Key Takeaways:
- Paula Beilby, the sister of a victim, was stopped from reading her full victim impact statement in court and was subsequently removed from the courtroom.
- Beilby felt revictimised and frustrated by the experience, and believes that justice has not been served in the case.
- The judge, Justice Mary Peters, cited the Victims’ Rights Act and the need to maintain order in the courtroom as reasons for her actions.
- The case highlights concerns about the treatment of victims in the justice system and the need for consistency and respect in the handling of victim impact statements.
- The Chief Victims Adviser to the government, Ruth Money, has expressed significant concerns about the treatment of Beilby and the need for improvements to the Victims’ Rights Act.
Introduction to the Case
The case of Paula Beilby, whose brother Mitchell Te Kani was killed in a brawl at their family home in Tauranga in 2023, has highlighted concerns about the treatment of victims in the justice system. Beilby was stopped from reading her full victim impact statement in court and was subsequently removed from the courtroom, leaving her feeling revictimised and frustrated. The incident has sparked debate about the need for consistency and respect in the handling of victim impact statements and the treatment of victims in the justice system.
The Incident in Court
Beilby was the first of two people to read a victim impact statement at the sentencing of Hamiora William Jack-Kino, who was found guilty of manslaughter and other charges related to the serious assault of Beilby’s brother and father. Beilby had wanted to read the unredacted version of her statement, but Justice Peters explained that the redactions had been made in accordance with the Victims’ Rights Act. Beilby then started reading her approved statement, but was stopped by the judge when she made a comment about Jack-Kino having a separate trial "at the taxpayer’s expense, because you or your counsel deemed you special enough to warrant one". Justice Peters told Beilby that her comment was "totally unacceptable" and ordered her to sit at the rear of the court.
Beilby’s Response
Beilby was responding to the judge’s comments when she was interrupted and told to sit down. She was later removed from the courtroom and not allowed to return, despite being offered the option of watching the proceedings via an audio-visual link. Beilby said that she felt "being pulled aside and made an example of" and that it was "a bit rich, considering why we were there, and I feel like justice has not been served in this case". She also expressed frustration that her family had to give evidence again in a separate trial, and that her 74-year-old father had to recall the horrific events of the night of the brawl.
Response from the Office of the Chief Justice
A spokesperson from the Office of the Chief Justice confirmed that it was the responsibility of the prosecutor to put victim impact statements before the court, and that redactions were not uncommon. The spokesperson also stated that judges must approve the reading of a statement in court, and that sentencing hearings "are often tense and emotional". However, the spokesperson did not address Beilby’s specific case or the decision to remove her from the courtroom.
Concerns about the Treatment of Victims
The incident has raised concerns about the treatment of victims in the justice system. Ruth Money, the Chief Victims Adviser to the government, said that she was "certainly very concerned" about Beilby’s treatment and that it was "not how anyone, let alone victim survivors, should be treated". Money also expressed concerns about the lack of consistency around the country in what is acceptable in a victim impact statement, and the need for improvements to the Victims’ Rights Act. She is currently working with the Ministry of Justice to make improvements to the Act, which she believes needs to be improved in terms of responsibilities and process.
Conclusion
The case of Paula Beilby highlights the need for consistency and respect in the handling of victim impact statements and the treatment of victims in the justice system. While the judge cited the Victims’ Rights Act and the need to maintain order in the courtroom as reasons for her actions, Beilby’s experience has left her feeling revictimised and frustrated. The incident has sparked debate about the need for improvements to the Victims’ Rights Act and the treatment of victims in the justice system, and has highlighted the importance of respecting the rights and dignity of victims and their families.