BEFORE THE UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE
Secreteriat of the Committee Against Torture UNOG -Office of the High Commission for Human Rights 8-14 Avenue de la Paix CH -1211 Geneva 10 Switzerland IN THE MATTER OF NEW ZEALAND’S 5th PERIODIC REPORT Additional information to the submission by the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) New Zealand for the United Nations Committee Against Torture on Recommendation 11, Allegations of ill-treatment. April 2012, New Zealand 1. This suplimentary submission from the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) New Zealand follows on from their NGO report to the United Nations Committee Against Torture in May 2010 and should be read in conjunction with this. Since that time three significant reports are now available that are relevant to the concluding observations made by the Committee Against Torture for New Zealand’s 5th Periodic Review: “Allegations of ill-treatment 11. The Committee is concerned that allegations of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment inflicted by persons acting in an official capacity against children in state institutions, and against patients in psychiatric hospitals have not been investigated, perpetrators not prosecuted, and victims not accorded redress, including adequate compensation and rehabilitation.” Two of the reports are independent medical opinions based on inquiries into the allegations of psychiatric abuses to children in State care, and the third is a report by a NZ retired High Court Judge; released by New Zealand crown agencies under the Official Information Act 1982. These reports are attached as part of the Appendix. In conjunction with these reports, initialy, CCHR would like to respond briefly to parts of the New Zealand Government’s submission to ensure UNCAT has accurate information with which to question and act. This submission discloses evidence we believe is critical to an investigation into these allegations, but which seems has been primarily ignored. As we have stated previously, as an NGO working on the ground with victims of these abuses, we feel there is a lack of will to confront or acknowledge that they actually fall under the category of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and therefore it seems (due to this assumption) the State feels it has no obligation to investigate the cases promptly and impartially, have the perpetrators duly prosecuted, and the victims accorded redress, including compensation and rehabilitation. “The state party should take appropriate measures to ensure that allegations of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in the ‘historic cases’ are investigated promptly and impartially, perpetrators duly prosecuted, and the victims accorded redress, including compensation and rehabilitation.” UN Committee Against Torture The NZ Government submitted that a number of avenues exist for these victims to seek redress, however in practice this is not the case. In reality they are quite restrictive and the victims are up against a formidable government legal defence team. This is a costly and time-exhausting exercise where the victims of such abuse have to try and bring enough evidence to bear to prove the abuse actually occurred, not to mention the legal limitation barriers. We believe the avenues and proceedings do not address the obligations of the state party as issued by UNCAT, namely: “The state party should take appropriate measures to ensure that allegations of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in the ‘historic cases’ are investigated promptly and 2 impartially, perpetrators duly prosecuted, and the victims accorded redress, including compensation and rehabilitation.” PO BOX 5257, WELLESLEY STREET , AUCKLAND, NEW ZEALAND cchr@xtra.co.nz 0800 777 555 http://www.cchr.org.nz 2. It is submitted that this reply to the New Zealand Government response should be read in conjunction with the 2001 report of the Lake Alice abuses written by a NZ retired High Court Judge, Sir Rodney Gallen (attached). It should be noted that the Gallen Report has only recently been referred to by the NZ Government as having formed part of the Government’s ‘investigation’ into the child psychiatric abuses that occurred at Lake Alice (psychiatric) Hospital. This report covers information relating to 85 individuals who have claimed for the Government payouts. There remains a further 107 individuals who have become claimants. The Gallen Report does not include any information from the 107 individuals. Sir Rodney was not commissioned to write the report by the state party, but was compelled to publish it due to what he saw and heard from the victims who came forward with their stories. This highlights further the severity and depth of the abuses that were committed by the psychiatrist and mental health staff. 