No inquest for Gloriavale death For Gloriavale death
The events following the tragic death of Prayer Ready at Gloriavale in 2015 surely justify a fresh inquiry, argue Stuff Circuit’s Paula Penfold and Eugene Bingham.
It’s two years since Connie Ready ‘‘escaped’’ – her term – the religious community of Gloriavale, and her life is almost unrecognisable.
She’s newly married to a man she met on the ‘‘outside’’. She has a six-month-old baby boy. And she’s found her voice. No longer must she be submissive to and silenced by the men and the leaders in that closed ‘‘cult’’ – again, her term.
Connie has found her voice and it’s an articulate, deliberate, at times fiery voice. And she’s using it because she wants the world to know she is ‘‘furious’’ about what she sees as a lack of justice for her dead sister, and a lack of punishment for those who formerly reigned over her.
The leaders of Gloriavale fought through the courts for a year to try to stop Stuff Circuit reporting the death of Prayer Ready, a
14-year-old girl who had Down syndrome.
They lost, and the circumstances of Prayer’s death have now been well-traversed: that she was in an isolation room at the time, with her mother who was looking after four young, sick children.
That she choked on a piece of meat; that the handle on the only door into the isolation room had been disabled, meaning when she needed help – quickly – nobody could get in or out through the door; they had to climb through a window.
Tragic events happen, and when they’re accidental it can often be the case that there’s nothing anyone can do or say to make it right.
But for Prayer’s family on the outside, there’s so much that stinks about what happened to her. So much they feel the leaders should be held accountable for.
And now, a further, gutwrenching blow: their plea for an inquest to be held into Prayer’s death has been refused.
This is the sequence of events:
❚ June 4, 2015: Prayer, the youngest of 13 children of Clem and Sharon Ready, dies, aged 14.
❚ September 2015: Stuff Circuit is told of Prayer’s death and concerns over the circumstances. We begin asking questions and interviewing people to understand the use of these ‘‘isolation rooms’’ (attached to each hostel on the compound, for preventing the spread of sickness) and at whose behest – and why – the door handles are disabled (to prevent children from entering or leaving). We’re told which leader made that decision.
❚ October 3, 2015: Stuff Circuit visits Gloriavale to try to ask the leaders questions about how Prayer died, and whether it was true that it was in an isolation room on which the door handle had been disabled. The leaders refuse to answer our questions and trespass us from the property.
❚ October 22, 2015: Coroner Marcus Elliott visits Gloriavale to investigate, but does not hold an inquest.
❚ February 2016: Elliott releases his findings, concluding Prayer’s death was a tragic accident, and the fact that the door was disabled did not contribute to her death. ‘‘I went to Gloriavale and spoke to Prayer’s family and members of the Gloriavale community’’, he wrote. ‘‘While I was there I viewed the room in which Prayer died. I therefore have all of the evidence necessary to make findings about the issues. There is no basis to doubt any of the information which has been given to me by any witness in this case.’’
❚ August 2016: After a court ruling, Stuff Circuit publishes its first investigation into Prayer’s death, and Gloriavale’s year-long efforts to have it permanently suppressed.
❚ November 2017: Having left Gloriavale, Connie Ready tells Stuff Circuit ‘‘all the events surrounding [Prayer’s] death were completely covered up’’. Their brother David Ready, who’s also now on the outside, claims the leaders conspired to make sure Elliott was given a consistent story about the isolation rooms and the disabling of the door handles. He says key witnesses were not interviewed, or couldn’t speak freely because of the presence of the domineering leaders.
❚ February 2018: Prayer Ready’s aunt, a sister and a brother write to SolicitorGeneral Una Jagose asking for an inquest into her death.
❚ September 2018: Crown Law responds in a 12-page letter, declining their request. There will not be an inquest.
But why not? If, as Prayer’s siblings allege, the leaders of Gloriavale interfered in the coronial process by attempting to manipulate what the coroner was told, surely that would be grounds for a new inquiry?
Under the Coroners Act, the solicitor-general may order a new inquiry if there is ‘‘sufficient reason’’, which could be fraud, rejection of evidence, irregularity of proceedings, discovery of new facts, or, actually, any other sufficient reason.
In determining whether a new inquiry is warranted, the main consideration should be whether it’s necessary or desirable in the interests of justice.
