Tim Beveridge: Labour sex scandal butt-covering and the art of due process

COMMENT

"Process" is such an uninspiring word.

But get it wrong, and the consequences can be severe.

Just ask the Labour Party leadership following the sexual assault scandal which has enveloped it and led, among other things, to the resignation of its President Nigel Haworth.

Many will be wondering where it all went wrong.

It is interesting to note Haworth himself has stood by his earlier statements that he had not been made aware of the full nature of the allegations made by the complainant known as "Sarah".

If that's the case, then his resignation doesn't carry as much meaning as one where there was at least some mea culpa or admission of fault. Instead, it is arguably another meaningless political gesture aimed at stemming the tidal wave of criticism which has threatened to overwhelm the party leadership.

So, what went wrong?

I can't escape the conclusion that the motivation and priorities attached to the whole process were flawed from the start.

It's not enough to go through the motions. There must be a real and sincere intention and desire to get to the bottom of any grievance. To find the truth.

That's not easy when the over-riding priority is political butt-covering.

It's hard to see how that particular motive wasn't the elephant in the room and the
dominant consideration in this case. Can you see any evidence at any stage of the process, which indicates anyone genuinely cared about the best interests of the complainant? Did anyone really stop and say to Sarah – we really want to know your story?

Maybe at the heart of it all, is the issue created by the often-spouted rhetoric that one should always "believe the victim". The problem with this is that it implies a rush to judgment. That implication being that there can be no defence to any allegation as you've already indicated which side you believe before hearing all the evidence. Given it was apparently a valued member of their team, is it any wonder everyone stuck the fingers in their ears and went "la-la-la-la"…. Better not to know perhaps?

And forget this nonsense about the allegation being so serious that it could only be a matter for the police. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

There is a huge difference between a criminal trial as opposed to a civil proceeding such as that undertaken by Labour.

For one thing, a criminal trial imposes the far more onerous burden of proof of "beyond reasonable doubt" compared with civil cases which are determined on the balance of probabilities.

Criminal proceedings also have much stricter rules of evidence, which would likely exclude consideration of other evidence of bad behaviour from other complainants. This would have left Sarah's case very much in isolation – leaving her armed with little more than "he-said-she-said". Is it any wonder a complainant or victim might seek a more sympathetic form of redress?

Either way – the fact that a complaint contains potentially criminal conduct does not excuse any organisation from following its own processes.

Ultimately, the failure of that process has done a colossal disservice to everyone involved.

Not just to Sarah, but also the alleged perpetrator and the party leadership, with everyone now being subjected to the dreaded trial by media and public speculation.

Astonishingly, at the time of writing this, it appears the review by QC Maria Dew does not cover the processes carried out to date for Sarah. Surely that is essential, if there really is a desire to do better for victims in the future.

It looks like Labour is set on learning its lessons the hard way.

• Tim Beveridge is a talkback host with Newstalk ZB, with a law degree from the University of Otago and previously practised as a barrister and solicitor.