3. The New Zealand Government’s response states that: “The Government is committed to the investigation and resolution of allegations of torture or ill-treatment by the state.” This has happened to a minor extent with those former Lake Alice victims who have come forward to receive the payouts and a very general apology from the Prime Minister and Minister of Health. However one wonders whether this was merely the mitigation of potentially embarrasing and expensive civil suits, when faced with large numbers of similarly state-abused victims sitting in the wings. What might not be widely known was that there was $132 million liability fund set aside in the NZ Government Budget, just to deal with the Lake Alice cases; of which they settled outside of court, without trial or hearing or precedents or legal liability of ill-treatment or torture, for $6.5 million (below). The payouts were also ex gratia, not proper compensation and merely settling an out of court civil action against the Government. Accountability of the perpetrators of the ill treatment and torture has never been addressed, which is one common thread expressed by the victims, which would help them gain some closure of what happened. 3 4. The ex gratia payouts to the first group of 95 victims needed to pay legal fees which were deducted from their payouts. These amounted to approximately 40% of the determined “compensation”. When it was realised there were more victims of the abuses, the second group of individuals did not have to pay the legal fees, as the Government said it would take care of their fees. This set up an unfair disadvantage with the first group. The Government then decided to take a 30% deduction from the second group, however this was illegal, causing more upset. CCHR supported one of the victims to secure the balance of the agreed payout, which took four years, costly lawyers and expensive trips to Wellington from Auckland. (See article below) Even after the court adjudicated the Government should pay up, it took going to the media to run a damning story before they finally furnished the balance. This was estimated to be around $2 million wrongfully withheld across all the victims in the second round. Though as mentioned above, this does not factor in the 40% legal fees taken out of the first round and the NZ government has not done anything to correct this like they did for the second group. A number of victims and CCHR believe the first group has been unfairly treated with the deductions of the legal fees from their payouts, and feel the government should rectify this, balancing the payouts at the very least. 5. The ill-treatment/torture was carried out by registered doctor/psychiatrist(s) and mental health nursing staff, yet the NZ Medical Council, Nursing Council or health authorities have not carried out their function of protecting children and adolescents against ill treatment and torture by not conducting proper investigations and therefore failing to to take action to prevent the psychiatrist and mental health workers from practicing through to this day. The psychiatrist maintains to this day, that he did no wrong. 6. UNCAT might care to ask the state party what action it is taking against the Medical and Nursing Council’s of NZ for failing to take discipliniary action when it knew of ill treatment/torture of children and adolescents at the Lake Alice Hospital Child and Adolescent Unit who were in the care of a registered psychiatrist and nursing staff. 7. The NZ Government response states that: “At a systemic level, allegations of ill-treatment in a given institution are thoroughly investigated.” “All affected agencies have commissioned research, as well as looking at individual claims, in order to satisfy themselves that there is no evidence of systemic failure as there was with the Lake Alice psychiatric hospital claims.” The Government actually admits there is evidence of systemic abuse at Lake Alice yet will not ensure accountability of the perpetrators and provide proper redress. And, “There are two key differences between the current psychiatric hospital claims and the Lake Alice claims which explain the different approach taken by the Government in addressing them. Firstly, the Lake Alice claimants’ allegations were factually clearly established. In the current claims, the factual allegations are generally contested. Second, the Lake Alice claimants’ allegations were substantially the same in that they related to treatment conditions in the Child and Adolescent ward at Lake Alice, during the period 1972-1977 under the care of one particular doctor.” Factually, so far there has not been an impartial and thorough investigation completed into 4the historic abuses as is inferred. PO BOX 5257, WELLESLEY STREET , AUCKLAND, NEW ZEALAND cchr@xtra.co.nz 0800 777 555 http://www.cchr.org.nz Lake Alice patient’s payout up $34,000 By Martin Johnston 5:00 AM Wednesday Sep 13, 2006 A former patient of the