Fina? Repar? by ?E?he Cnmmissioner far Ch??mn mm a. commath against Department 6f Chiiei, Youth an? Fam?y Service Han Raga?? McCan Aagust 209G a COMPLAINT The Office of the CommiSaioner for Children received a complaint from Mr Lagfatznaro on the 11 January 1999. Mr Lagfatrnaro complained that 4 young people who were attending a "supervision with residence? programme on Great Barrier Island, were being subjected to cruel and inhuman treatment. He stated that the Whakapakarl Trust Director was aware of this treatment and encouraged it. His specific concerns related to four young people (who had absconded from the Trust) 9 being placed on Whangarara Isiand overnight without food or water after they were apprehended that whilst on the island a launch circled the island for 2 days. An occupant of the launch yelled abuse at them and threatened them with a firearm. The boys requested they be returned to the camp as they were very fearful of their safety a the boys were subsequently returned to Mangati Bay and were told that they would have to work for the owner of the boat they had stolen and damaged. The launch owner met with them on the wharf on their return 9 it is alleged that the boys were threatened by the owner?s two Rottweiler dogs at this point and that one of the boy?s was bitten on the hand a it is alleged that the boys wer handed over to the launch owner and that the member of staff dealing with them would not allow them to be accompanied by the supervisor as they had requested and as was policy the boys were returned to the camp at 4.30pm and told the complainant that they had been taken to the man?s property and forced to line up with their backs facing him and were then verbally abused and has rifle shots fired around them. Two of the boys urinated in their clothing through fear a the boys allege they were given spades and told to dig holes at the edge of the bush and told these were to be "big enough to bury you?. The boys spent the afternoon digging without food or water a - the boys claim that they were in fear throughout the entire incident that they could be killed 9 the complainant says that on reporting his concerns to the member of staff involved he was told that the boys had brought these matters on themselves because of their behaviour JURISDICTION Pursuant to section 411(1) of the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act, the Commissioner for Children has the statutory authority to "investigate any decision or recommendation made or any act done or omitted under this Act in respect of any child or young person in that child?s or young persons personal capacity?; and Section 411 (I) confers "the power to monitOr or assess the policies or practices of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services.? I am also guided in my investigations by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. - peas. CHRONOLO GY 11.1.99 21.1.99 5.2.99 8.2.99 15.2.99 26.2.99 5.3.99 6.4.99 4.5.99 17.5.99 12.5.99 31.5.99 ti: 9/6/99 29.6.99 12.7.99 12.7.99 12.7.99 16.7.99 9.8.99 Complaint received outlining that 4 young peeple who had absconded from the Programme were "subjected to unnecessary and sadistic acts of terrorism in the guise of punishment?. The complainant alleges that the young people were threatened with and had a gun fired around them; and that they were forced to dig a "hole deep enough to bury themselves in?. Letters from the Office of the Commissioner for Children to both the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services and the Police. The Office of the Commissioner for Children requests from Mr Lagfatmaro names of boys involved for the Police to trace. Letter received from Police stating matter to be referred to Senior Sergeant Bartlett Further information received from Mr Lagfatmaro Letter from Police containing report from Constable McGillivray who had been sole Constable at Gt Barrier at the time Report received from the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services outlining the results of their report into the matter Feedback from the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services report forwarded to Mr Lagfatrnaro reSponse received from Mr Lagfatmaro diSputing many of points raised by the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services Letter received from another person Who had supervised the young people at that time also disputing contents of CYF report summary sent to Police Phone calls to Bob Newson, Human Rights Commission and Police Response from Police with subsequent report from Constable McGillivray Summary of the Office of the Commissioner for Children?s responses to the Separtment of Child, Youth and Family Services in which discrepancies in reports are aired Letter to Police requesting formal intervention into incidents on Gt Barrier Island Mr Lagfatmaro and other supervisor informed Acknowledgement received from the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services Telephone contact with Patti Green of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services advising that those who did the report (Rob Harper) were satisfied that the young people on the isiand were GK and that the original report from Police siad the same. Wanted to know why we were reinvestigating as aiiegations against de Silva?s was blatantly untrue as John De Silva has great maria with young people 12.8.99 Meeting with Patti Green. She was wanting to know why the Police were reopening the investigation. She was unaware of the discrepancies between the latest Police report and the CYF investigation. 16.9.99 Poiice advise they are having dif?culty locating the young people involved 30.9.99 Letter to the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services seeking assistance in locating young people a Subsequent report from the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. From this time onwards contact was made with the Police in an endeavonr to get further informatiOn from them. Phone calls were made to the Police to get further updates. Due to Police investigating a homicide inquiry, the final report from the Police into this matter was received on 31 July 2000. INVESTIGATION The investigation by the Office of the Commissioner for Children began on 11 January 1999 on receipt of the complaint from Mr Lagfattnaro. The key concerns in the complaint are highlighted at the beginning of this report. This office has not Spoken directly with the boys concerned. The only information we have from them, is via the complainant and the Police report where one young person has given a Police statement. This was for the most part consistent with, and corroborated the allegations made by Mr Lagfatmaro. One half statement was made by one young person, one refused to co?operate and the fourth young person, in Australia, was not pursued further. The Police state "the allegations made by Lagfatmaro and some extent supported by at least one of the boys may well have some truth to them. Nevertheless I would not be prepared to pursue a prosecution with evidence of this standard Specifically the unco?operative and unreliabie nature of the four complainants?. There has been a iarge amount of correspondence given to my office by the compiainant. There has also been some correspondence from another past employee. The Department of Child, Youth and Family Services have provided cOpies of reports that they have done into the allegations. These reports differ somewhat to the information I have. I have also studied the criteria for the vetting of caregivers in these settings DISCUSSEON AND FINDINGS The basis of the complaint concerned the treatment of young people, placed in the care of the Chief Executive of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, under "supervision with residence?. The complainant Specificain cited that the young people were being subjected to degrading and inhuman treatment whilst at the Whakapakiri Programme. Specifically, being made to dig holes "big enough to bury them in? and having gunshots fired around them etc. The allegations made by the complainant are extremely serious. Due to the contradictory information from all parties involved in this complaint, I sought a further review of the Trust by the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. They would not provide a review of the legislative and practice procedures of the Trust citing 2 reviews within the last 2 years as the reason for not doing so. They stated that each of the reviews cleared the Trust of any wrong doing. Recommendations made have been instigated. CYF state in their letter dated 6 December 1999, that "the young people at Whakapakari comprise some of the most disturbed, anti-social youths that the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services social workers and police encounter?. That, however, does not give anyone the right to treat them inhumaner or cruelly. If the allegations are correct then both the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act, 1989 have been breached. The recent report of the investigation by the Police, still leaves me concerned. There continue to be contradictions within this from information given by Mr De Silva. CYP state that Mr da Silva alleged that the Police were actually the ones that arranged and supervised the boys whilst they were at the launch owner?s place. In the latest report from the Police, Mr Da Silva now states that the Police did not have anything to do with this. The Police report states that the launch owner?s dog was a Doberman not a Rottweiler, and they denied that any of the boys were bitten. The local Police Officer at the time was not aware that anyone had been bitten either. CYF argue that it would be too dangerous for boats to circle the island Where the boys were placed after absconding. The complainant stated that the laimch owners circled the island and threatened the boys with ri?es etc. The launch owners have admitted to the Police that they did visit the boys on the island as they wanted to locate a watch that they allege the boys stole. The information provided to the Commissioner for Children by the complainant, Mr Lagfatmaro and Mr Duke Wilson, paint a different picture from that given to CYF and the Police. Mr Lagfatmaro was told by "Hone" a supervisor, that the owner of the launch for whom the boy?s were to do some work as reparation for what they did "did not want a supervisor to be present, only the boy's themselves. I then said to Hone that I had assured the boy?s that I would accompany them as per the ?Supervisors handbook?. The Commissioner for Children has viewed this article. Hone repeated "no, you are not just the boys. On their return the they felt betrayed by me because I had not gone with them. Two boys had urinated in their clothes?. The Police investigation states that the launch owner was under the impression that the Supervisor (Mr Lagfatmaro) check on the boys from time-to -?time during the day?. This never occurred and the supervisor was still on the wharf when the boys were returned to the wharf 4~5 hours later. The launch owner?s partner did not give the boys food during the day but they were offered water. Mr De Silva states that Mr Lagfatmaro was dropped off at the wharf as he was expecting to meet a visitor and he was instructed to check on the boys who were his responsibility. In the Police report Mr De Silva states that neither the boys nor the supervisor made any mention of the allegations to him at the time. The boys were also spoken to by the police Officer several days later and still no mention was made of the allegations. According to Mr Lagfatmaro, he, Mr Wilson and Mr Daniel raised the issue of the boys care and protection and treatment with the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. An investigation was made. They were not satisfied with the report done by the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. They were concerned that none of the boys were mtewiewed nor were any of the supervisors or the Police Officer. The only ones interviewed appear to be the Da Silva?s. As can be seen there are a number of conflicting versions of the events. Given the discrepancies, I am therefore unable to make any findings in this matter. However, wish to conclude my report by stating that, any organisation or institution that has children or young people in their care must ensure that there are systems in place that will protect them or be available to them if they feel/or are being threatened by anyone. The isolated nature and location of Trust?s such as Whakapakari makes it even more imperatiVe for the safety of all, that procedures are in place to address issues such as this. ?aw Roger McClay Commissioner for Children