The letter to Jagose is signed by Prayer’s aunt Ruth Green and it sets out the reasons they believe the test is met: fraud, because ‘‘in advance of the coroner’s visit, the leaders of Gloriavale called together witnesses to tell them what should and shouldn’t be said to the coroner’’; rejection of evidence, because ‘‘in deciding the disabled door did not contribute to Prayer’s death (because there was a window allowing entry and exit), coroner Elliott hadn’t heard from [Prayer’s mother] Sharon Ready, who had tried to get out of the door for help, and couldn’t’’; irregularity of proceedings, ‘‘because witnesses were not freely able to tell the coroner what they wanted to’’.
She wrote that there were other sufficient reasons: for example, that Sharon Ready, ‘‘on reading the coroner’s findings, went through and underlined point by point what was wrong. She should have been the key witness’’.
Their plea was in vain. The reply from Crown Law, when it came seven months later, was a polite but firm ‘‘no’’.
Deputy Solicitor-General Virginia Hardy, who was delegated the task of weighing up whether there should be a new inquiry, concludes that, while she acknowledges the family’s ‘‘grief in respect of Prayer’s death, and the concerns that you have raised . . . I do not consider the concerns would produce a material difference to the coroner’s conclusion, nor that a new inquiry is in the public interest’’.
She explains that ‘‘the threshold for ordering a new inquiry is a high one. It may not be enough to point to issues that suggest the coroner could have come to a different conclusion. It is usually necessary to point to something that suggests a possibility the coroner came to a conclusion that would not be available in light of the new information or issue’’.
Is that not what the family did, through pointing out to the solicitor-general the behaviour of the leaders in, they say, trying to influence what the coroner was told?
Hardy’s response acknowledges that the
‘‘allegations that witnesses may not have been able to speak freely are of concern’’, and that ‘‘the involvement of the Gloriavale community leadership in the coronial process [is of] concern’’, but says ‘‘those things are not enough to justify a second inquiry’’.
Nor is the family’s uneasiness that evidence about the door handle was not heard from the person most suited to give it: Prayer’s mother.
‘‘If it is true that Mrs Ready tried to get out of the door to get help or use the telephone and was unable to, it seems relatively clear this did not impact upon the ability to get help for Prayer.
‘‘There was easy access to the room through the low window and a large number of people did in fact come in and out of the window while they attempted to help Prayer.’’
Hardy says, further, ‘‘Reexamination of these facts is also unlikely to result in recommendations or comments being made by the coroner because, as he noted in his decision, since Prayer’s death Gloriavale [has] ceased the practice of disabling door handles.’’
It’s interesting, too – and frustrating – that Hardy’s letter says it appears the coroner gave more weight to statements made by members of the community to police on the night of Prayer’s death than ‘‘what was told to him afterwards’’.
Frustrating because it’s impossible to assess that independently.
Stuff Circuit sought copies of the statements given to police, but we were refused, partly on the basis of privacy. We appealed to the Office of the Ombudsman but Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier backed the police.
‘‘Your comments regarding the public interest in this case are acknowledged, and while you have raised some strong arguments as to why you consider the public interest outweighs the privacy interests identified, Mr Boshier is not persuaded,’’ says a letter from the office.
Publication of the coroner’s findings – including extracts from some of the statements – was sufficient to satisfy the public interest.
‘‘The likely harm that would be caused by release of the remaining information, namely by infringing on Prayer’s privacy, outweighs the public interest factors you have identified in this instance.’’
That’s right – the person whose privacy would be infringed if the police statements were released is Prayer, says the chief ombudsman.
The final point from Crown Law addresses whether, in spite of all of this, it would be in the interests of justice to order a second inquiry. And the answer is no. Hardy writes: ‘‘Without diminishing your loss . . . I do not consider this ‘exceptional threshold’ is met in this case.’’
So where does this leave Prayer’s family and their quest for justice? Well, obviously, for one thing: not happy.
Ruth Green told Stuff Circuit: ‘‘It’s disappointing, to put it mildly, that they will not have an inquest. It seems they have spent the last seven months looking for reasons to deny [it].’’
So Connie Ready is, again, using that newly allowed voice of hers.
‘‘I am so furious. I feel as though all this time that we have been waiting for justice the judicial system has been looking for excuses.’’
They’re not sure what they’ll do next. They could take the solicitor-general’s decision to judicial review, but that would be a costly legal battle they’re not in a position to resource.
Connie Ready is sure about one thing, however.
‘‘Absolutely there’s no way we are going quiet on this.’’