notorious Lake Alice psychiatric hospital near Wanganui has won an increase of more than $34,000 in his payout. Aucklander Paul Zentveld, 45, has won the top-up in a ruling in which the judge criticises the Crown’s position as “Kafkaesque”. Mr Zentveld describes his time in the hospital’s child and adolescent unit, spread over five years in the 1970s, as amounting to torture. The unit closed in 1977. He said he was punished with painful paraldehyde injections and 92 sessions of electric shock therapy and, like many of the young patients, did not have a mental illness. “They locked me up for five days and nights in a darkened room -solitary confinement.” He is among 183 former patients of the unit to receive from the Government an apology and a share of $10.7 million compensation, divvied up by retired High Court judge Sir Rodney Gallen after considering their evidence of mistreatment. Their claims included receiving ECT and injections as punishment, sexual abuse, ECT on the genitals in several cases, and one of being locked in a cage with a deranged adult. Mr Zentveld was given $80,438.60 in 2002, but has successfully sued the Crown for an extra $34,473.68 -plus four years’ interest and costs -bringing his compensation to $114,912.28. This is the sum Sir Rodney, who considered Mr Zentveld’s experiences at the unit among the worst he had heard of, had set for him. The Health Ministry subsequently sliced off 30 per cent. Mr Zentveld and 87 other people with whom the ministry dealt as a second round of claimants received, on average, 30 per cent less than the 95 first-round claimants in 2001. The ministry did this, it said previously, to preserve equity between the two groups. Around $2.17 million of the $6.5 million paid to the first-round claimants went to their law firm Grant Cameron & Associates in fees and disbursements, according to the Wellington District Court verdict on Mr Zentveld’s case, released yesterday. For the second-round claimants, the ministry appointed David Collins, QC, to assist Sir Rodney and the claimants. Cabinet accordingly decided to slice 30 per cent off the gross compensation, said Judge Tom Broadmore. The ministry wanted Sir Rodney to make the deductions, but his instructions appear to have been unclear and as a result of a misunderstanding he did not make them. “It seems clear that [Mr Zentveld] knew that he would not have to pay legal fees because Dr Collins’ fees would be paid by the Government,” Judge Broadmore says. “But it is far from clear that he understood that the Government intended … that the level of net settlements with [second-round] claimants would be lower than for comparable cases [in round one].” The ministry, when asked last night whether it would appeal or make proportional top-up payments to other second- round claimants, declined to comment. It needed time to analyse the decision, a spokeswoman said. Mr Zentveld also declined to comment, but his lawyer, Mr Cameron, said his client was “very pleased”. Pasted from PO BOX 5257, WELLESLEY STREET , AUCKLAND, NEW ZEALAND cchr@xtra.co.nz 0800 777 555 http://www.cchr.org.nz 8. The settlement process in the Lake Alice cases provides some redress, though the State is careful to say the money given is not compensation. They also do not work toward bringing any perpetrators prosecuted or held accountable, which is also a requirement in the United Nations Committee recommendation number 11 (see point 1 above). 9. CCHR believes an independent body needs to be established for psychiatric and institutional abuses (especially via State agencies). Procedures should “CCHR believes an independent body needs to be established, based on the Istanbul Protocol, to look into these abuses of ill treatment and torture.” be based on the Istanbul Protocol, to look into abuses of ill treatment and torture. Because the State is often implicated in the cases of psychiatric abuse, it cannot be impartial. While there is an admission of systemic abuse at Lake Alice, it seems this was stated to try and distance itself from the other historic abuses (non-Lake Alice), justifying their inaction on ill-treatment and torture allegations. 10. The Committee might care to ask the State what steps are actually being taken to ensure professional accountability occurs. This is crucial when there is such an imbalance of power, and is an essential part of closure for victims of abuse. 