Joanna Gash (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In an earlier statement to the House I spoke about the case of Nicole Robach, whose partner Michael Carey was murdered by Mr Rudzitis on 28 February 2005. Mr Rudzitis is presently incarcerated in the psychiatric wing of the Long Bay Gaol in Sydney at the pleasure of the New South Wales minister. Necessarily, I have had to deliver my statement in two parts, and this is the second part of that statement. Today I speak about the second aspect of her case—the role of the victim’s statement—but I do want to revisit the question of mental health and the assessment process at some later stage because this too has contributed to Ms Robach’s plight.

According to research by the New South Wales Parliamentary Library, the Charter of Victims Rights is an attempt to address grievances brought about by the process of the courts rather than the outcomes. These processes include delays, unnecessary continuances, risk of intimidation by the offenders, lack of information concerning the process and status of the case, insensitive criminal justice practitioners and victims’ lack of standing and voice in proceedings. These are mentioned frequently. In other words, these so-called rights are no more than an emotional sop and have virtually no impact on the case. And there is even some suggestion to the lay person that an expectation is created that their words actually have an impact on the sentence.

Nicole Robach has felt throughout that she was not being listened to, that she was alienated from the process and that she continues to be so. To help reach closure, she had sought court transcripts, particularly those relating to tape recordings of statements by the offender. She was able to access limited transcripts but, because the case is closed, she is no longer able to get them.

I suggest that, if this is a matter of public record, the New South Wales government should give consideration to making available a full transcript to victims like Ms Robach if this helps with the process of closure. According to the New South Wales government’s Lawlink, although fee-free access is available for judgements and written evidence in court proceedings, there is a fee that may be charged for all other transcripts. This is just another hurdle confronting the victim and this too should be reconsidered to assist with the rehabilitation of the victim. In an article in the Law Society Journal of September 1996, it was observed that the provisions of the Charter of Victims Rights only recommended that this information ‘should’ be received by the victim, whereas it is argued that this be made mandatory.

I am not critical of either the Mental Health Act or the Charter of Victims Rights per se. They have a role to play. But the system is wrong if the victim is expected to relive the killing of a loved one every six months. That is far from fair and just. The responsibility of the New South Wales parliament to their constituency is to ensure that the victims of crime do not become further victimised by the process. In that respect the Charter of Victims Rights has to be strengthened and made more relevant to the case at hand.

To paraphrase the previously quoted article: what is needed for the future is for the New South Wales government to follow up on the initiative of the crime bureau by closely monitoring its implementation and making appropriate adjustments where problems arise. There is a problem here, and the New South Wales government should respond accordingly.

Whilst this is a state problem, Ms Robach came to see me and I interviewed her very carefully on this matter. As a politician, we see and hear many things, but this case really broke me up. To see this woman, the mother of two children, have to relive a crime that caused the murder of her partner and the father to their two children simply because it is the law that every six months she has to explain why Mr Rudzitis, the murderer, should not be released is inhumane, and the law must be amended.