Open Letter to Andrew Little: Re – Waikato DHB application to reopen completed Coroner’s Inquest into death of Nicky Stevens
Hon. Andrew Little
Minister of Justice
Parliament Buildings
WELLINGTON.
CC Jacinda Ardern Prime Minister
Re: Waikato DHB application to reopen completed Coroner’s Inquest into death of Nicky Stevens
Request to meet with the Minister
Tena koe Minister
On Waitangi Day we wrote to the Prime Minister and forwarded a copy to yourself regarding to the death of our son Nicky Stevens, while in the legal care of the Waikato DHB.
While we have received confirmation of the receipt of our letter from both your offices, we have had no reply from Prime Minister Ardern or yourself.
We are writing again to follow up on our initial letter, and to expand on the issues faced by our whanau in relation to the DHB’s actions, which are even more serious than we understood when we wrote previously.
Our letter raised concerns regarding the distressing actions of the Waikato DHB which, subsequent to the findings of the Coronial Inquiry into our son’s death (which found that his death was avoidable) agreed to progress restitution and accountability processes with our whanau.
At a private meeting held at the request of DHB CEO Derek Wright and Board Chair Sally Webb, the DHB emphasised to us that they wished to do this in an honourable, clean and quick manner. They stated that any minor procedural concerns they had about the Inquest would not interfere with this process going forward. We were greatly relieved by their change in approach towards us and for the first time felt that we may get some acknowledgement and closure.
However, subsequent to that private meeting, the DHB’s insurance company QBE have stepped in and instructed the DHB and their lawyer not only to question procedural matters, but now we learn from the Crown Law office that they have also called for a further Coronial inquiry with a new Coroner.
As comments from the very experienced Nigel Hampton QC show, this is a highly unusual step, with Mr Hampton believing it is focused solely on the Insurance Company wanting to limit their financial liability (link:).
The DHB also advised us to go to our lawyer in regard to any further communication on the matter, reneging on their promise to continue to meet with us to progress settlement.
The DHB’s actions have devastated our family. We believe there are major issues of natural justice that need to be addressed and this was our reason for writing to ask for a meeting.
Our whanau has been disadvantaged from the outset regarding our ability to participate in the investigative processes and in particular the recent coronial process into our son’s death.
All parties except our whanau, including the DHB, Police, Coroner, clinicians and other staff were represented by lawyers and/or paid for their involvement by Government funds and insurance company money.
Our whanau used up its own funds on a private lawyer over two years before the Coronial Inquest was held, and was forced to represent itself until some pro bono support was able to be provided near the end of the process.
A request by our whanau to the DHB (who was legally responsible for our son, under the Mental Health Act, at the time of his death) to fund our legal costs on the same basis as theirs, was refused by the DHB citing that there was no precedent for this. A second such request was turned down by the DHB CEO.
Once again, our whanau is being placed at a legal disadvantage by the actions of a Crown agency, the Waikato DHB. They are well aware we cannot afford to fund a lawyer to ensure our view is heard, but continue to use taxpayer funds to pursue their own attack on the Coronial decision. The principle of natural justice is absent, in our opinion.
Our whanau is deeply concerned at the DHB’s own claim that it is the DHB’s insurance company, QBE, which has instructed them to file a request for a further Inquiry and new Coroner.
We cannot comprehend how it is either fair, or in support of the Government’s wish for Crown agencies to be accountable for their expenditure, for a private insurance company to be driving action by one Crown agency to contest a legal decision by another Crown agency.
We believe the DHB’s actions have no moral or humane basis; and we further believe they need to be questioned in light of their impact on our whanau, our dead son, the reputation of the Coroner Wallace Bain and the cost to the taxpayer.
The actions of the DHB have become a matter of significant public interest and comment.
We believe it is in everyone’s interests to have Government involvement in mediating through this and look forward to meeting with you to discuss how this could be facilitated.
Yours sincerely
Jane Stevens, Dave Macpherson and Tony Macpherson-Stevens
Cc Minister of Health
Dave Macpherson is TDBs mental health blogger.