11. The report by Sir Rodney Gallen was made after the determinations (amounts of ex gratia payouts) for the first 95 child-victims claimed. A further 90+ victims were still to come forward in the “second round” of payouts. Below are some excerpts from the report compiled by Sir Rodney Gallen, after he had interviewed 41 and read the statements of a further 44 former child-victims who had been in the Child and Adolescent Unit, Lake Alice Hospital. “…what is more, it [ECT] was administered not as a therapy in the ordinary sense of that word, but as a punishment. Claimant after claimant emphasized that the accumulation of unsatisfactory grades during the week meant the likelihood of the administration of ECT at the end of the week in unmodified form. Quite apart from the accumulation of grades, behaviour which was seen as unacceptable, such as running away, generally resulted in the administration of unmodified ECT. The children were familiar with the ECT machine. Quite apart from occasions ECT was administered to them, they were required to assist by bringing it into the room where it was used, and on some occasions actually watched its use on other patients.” “…what is more, it [ECT] was administered not as a therapy in the ordinary sense of that word, but as a punishment.” Retired High Court Judge, Sir Rodney Gallen. “In chilling terms the applicants describe the pain they sustained, sometimes over considerable periods. There are allegations that in some cases the current was administered, increased, reduced and increased again.” “The descriptions which the claimants give of the effect of the increase and reduction, and the time over which the treatment was administered, are detailed and convincing.” “All the children knew when the ECT was being administered, and claimant after claimant speaks of the screaming which was plainly audible to other children in the unit when ECT 6was administered.” PO BOX 5257, WELLESLEY STREET , AUCKLAND, NEW ZEALAND cchr@xtra.co.nz 0800 777 555 http://www.cchr.org.nz 12. If the Government’s response statements are correct then it appears that there is knowledge of a further 95 individual’s cases of abuse which have not been released. This information would add to the already extremely serious levels of ill treatment/torture of children that occurred as touched on by Sir Rodney Gallen. Also, this is what the now Crown Solicitor General based his comment on, that if the Police saw the files I have seen (from the second round) they would lay charges. 13. There has been delayed and evasive justice for child victims of ill treatment/torture in New Zealand. The Psychiatrist, Dr Leeks continued practising in Australia since leaving Lake Alice. In around 2002, the Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria, (MPBV) received information of the abuses from a number of the former victims and conducted an investigation. The Board set a date for a formal hearing into the conduct of the psychiatrist. The investigation continued up to the point when the Board were assured the psychiatrist would not practice any longer and therefore no longer be a danger to the public. We believe that investigations in Australia and New Zealand should have gone further as the doctor to this day says he has done no wrong in his now infamous conduct of children in State care. 14. A former registered nurse who worked in the Child and Adolescent Unit at Lake Alice Hospital has recently come forward. Below are excerpts from a statement he made. “With regards to the use of ECT by Dr. Leeks prior to 1974: I believe I have an accurate knowledge of what occurred at the Adolescent Unit at Lake Alice regarding the use of ECT. I base this on my memories of specific incidents I clearly recall from that period (Jan 74 –April 74,) from the stories told to me by both the kids I cared for, and the staff I worked with. Boys were taken from the lounge area to an upstairs side-room which was dark, shuttered… Sometimes this would be done forcibly. Inside the room Dr Leeks would administer electric shocks to various parts of the boy’s body over a period of 20 mins. An airway shaped like a mouth gag, was placed in the boy’s mouth for him to bite on whilst the shocks were administered. The ECT machine was unusual in that it had a twist regulator on it, with which the operator could vary the intensity and the timing of the shock. During this time Dr. Leeks would maintain a reprimanding-type monologue, whilst the boy was held down by the Nurses. At the end of the time Dr. Leeks would give a full unmodified ECT rendering the boy unconscious. The boy would then be taken to a dormitory area, placed on a bed and left alone to recover.” “Consent an issue A large number of the patients were Wards of the State, Dr Leeks duly assumed Guardianship and carried out treatment that he felt appropriate. It was unusual for parents to visit the Unit and it was unusual for Dr Leeks to interview the parents. Shortly before I began work at Lake Alice there was an inquiry into the Adolescent Unit, conducted by a JP and a lawyer from Marton. The results of that inquiry were in the local newspaper concluding (and I quote) the accusations of mistreatment, ‘are just the evil machinations of disturbed children.’ Dr Leeks used the ECT machine as a cruel instrument of punishment and torture. He 7knew full well that what he was doing was totally wrong. PO BOX 5257, WELLESLEY STREET , AUCKLAND, NEW ZEALAND cchr@xtra.co.nz 0800 777 555 http://www.cchr.org.nz All Doctors, Nurses, Psychologists and Social Workers would know in their heart that it was wrong. There is no way it can be rationalized in a civilized society that what he (Dr Leeks) did was treatment. It was torture, nothing less.” -Former psychiatric nurse from LA. 15. Independent medical opinions. There are two significant and revealing reports from an independent medical expert, addressing the psychiatrist and “treatment regimes” used at Lake Alice. These are the expert medical reports obtained for the Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria (Australia) investigation (available only in part to CCHR) and the report made to New Zealand Police (available to CCHR only just last year). The reports disclose that what was administrered to children in the Child and Adolescent Unit by the psychiatrist appeared to “depart significantly” from the standards of psychiatric care of the day. This is extremely important as Dr Leeks, the psychiatrist at the centre of these ill-treatment and torture allegations, utterly denies he did any wrong to this day and that it was “just standard practice” and that the electric shocks were supposedly “below the threshhold of pain” to throw off investigators and officials. This evidence is compelling and completely counters any argument to say the psychiatrist was actually practicing psychiatry or medicine pursuant to the guidelines and practices of the day. Essentially it seems he had unbridled power, sanctioned by the State, to do what he deemed necessary to “handle” a number of children that had come into the care and protection of the State. This either went unchecked and the psychiatrist was ill-treating on his own; or more feasible and realistic in the public health system, it was known by the State and “sanctioned” by turning a blind eye. With the amount of evidence, publicity, investigations and public outcry over the years, one cannot ignore the lack of action of the State in this extremely serious series of incidents concerning vulnerable children who had already lost usual rights by being in State care. 16. The independent medical opinions of Professor Garry Walter said there is no evidence that ECT is an effective treatment for behaviour disorders per se. The medical opinion included: “It is not, nor has it ever been, appropriate to administer either modified or unmodified ECT to children as a form of punishment. ECT is a medical treatment; it is not a punitive measure nor a means to curb errant behavior.” See below a few excerpts from the child victim nursing notes showing the ill treatment. Painful electric shocks were given for smoking, fighting, running away, etc. 8PO BO X 5257, WE L L E S L E Y ST R E E T , AU CK L A N D, NE W ZE A L A N D cchr@xtra.co.nz 0800 777 555 http://www.cchr.org.nz “Paraldehyde was used as a rapid acting sedative and hypnotic. It was not meant to be used as a punishment for ‘misbehaviour’ but rather as a treatment for distress and agitation.” Also being locked up in “shuttered room” (seclusion) was threatened and used often. “The dearth of medical records and nursing notes (ie apart from an admission sheet and examination sheet) for the admission to Lake Alice are a source of disquiet in this case, and perhaps a reflection of the overall standard of care.” “In the 1970s in Western countries it was no longer considered appropriate to administer unmodified ECT, without anaesthetic and relaxant to patients, including children and adolescents.” (See appendix for full report). 17. Professor Walter could find no literature specifically on the use of Ectonus in children and adolescents nor on its use as a form of aversion therapy in children and adolescents. Importantly, it had never been medically approved that aversive treatments may be administered via an ECT device, and that aversion therapy has always been controversial. The concept of patients using electricity to shock other patients (which has been alleged by a number of the child victims) has also never been approved standard practice. “It was never appropriate in any session where children and adolescents were to administer to fellow patients or offenders electric current, aversion electrical stimulus ECT or using the ectonus technique, because the young patients would not be part of a treatment team. It would be bewildering and traumatic for both the giver and the receiver 9likely to seriously affect trust in doctors. And for the ones doing the shocks could be interpreted as health staff supporting an aggressive act, and thus giving encouragement for further aggressive acts.” PO BOX 5257, WELLESLEY STREET , AUCKLAND, NEW ZEALAND cchr@xtra.co.nz 0800 777 555 http://www.cchr.org.nz 18. Additional comments concerning the psychiatrist calling what he did as so-called “Aversion Therapy”, the medical expert says: “The use of ECT by Dr would not constitute aversion therapy due to a combination of the following factors: 1. ECT was not a recognized form of aversion therapy (Related to this, it did not appear that Dr was formally evaluating or studying ECT as a type of aversion therapy) 2. The specific behaviours that Dr was seeking to abolish were not always clear. 