184. This chapter reviews evidence of documented complaints of abuse and neglect received by the deaf schools and the State after 1999.

1999 to 2001 complaints

185. In June 1999, the Principal of Kelston, Eileen Smith, received a complaint from a staff member that a residential social worker had hit or acted in a physically threatening manner toward a student on three separate occasions. Ms Smith considered that the residential social worker had hit the child. The person was given a warning that any similar conduct in future could result in dismissal.[146]

186. In July 2001, Kelston CEO David Foster received a complaint from a female staff member about the same social worker touching her inappropriately on more than one occasion, and verbally abusing her.[147] The social worker denied the allegations. The outcome of the independent investigation was unclear, although the social worker continued in his role at Kelston. A month later another staff member made a complaint about the same social worker who they had observed, was extremely agitated while telling off boys in class, to the point of physical assaults. They complained because they thought the situation could get out of hand and expressed concern about that person’s ability to manage his anger.[148] The outcome of this complaint is unclear from the documentation.

2002 complaints

187. In March 2002, Van Asch received complaints that a teacher had smacked a child’s hand because she had her fingers in her mouth, and smacked another child on the foot because she had her legs on her chair. Concerns were also raised about the teacher yelling loudly at the class. The teacher received a formal warning and was advised that further incidents could result in dismissal.[149]

188. In October 2002, Van Asch received a further complaint about the same teacher from a trainee teacher in regard to incidents witnessed in August 2002.[150] The trainee teacher said that the teacher had hit one individual hard on the shoulder and hit another on the arm and tipped out the contents of her pencil case. The complainant said there were short bursts of temper in the classroom and observed that some children were fearful of him. The complainant was concerned about how this was affecting the children’s learning. The principal concluded that the matter was an “unfortunate accident” that constituted ‘misconduct’ rather than serious misconduct.[151] The matter was not referred to the school’s board for further consideration.

Multiple complaints about Kelston teacher Mr 222

189. Several survivors named a Kelston teacher, Mr 222, whom they allege physically assaulted and terrorised them during the 1970s and 1980s. Complaints were made by survivors to NZ Police, with later civil claims brought against the Crown, however no criminal prosecution has been brought against Mr 222.

190. On 2 October 1991, the Ministry of Education received a letter from the parents of a individual alleging that Mr 222 had physically assaulted their son. The letter said that Mr 222 had created so much fear in their child that he had threatened to take his own life if he was sent back to the teacher. The parents had met with the school and were not happy with the response to the complaint.[152] The Inquiry has not received any evidence of the Ministry of Education’s response, or any action taken in response to the letter, and assumes there was none.

191. In 1993, a complaint was made to NZ Police by Kelston Principal Eileen Smith alleging that Mr 222 had struck a child to get her attention. The principal investigated and found that Mr 222 had struck the student on the side of the head to stop her misbehaving. Ms Smith found that Mr 222’s conduct was “seriously unacceptable behaviour” and in breach of Kelston’s rules on corporal punishment. The principal gave Mr 222 a final written warning and stated any further incidents could result in dismissal.[153] In 2000, a NZ Police officer took a statement from Ms Smith about Mr 222.[154] From the documentation received, it appears that no action was taken by NZ Police against Mr 222 in relation to this complaint.

192. In November 2008, a group of survivors met with a police constable (who had been learning New Zealand Sign Language and about Deaf culture) and a qualified New Zealand Sign Language interpreter to discuss allegations that multiple survivors had been physically and verbally abused by Mr 222. A subsequent NZ Police report stated: “This report relates to a large number of Deaf people who are wanting to come forward and make a complaint about physical abuse / assault that occurred on them during their school years [1970s – 1980s].” The report listed the many instances of alleged physical abuse as well as several instances of inappropriate sexual behaviour. The report noted that some principals and teachers had witnessed the alleged physical abuse, but nothing was ever done about removing the teacher. The group wanted Mr 222 held accountable for his actions and ideally wanted to see him arrested, charged and jailed: “To date there are at least 80 Deaf people wanting to make a complaint about [Mr 222] and this list is growing regularly.”[155] The report was to be forwarded to a detective for follow-up action.

193. NZ Police told the Inquiry that they considered the initial meeting between NZ Police and survivors to be an informal discussion with the group about their options should they wish to make a formal complaint, but they did not consider the meeting to be a formal complaint and hence did nothing further to investigate the allegations.[156] NZ Police Commissioner Andrew Coster gave evidence at the Inquiry’s State Institutional Response Hearing: “I understand there was a misunderstanding about next steps in terms of where the initiative sat for what would happen next and that the officer’s belief was that there was a larger list of names to come, and beyond that it was not followed up, which clearly is a miss on our part.”[157] Commissioner Coster accepted this was a failing by NZ Police.

194. In 2010, the Confidential Listening and Assistance Service contacted NZ Police on behalf of the group of survivors to follow up on the status of their complaint. However, it was not until July 2012 that the file was reassigned to a detective constable to investigate the complaint. NZ Police have acknowledged this was an unacceptable delay.[158]

195. The evidence available to the Inquiry indicates that in 2012 the investigator did not seek to take a statement or conduct an evidential interview with any of the survivors yet decided that the complaints did not meet the threshold to proceed to trial.[159] Commissioner Coster was asked for comment on why the complainants weren’t spoken to and whether this was an adequate investigation: “It doesn’t reflect the kind of depth we would expect to see in an investigation of this kind, and which I believe we would see in an investigation of this kind today.”[160]

196. Several survivors later brought civil claims against the Crown for harm caused by Mr 222’s conduct. The Inquiry understands that some of these claims have been settled by the Crown.

Footnotes

[146] Letter from Kelston Principal Eileen Smith to a social worker about hitting allegation (17 June 1999).