Source: Radio New Zealand
Paula Beilby (fourth from left) with her whānau outside the High Court at Hamilton. Belinda Feek/NZME/Supplied
A woman whose brother was killed by a group of Mongrel Mob members says she feels revictimised, after a judge stopped her from reading out all her pre-approved victim impact statement.
Paula Beilby was not only stopped, but was also chided by Justice Mary Peters, after suggesting the defendant was given special treatment, because he had a separate trial from his nine co-accused.
“My apologies,” Beilby replied, “I’m only reading what I’ve got.”
“I don’t care what you’re reading, it’s totally unacceptable for you to say that,” the judge responded, before telling her to sit down at the back of the court.
Eventually, after a second victim impact was given by another person, the courtroom was put into chambers. When it was re-opened, Beilby was told she was not allowed back in.
The move left Beilby feeling frustrated and revictimised.
“I felt being pulled aside and made an example of… it was a bit rich, considering why we were there, and I feel like justice has not been served in this case.”
Beilby’s brother, Mitchell Te Kani, was killed, after being struck with a crowbar, during a brawl at their family home in Tauranga in 2023.
Nine people stood trial last year and were sentenced in relation to his death earlier this year.
At a separate trial, a 10th person – Hamiora William Jack-Kino – was found guilty of manslaughter, and four other charges relating to the serious assault of the victim’s brother and father.
He was tried on his own, because there was doubt over his fitness to stand trial, along with his cognitive issues, which would have caused delays, due to an increased number of breaks required each day.
He was then deemed mentally fit and given a communication assistant throughout his trial, which was held in the High Court at Rotorua earlier this year.
‘I feel we’ve been further victimised’
Beilby was the first of two people to read a victim impact statement at Jack-Kino’s sentencing in the High Court at Hamilton on 16 October.
After Justice Peters invited Beilby up to the front of the court to read it, she told the judge she wanted to read the parts that had been redacted before the hearing.
“I felt the whole justice system… and the way it’s worked, it’s just further victimised our whole family,” she told the judge, explaining why she had wanted to read the unredacted version. “I felt it was just something that needed to be said, that wraps up the whole of the trial and what we’ve gone through.”
Justice Peters then explained to her how victim impact statements were permitted under the Victims’ Rights Act.
“It’s got very clear controls on what can be said and what cannot, and I’m not in charge of that. I can tell you what the law is, but I don’t make it.
“If the redactions were made, they weren’t made by me, but they will have been made because that’s what needed to happen if they were to be read.”
Justice Peters said she could read the full statement herself or Beilby could read the redacted version out loud.
She then asked her what she wanted to do.
“I’d prefer it if I was able to read the whole statement, but since you have set that precedent for us…” Beilby said.
Justice Peters replied: “I haven’t set any precedent for you, I’ve told you what is in the legislation.”
Beilby then started reading her approved statement, but when she mentioned how Jack-Kino had a separate trial, “at the taxpayer’s expense, because you or your counsel deemed you special enough to warrant one”, the judge stopped her.
“That’s actually not correct, so I don’t want those kinds of offensive remarks made in court,” Justice Peters said.
“I’ve listened to you politely, you don’t know the first thing about why Mr Jack-Kino had a separate trial and I’m not prepared to have you say those things.
“They are incorrect and [Crown prosecutor Daniel Coulson] should have corrected it for you. If he didn’t, the detective should have.”
Beilby apologised, saying she was only reading what she had in front of her.
Justice Peters replied she didn’t care what she was reading and it was “totally unacceptable” for her to make that comment.
Beilby was responding, when the judge interrupted her and told her to sit at the rear of the court, and she would finish reading her statement on her own.
Bebe Hewitt, whose son was a victim in the brawl, then read her statement, before Justice Peters closed the courtroom, ordering a chambers discussion.
Shortly afterwards, Justice Peters decided to take the rare move of not letting Beilby back in.
‘I almost expect it out of the system now’
When approached by NZME outside court, Beilby said she did understand why there had to be two trials, but her point was that didn’t serve them as a whānau for those involved to have to give evidence again.
“To have my 74-year-old father sit and recall everything of those horrific events of the night, you know, that’s why you see so many of us here, because we are all affected.
“I felt being pulled aside and made an example of, it was a bit rich considering why we were there, and I feel like justice has not been served in this case.”
She said, when she wasn’t allowed back in, she was led into another room and given the option of watching proceedings from there, via an audio-visual link.
She turned it down and instead waited outside, as Justice Peters jailed Jack-Kino for nine years and issued a minimum non-parole period of four years.
Beilby said she wasn’t threatening or physically attacking Jack-Kino or his family, like he and his co-offenders did to their whānau that fateful night.
“They have no idea how they made my family feel.”
Upon hearing Jack-Kino’s sentence, Beilby said she felt it wasn’t a deterrent.
“It’s laughable. I’m past actually feeling offended, because I have almost expected it out of the system.”
Beilby said she felt “a bit hard done by, but I’m just not surprised”.
‘The hearings are often tense and emotional’
In a statement, a spokesperson from the Office of the Chief Justice confirmed that it was the responsibility of the prosecutor “for putting victim impact statements before the court”.
While redactions were not expressly addressed in the Victims’ Rights Act, they were not uncommon.
They could be used, because of abuse being directed at the offender, references to unrelated matters or offending other than that before the court.
A judge must approve the reading of a statement in court.
Asked whether it was normal practice for a judge to read a victim impact statement before a sentencing hearing, the spokesperson confirmed it was, but she was unable to comment on specific cases.
However, the statement didn’t address Beilby specifically being removed from the courtroom. Instead, the spokesperson said sentencing hearings “are often tense and emotional”.
“The presiding judge is responsible for managing proceedings in court in a way that is orderly and safe for the people in the courtroom.
“To do this, judges are required to make decisions in the moment, consistent with what they consider necessary to ensure a hearing proceeds in a safe and orderly way.”
The spokesperson said judges increasingly saw victim impact statements that contained material outside the scope of the legislation, including comments directed at offenders and abuse.
‘I have significant concerns’
Ruth Money, chief victims adviser to the government, said while she couldn’t comment on an individual case, she did have some concerns.
“I am certainly very concerned when any victim and whānau are asked to leave a courtroom.
“Not only does it go against open and transparent justice, it’s not how anyone, let alone victim survivors, should be treated.”
Money said she’d heard of victims being warned “for going off-script and discussing justice issues, as opposed to the impact of the offending, but in my 13 years I have never had a victim removed from a courtroom”.
“I have significant concerns for any victim who is asked to leave a hearing.”
Speaking generally, Money said she expected victims to be spoken to with respect and any issues to be explained well.
The writing of a victim impact statement involved either a victim support person, a court victims adviser or a police officer sitting down with the victim.
Once drawn up, it went to the prosecutor to be checked, before it was edited or approved by the sitting judge.
She said it was then returned to the victim, who was told why certain portions may have been changed or edited out.
Money said there was no consistency around the country about what was acceptable in a statement.
“What one prosecutor or judge will allow is completely different to another.”
Money said she was currently working with the Ministry of Justice on making improvements to the Victims’ Rights Act.
“It does need to be improved in terms of responsibilities and process.”
This story originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald.
– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand