The Press
January 9 2002
Law firm in bid for sex abuse cases
By Andrew Moffat
A Christchurch law firm has
sent out one million leaflets touting for business from sexual abuse victims
entitled to new ACC payments.
Critics say
the initiative highlights ACC's vulnerability to fraudulent claims,
especially since claimants neither have to complain to the police nor name
their abuser.
Christchurch
law firm Wakefield Associates, a one-principal law firm in Riccarton
specialising in ACC claims, has done a nationwide mail-out urging victims of
sexual abuse to use its services.
The leaflet
points to victims potentially being eligible for one-off payments of up to
$25,000 and ongoing sums in excess of $150,000. The law firm charges 25 per
cent of any lump sum payment, plus all of the first quarterly payment.
The firm's
move anticipates the Injury Prevention and Rehabilitation Act, which comes
into force in April. It reintroduces a lump sum scheme similar to the one
dumped by the previous government.
When lump sum
payments for sexual assaults were last available the number of claims rose
from 221 in 1988 to 13,000 in 1993, when the payments were abolished.
Dunedin author Lynley Hood,
whose book on the Christchurch Civic Creche case, A City Possessed, casts
doubt on claims made under the previous lump sum scheme, said the
reintroduction of the scheme left the door open for widespread abuse.
The reliance
on counsellors who were poorly trained to diagnose genuine sexual abuse meant
there were few checks to prevent people making fraudulent claims: "It
really creates a gravy-train effect."
Victoria University criminologist Willem
de Lint said that judging by the past, the new legislation would cause a
budget blowout. "The problem is that people will follow the money. People
followed the money then, and there's no reason to suggest they won't follow
the money again," he said.
The
Government predicts the lump sum scheme will cost $60m a year.
ACC national
claims unit manager Gail Kettle said sexual abuse claimants had to fill out a
form with the help of their counsellor or general practitioner. While any
claims process was open to dishonesty, the integrity and skills of
counsellors and doctors were an adequate safeguard against false claims, she
said.
"What we
require is a detailed report and the mental injury they are suffering from.
From that we accept or reject the claim," she said.
The agency
had received many calls about the leaflet, which had opened old wounds for
many sexual abuse sufferers.
"A lot
of people who have suffered sexual abuse have found it (the leaflet)
offensive and distressing."
Claimants did
not need to use a lawyer to apply for entitlements, she said. Information was
freely available on request and all claims were dealt with sensitively.
Wakefield
Associates principal Garry Wakefield declined to be interviewed yesterday but
issued a statement explaining the leaflet drop.
Mr Wakefield
said ACC did not "proactively" inform sexual abuse victims of their
entitlements and it was important they were not neglected.
"I think
anyone who has been through what these people have been through should be
advised of their correct entitlements. They deserve the compensation
although, of course, nothing can fully compensate them for what they have
suffered."
It was
possible ACC was trying to discourage claimants from using its service
because of cost implications.
"If ACC
had properly advised claimants of all entitlements, particularly financial,
then we wouldn't have to go out and do it," he said.
Canterbury
District Law Society president Robert Perry said he could not comment on the
specific case because doing so could prejudice a possible complaint.
Advertising
by a law firm was governed by the rules of professional conduct for
barristers and solicitors, and as long as it adhered to general advertising
standards, a mailout was not a problem.
|
