"*" indicates required fields
‘I’m even more concerned’: A survivor’s response to the final abuse in care report
Despite the many, many recommendations in today’s final inquiry report, there are still some glaring omissions, writes Steve Goodlass.
I’ve previously been critical about the abuse in care inquiry’s productivity and the actual independence of the inquiry process. The final report and its recommendations haven’t shifted that viewpoint – in fact, I’m even more concerned than before.
One of the most important outcomes that survivors needed from this inquiry was a clear path through the civil courts. It’s on record now with the inquiry that in the first decade of this century, the Crown deliberately and systematically sought to test its litigation strategy, set precedent and sew up any remaining holes in statute. A civil litigation attempt by survivors is blocked due to statutes of limitation, the ACC bar (which prevents anyone technically covered by ACC from engaging in a civil suit) and the question of vicarious liability, let alone the enormous cost involved in taking a civil suit against an entity with limitless budget.
Recommendations 75, 78 and 79 of the 2021 redress report dealt with the recommendation for reform of the limitations acts, a lifting of the ACC bar in these specific cases, and for the Law Commission to review any other obstacles to civil litigation, recommend corrective steps and report back within 12 months. The final report neither reinforces or follows up on this. Instead, it lets the Crown off the hook with recommendation 11. Here it says that “If the government does not progress the inquiry’s recommended civil litigation reforms (holistic redress recommendations 75 and 78 from the inquiry’s interim report”, it should reform the ACC act to provide tailored compensation and other suitable remedies.” The status quo with the Crown holding all the power remains.
