Abuse accounts given to police without consent
Deeply personal and traumatic accounts of historic abuse in state care were given to police without the victims’ knowledge.
A judge has said the abuse claimants were ‘‘some of the most vulnerable people in New Zealand society’’ and distrusted state agencies.
She made an order to stop the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) passing on information, except for court proceedings, without the claimant’s consent.
Their allegations of physical and sexual abuse were often deeply personal and traumatic, Justice Rebecca Ellis said in a recent decision at the High Court in Wellington. Some of the complainants had name suppression in civil cases filed against MSD and the Ministry of Education.
MSD says it handed over the information so that the allegations could be investigated.
A lawyer for many claimants, Sonja Cooper, told the court in August 2017 that she had learned of statements given to the police by MSD staff.
A complaint to the Privacy Commissioner failed in January when the commissioner decided the disclosures did not breach privacy because they were to refer allegations of child abuse.
Cooper told Stuff it seemed fewer than 10 of her firm’s approximately 1000 clients suing various MSD agencies had information handed over without their knowledge or consent.
However, she understood that many complainants without legal representation also had information passed to police.
Views varied among her clients about information being passed on but some still had ‘‘very real’’ safety issues.
She understood concerns that children might currently be in the care of the same perpetrator of abuse. She hoped the court decision would prompt the state agencies to agree to a way of proceeding.
MSD said it was aware of the court’s decision and was carefully considering its response.
Since September 2017, it had not referred allegations of offending to police without either the permission of the court or the claimant, deputy chief executive, corporate solutions, said Stephen Crombie.
Justice Ellis said that for at least 10 years MSD had known that the claimants objected to their claims, at least with identifying details, being disclosed to police without consent but, without the order she made, a party such as MSD could still pass on documents.
The court could still give permission for claims to be passed to police if the claimant agreed, if conditions were in place to protect the claimant’s confidentiality interests, or if it was considered important nevertheless.
MSD said it was aware of the court’s decision and was carefully considering its response.