A 'Stop editing Victim Impact Statements' petition was handed to National MP Barbara Kuriger (left) by SSGT member Trish Fabish (right) outside parliament last week. Photo / Supplied
A 'Stop editing Victim Impact Statements' petition was handed to National MP Barbara Kuriger (left) by SSGT member Trish Fabish (right) outside parliament last week. Photo / Supplied
A petition pushing for courts to allow the reading of unedited victim impact statements has been described by Rotorua lawyers and a victims' advocate as too risky.
One Rotorua defence lawyer says judges "bend over backwards" to allow victims to speak freely, and only a small percentage of statements are edited for good reasons.
The petition, organised by Sensible Sentencing Group Trust member Trish Fabish, was handed to National MP Barbara Kuriger Parliament's steps last Thursday.
Fabish's nephew Aaron Roigard, 27, was murdered by his father David Roigard in 2014.
Fabish launched the "Stop editing Victim Impact Statements" online petition last year and it received 2637 signatures, including some from overseas, she said.
She said too many victim statements were edited, including hers, and victims should be allowed to speak more freely about the harm and loss they felt.
Open up the latest news from Rotorua
Get daily headlines from the Rotorua region straight to your inbox.
The trust's national victim advocate manager Jayne Walker said victims not being able to speak freely was "frustrating and unhelpful", particularly around the healing process.
"There is so much power in words and victims are just asking for the right to say what they want to say in their own words within reason.
"We are not asking for the right to swear or be disrespectful to the court but we are asking for the process to be fairer for all."
A woman who was stalked in Puarenga Park and faced her offender, Rongopai Pene, in court at his sentencing hearing, said she supported the petition.
The woman, who can't be named for legal reasons, said she was glad she read her victim impact statement in the Rotorua District Court before Pene was jailed for two years and seven months.
However, she said the statement was not entirely what she wanted to say.
She re-wrote it numerous times and ran it past Victim Support and the court's victim's adviser to make sure it was what she was "allowed" to say.
"My statement was not what I actually wanted to say to him. It felt like the way he made me feel didn't matter at all, that I couldn't be as angry with him as I wanted.
"Had I had the opportunity there would have been a lot stronger words used."
The woman also said this added to her overall feeling with the court process that victims were not cared for in the system.
Rotorua defence lawyer Scott Mills said, generally speaking, victim impact statements were edited because they contained "inappropriate or irrelevant material" that went well beyond what the offender was convicted of.
Mills said only a small percentage of victim impact statements were heavily edited.
"In my experience judges bend over backwards to give victims as much allowance as they can to talk about the effects on them and their families.
Generally speaking, he said "it should not be the chance for name-calling nor victims making abusive or inappropriate or defamatory statements about the offender or their family members.
"The process cannot be allowed to descend into some kind of sideshow where people can say what they like unchecked."
Rotorua defence lawyer Rob Vigor Brown. Photo / File
Rotorua defence lawyer Rob Vigor Brown said the trust's move "surprised" him.
"In my experience, victim impact statements invariably convey the victim's distress and hurt. Even now some victim impact reports are quite strident, and understandably so.
"But a measure of control by the police and Crown is needed so these reports are fairly, concisely and fully put before the court," he said.
"The other thing we have to remember is allowing unedited victim impact statements could diminish the mana of the court and that would be unacceptable."
Victims and survivors advocate Louise Nicholas. Photo / File
Victims' advocate Louise Nicholas said, in her experience, most the time judges allowed victim impact statements to be read without a lot of redaction.
Nicholas said in the Bay of Plenty area the main issue was when people tried to include inappropriate comments and some victims used swear words in their statements.
"There is so much power in actually telling the person literally to their face of the harm they have done, without the need to swear or be disrespectful to themselves or the court."
Nicholas believed victims could still say what they wanted to say using strong words but without swearing or "flipping out" which sent a far more powerful message.
Rotorua Crown solicitor Amanda Gordon said she was not saying there was no room for improvement but some victims' expectations of this process were in her view "unrealistic".
"I think the court has come a long way, particularly in the past two years in regards to victims' rights and their opportunity to read their victim impact statements.
"Obviously, the difficult thing for victims is when they're told they cannot say a particular thing because it is inappropriate or irrelevant to the matter before the court."
Gordon said unvetted victim impact statements also risked people introducing defamatory comments or highly prejudicial or untrue comments.
"The process cannot be a carte blanche right for victims to say want they want for these reasons," she said.
Victim Support chief executive Kevin Tso said the organisation encouraged the government to hear the concerns of victims and look at how the process can be improved.
"The victim impact statement can be the only voice they get, so being told what you can and can't say in it just compounds the feelings of hurt and exclusion victims are already experiencing.
"Our own research in this area tells us that preparing a victim impact statement can be therapeutic and powerful for many, but those benefits are lost if victims are substantively constrained by what they can say," he said.
In a written statement, Minister of Justice Kris Faafoi said he was aware of the issue and was getting advice from officials.