Oh my God, when dealing with ‘the Crown’, Crown Law and so, you are so naive, sorry. You should NEVER have trusted them!
Best of luck Dave,
It seems that the new ‘Government is stymied by the National Party embedded bureaucrats inside the public services’ stopping public meeting any Government ministers at present as bureaucrats are our common enemy of the people now not the government.
So far our groups on the NI East Coast have never been able to meet any ministers since they have been in power!!!!!
So somethings wrong here, and the Labour coalition is being railroaded by National it seems and need urgently to sack these national rouges inside Minsters of Government offices intentionally blocking our public access to Ministers.
The public of NZ should never be dictated to by a private insurance company as to what relief of liability should be argued by the crown against claims of or a NZ citizen.
Kiwis don’t vote for representation by corporate insurance companies.
NZ had a state owned insurance company which backed Govt entities but rogernomics changed that to the detriment of Kiwis.
The fabric of NZ is further torn to tatters by neiliberal parasites..
Is this the “kinder” system the Prime Minister has offered us? A Crown agency mis-using taxpayers’ money to deny natural justice? This isn’t what I envisaged a Labour-led govt to be doing. It’s more in the style of the previous John Key National govt.
MJOLNIR,
Read my blog as we have identified some National Party sympathizers are now inside the Government Ministers offices blocking public access to these minister to disuses our issues with them one on one so they get the facts from us not a twisted bureaucratic set of lies again and again.
Labour needs to transition from using their bureaucrats and use public input as they promised us all ‘inclusion’ remember?
When Leaking was occurring inside the national MP’s offices in 2010 Steven Joyce sent a circular around all government departments warning anyone who was found leaking information that would embarrass then national Government they would be dismissed and penalised.
Perhaps now labour need to do this also.
Suicide and mental health are fraught issues when trying to apportion blame for a death – there are always many causes with non one person or organisation responsible, and trying to decide who exactly is at fault when the patient is often determine upon suicide, is a pointless waste of time and money.
WhaT I would like to know is whether or not the DHB has or had the legal authority to hold the patient against his will. If not , constant supervision would entail a staff member following him wherever he chose to go; be it Wellington, Dunedin or Timbuktu. The staff probably couldn’t do that legally either . Does anyone know the answer to this?
D J S
No one has answered my question yet.
I understand it was the insurance company that required the re -assessment . If they know that the DHB does not have the power to prevent a patient from leaving, does not have the funding for a staff member to accompany every inmate at all times, then eliminating the possibility of this horrible eventuality is not within their power. And the law probably requires them to have an insurance company cover for such liability instead of the government covering it. It might well be that they cannot continue to provide a service at all if they can be held responsible for eventualities that they don’t have the power to control.
Does anyone know the answer?
D J S
What I’m about to say may disturb some people so advisory in place.
Our health system has been designed to make people sick, and eventually kill anyone (via stress) who takes it to task. It’s a closed club of people who know better and don’t ever make mistakes – I know irony rich comment that one.
The problem is people have the impression that the exposure of “the unfortunate experiment” actually changed anything. Or as a crusader yourself, you can do what those brave women did exposing the insanity within the health service.
You can, sort of, but it comes with a price, sickness, heartbreak, stress and in some cases – death.
My point is simple – this will not work. It’s been designed that it won’t work. And unless there is fundamental structural change on health delivery and responsibility in this country – all you will do is damage your health.
Sorry, friends, the Prime Minister is too busy being PM and running the country (as a whole, as John Key, Helen Clark and others did), and Minister Little is too busy being a Minister.
Wake up, they are IN GOVERNMENT now, business as usual, the election and made promises are HISTORY now.
Dave, Jane and Tony, so sorry this is happening when it was apparently resolved. The DHB CEO and chair are immoral and gutless to reneg on their promises to you, incredibly so their insurance company can save money. Your letter to Little and Ardern shows it is a political problem which they need to fix. Others of us should send letters of support, send a clear message that another coroner’s inquiry is not acceptable. The first inquiry did the job.