can be taken into account in sentencing decisions.”

A Corrections spokesman confirmed the department had read the decision. “We have noted the comments made and will be giving them due consideration.” Rehabilitation and reintegration assistant manager Dr David Wales said thousands of prisoners received drug or alcohol treatment every year. “It’s really easy to come at this from a drug and alcohol point of view, but we have to look at the whole person and all the issues that contribute to their offending,” he said.

However, Brooking said setting up a drug court, increasing rehabilitation programmes, and investing in halfway houses could cut crime. Parole Board chairman Judge David Carruthers and Chief Justice Sian Elias had read Flying Blind, while Otago University had also made the book recommended reading for criminology students.”