Link to pdf
version of this letter (pdf 244KB)
NZ Police
Paul Fitzharris, Superintendent
for Region Commander
3 March 1994
Mr W H Wealleans
Christchurch
Mr R Keys
Christchurch
Dear Messrs Wealleans and Keys
CIVIC CHILD CARE CENTRE
INVESTIGATION AND THE DOCUMENT - "A REVIEW OF THE MANAGEMENT POLICY AND
PRACTICES OF THE CIVIC CHILD CARE CENTRE"
With reference to your letter dated 4 February 1994 you asked a number of
questions and to answer them fully I will deal with each question
chronologically.
"On 18 March 1992
Smart met with Civic staff as a group.
She produced transcripts of staff statements which they had made to
Police on an earlier date. She read them and then offered the staff the
opportunity at the beginning of their interviews with her to re-read their
statements and tell her if there was anything they would like to say
differently or would like to add."
Ms Smart
met informally with the staff of the Civic Creche on 18 March 1992 - this was
at a monthly staff meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to introduce herself
to the staff and explain the purpose of the review. Ms Smart has advised me
that during this meeting staff members requested that she read the statements
that they had made to the Police as they felt they did not accurately describe
what they intended to say. Ms Smart did not have possession of any statements
on 18 March. In the statement taken from
Ms Smart on 18 November 1992 she explains that at the commencement of each
interview with staff members she offered them the opportunity to read their
statement and tell her if there was anything they would like to say differently
or add to it.
1 "Was Smart a private individual, a sworn or unsworn
member of Police, a special constable or Police representative?
"Explain criteria and circumstances for appointment of special constables,
Police representatives or investigators."
Ms Smart was
employed by the Christchurch City Council to conduct a review examining the
management and supervision practices of the Civic Child Care Centre and make
recommendations for any changes that needed to be made. Ms Smart at no time was
a sworn or unsworn member of Police, special constable or Police representative
in any way.
2 "Was it
permitted, accepted or normal Police practice for private (assumed)
individuals, such as Smart, to obtain the staff's (some of whom were suspects)
statements?”
"Quote the applicable statute, regulation or rule permitting this."
Ms Smart was given
access to witnesses statements made by staff members from the Civic Creche at
the request of the persons who had made the statements. At the time the
statements were made and given to Ms Smart, all staff members of the Civic
Creche, with the exception of P M H Ellis, were being treated as witnesses
only.
3 "Was Smart
investigating on behalf of the Police?"
Ms Smart was
contracted by the Christchurch City Council and was not investigating on behalf
of the Police.
4 "Who in the
Police approved supply to Smart of staff's statements?"
"Supply name, rank and number."
The Police are
unable to ascertain who released the statements but it would be quite proper
for a person who had made a statement to the Police as a witness to request a
copy either for themselves or for another person, normally a solicitor.
5 "Who in the
Police delivered to Smart the staff's statements?"
"Supply name, rank and number".
Constable D Smith
C022 delivered the statements to Ms Smart in March
1992. The exact date is unknown.
6 "On which date
did Smart take delivery?"
The statements were
delivered to Ms Smart sometime after 3 June 1992 as they were returned on 30
June 1992.
7 "On which date
did Smart return to Police staff's statements?"
See above.
8 "Does Smart
still have any staff statements?"
Ms Smart returned
all statements given to her.
9 "Was Smart
permitted to show, discuss or question staff's statements with other
parties?"
Ms Smart had
possession of the statements at the request of the persons who had made the
statements and to whom she showed the statements.
"What were the conditions or
guarantees covering this?"
Ms Smart had possession of the statements for the purpose of assisting her
in her interviews with the staff members of the Civic Creche.
10 "In addition to
Smart, who else was supplied statements or other information?"
"State names and reasons and quote statute, regulation or rule permitting
this."
The only other
persons permitted to view or possess any documents on the enquiry file, other
than Police and the authors of the statements, were solicitors acting for
parties involved in the enquiry.
11 "Were the Police
aware of any terms of reference or brief covering Smart's conduct of the
review?"
"Supply copies or details."
The Police were not
aware of the terms of reference or brief covering the conduct of her review as
it was a matter between her and the Council.
12 "Did those terms of that brief state any requirement on
Smart to investigate any matters already being investigated by the Police then
or in the future?"
In the statement
taken from Ms Smart in November 1992 she states that she was not charged with
apportioning blame for any lack of supervisory practice that may have
contributed to the alleged sexual abuse at the centre. Nor could she disregard
the fact that on some occasions when concerns were voiced by parents and
children, no action or inadequate action was taken by those in charge.
13 "Was Smart
permitted to offer the opportunity to amend, alter or expand
on those statements?"
"Quote statute, regulation or rule permitting this."
Ms Smart was acting
in her capacity as a consultant to the City Council and was entirely at liberty
to ask whatever questions she liked of the staff employed at the Civic Creche.
14 "Was Smart, on
her presentation of statements and her invitation to staff to amend, alter or
expand on those statements, obliged to advise staff of rights?"
Ms Smart was not a
person in authority in terms of the rules of evidence and not obliged to advise
staff of their rights.
15 "Did any staff
amend, alter, add or expand on their statements?"
The statements were
returned to the Police unaltered.
16 "What would be
the status of those amendments, alterations or expansions - sworn, unsworn
legal, illegal or whatever?"
If such amendments
were made it would be quite proper to adduce such statements in evidence if the
person who made the statement was a defendant in criminal proceedings.
17 "Did the Police,
in considering their involvement with Smart, view Smart's involvement in
counselling and therapy through her directorship of the Presbyterian Support
Services Campbell Centre as compatible?"
The Police
involvement with Ms Smart was that of a witness after she had been contracted
by the Christchurch City Council to conduct a review of the Civic Creche.
18 "Did the Police consider a possible conflict of
interest?"
The Police
involvement with Ms Smart, other than the supply of the staff statements, did
not arise until late 1992 by which time her report had been prepared and
submitted to the Council.
19 "Were the Police
aware of any involvement by the
The Campbell Centre
was not involved in the counselling of complainant children and parents during
the period of the Civic Creche enquiry.
Yours
faithfully
Paul Fitzharris
Superintendent
for Region Commander
Search Terms: Paul Fitzharris, Rosemary Smart, Campbell Centre, Christchurch
City Council, Civic Childcare, Presbyterian Support Services, Civic Creche