3. The level of discomfort reported by patients was extreme, indeed often excruciating, and thus way beyond the pain and discomfort levels described in conventional aversion therapy. 4. The patients and families did not consent to ECT (and indeed patients often protested about the use of the treatment). 5. The general atmosphere that pervaded the unit and ECT sessions were not ‘therapeutic’. I note it is alleged that ECT sessions were not always attended exclusively by Dr , Lake Alice staff and the patient; other patients were allegedly sometimes present.” On behalf of the traumatised victims of ill treatment and torture, we ask: if what was being carried out was not standard medical/psychiatric practice, what was it? Surely this would then disconnect those activities with the so-called “therapeutic” environment, much like the builder using his tools of trade (hammer, saw, etc) to harm another. It becomes clear then that this should be a matter of grave criminal concern which the Police should be intensely interested in. 19. After a number of complaints had been made to them, the New Zealand Police also obtained an independent medical opinion from the same Professor of Psychiatry for their investigation into former staff conduct at Lake Alice. This report further described the significant departures of standard medical practice at the time, however the Police didn’t act on this. CCHR has only recently become aware that they had this evidence of the cases for all this time. 20. The Police investigation concluded in 2009, saying there was not enough evidence to prosecute and that time limits on making specific criminal complaints were not met. It was a dissapointing outcome. A number of the child victims who had complained were not even interviewed by Police as a part of their criminal investigation. The Police stated one of the victims who complained was deceased but the person was alive and whereabouts known. One wonders what the Police actually did for the eight (8) years they investigated the alleged crimes. 21. Limitation issues relating to psychiatric abuses is quite restricting to this vulnerable group who had aready lost all rights and been severely traumatised by ill treatment/torture as children/adolescents. As an example, one complaint concerned an incident which occurred around May 1974, in which 5 child victims and 5 former staff were involved in the punishment 10of another child/youth with the use of an electic shock machine. It was virtually impossible for a complaint to be made within the required legal time frame of 6 months as the complainant, a young boy, was still receiving the ill treatment/torture by mental health staff in the hospital PO BOX 5257, WELLESLEY STREET , AUCKLAND, NEW ZEALAND cchr@xtra.co.nz 0800 777 555 http://www.cchr.org.nz until December 1975. He made a signed complaint in June 1977 to the Director General of Mental Health. He had been in Lake Alice Hospital against his will. It is highly unrealistic to expect a young former patient, who mental health staff had labelled, ‘adolescent schizophrenia,’ ‘behaviour disorder with psychopathic personality,’ and ‘presumed behaviour disorder,’ having suffered two years of threats by staff and ill treatment/torture, to be fully cognizant of his rights and precise and exact complaint protocol procedures. 22. The Committee (UNCAT) might seek to ask what inquiry/steps has the NZ Government taken to ensure the former mental health staff are held accountable and what measures have been taken to prevent ill treatment/torture from happening to children by mental health staff in the future? 23. The psychiatrist, Dr Leeks and a few former staff have worked out their careers without a blemish to their record. Most may no longer be registered, however the Medical and Nursing Councils have not made any official statement concerning what happened. There have not been any thorough investigations, censuring, disciplining, restrictions of the former mental health staff, etc. As such this could be interpreted as tacit acceptance of the staff conduct and of who administered ill treatment/torture to the children in their care. 24. To conclude this submission, there have not been any restrictions on any of the procedures used since the abuses happened in the 1970s. Here you have a damning series of incidents occuring to 350-400 children and youth within a State institution, most of whom could clearly be seen to have been ill treated or tortured. The sheer persistence of the victims to make their stories known and fight for recognition and justice has lead to many others (thousands of men, women and children) coming forward (those who were able) to seek a similar outcome such as UNCAT is suggesting should take place. The State has done little other than try to mitigate the legal and public liability this has toward them; when it would be more ethical and prudent to take a stand and uphold the human rights of victims of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The New Zealand Human Rights Commission has also recently looked into the huge amount of growing allegations of psychiatric abuse throughout the country; allegations made in the main by people victimised within State institutions. They have written a damning report from all accounts on these issues that CCHR was hoping to comment on prior to sending this update, however it has been held up with the Crown Solicitors for many months. Reviewing the past record of events, what essentially has ended up being the protection of perpetrators of abuse, one wonders what is being done with the report and why it has not been released yet. Should you wish more information, clarification of any issue, evidence from vicitms themselves, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours faithfully, Steve Green Executive Director +64 21 254 3633 PO BOX 5257, WELLESLEY STREET , AUCKLAND, NEW ZEALAND cchr@xtra.co.nz 0800 777 555 http://www.cchr.org.nz 11 Appendix A Gallen Report Appendix B Medical Expert: Professor Garry Walter Appendix C Letter to UNCAT from a Survivor of Lake Alice Hospital, New Zealand I would like to write independently to the United Nations Committee Against Torture (UNCAT) as a victim of mistreatment, abuse and torture. This is concerning the New Zealand government and their response to my complaint and hundreds of others that were subjected to abuses as children in psychiatric and welfare institutions. I write as a former patient at Lake Alice Hospital in the Child and Adolescent Unit, Marton, New Zealand during the 1970s. I have two younger sisters and a brother and at the time my father left our family, and my mother couldn’t handle me. I was put in Lake Alice when I was 12 and discharged at 16 years of age after five admissions. The first four were as an informal patient and the fifth was as a formal patient. My nursing records show that I received painful Paraldehyde injections for such things as throwing apples. I also received electroshocks without anaesthetic for things like challenging a staff member, wetting the bed (ECT on the testicles x 8) and for running away. My file records show that I had 92 sessions of ECT. Also if your grades were not up to scratch you were marked in the red book and you also got ECT. I have since made many statements about the events that I experienced while in Lake Alice. In 2005 I complained to the correct statutory authority, the Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria, Australia, but have not been able to find out anything about my complaint which include being painfully electric shocked on my body parts by an ECT machine on a number of occasions. The investigation was called off when the psychiatrist decided on the eve of the hearing to resign. The Medical Board had obtained an independent medical opinion into the conduct of the psychiatrist who was in charge of the unit. A request to get a copy of this has been refused. I am concerned that none of the former staff have been told that what they did was wrong. Some of them are still alive and been working in mental health with children and youth. There have been millions of dollars paid out to other former children and adolescent patients who were in Lake Alice like me. The New Zealand Medical Council and Nursing Council have not said anything that happened was wrong. In 2003 I made a statement to the lawyer representing the Government who handled my claim which was against the Government. The lawyer was Dr David Collins, a Queens Counsel, who is now New Zealand’s Solicitor General. I received an ex gratia payout and an apology where the Government said what happened to me was wrong. Victim letter to UNCAT I found out that the Government withheld 30 percent of my payout in “legal and administration” fees, even though they said that I would get a Crown funded lawyer to represent me. I got a private lawyer and won the case of the legal fees against the Government over this. The NZ Government tried to appeal that I won the case but then gave up the appeal. They then would not pay and it took a public push by the media before they handed over the money the courts said they owed. This was estimated to be around $3 million that the NZ government withheld from the child-victims of Lake Alice I the second round of payouts. I suffered ill treatment and torture as a child at Lake Alice at the hands of former mental health staff, psychiatrist and nurses. I have exhausted areas of complaint to achieve any of the staff being
No comments:
Post a Comment