escalating violence in our community Become a member of the Sensible Sentencing Trust

Mouseover links or blue arrows below for full page descriptions

This is my personal submission in relation to the inquiry into victim's rights. I request to be heard in support of this submission. Please consider hearing our submissions in Hamilton.

1. I learnt at a deep level the ramifications of the Justice System of New Zealand. Having been through the justice system as a mother of a son who was the victim of an arsonist, which resulted in him losing his life while living, and then subsequently murdered three years later because of that lifestyle, by killers unknown to him,

2. Those affected by murder know there is no real justice so we expect justice to be done to the fullest measure. The hardest thing to face was the murder of our son Shannon Jon McComb and then the subsequent knowledge of the injustices of the justice system. When those in authority ignore the suffering of victims who live or die at the hands of brutality, they are increasing the unacceptability the victims already face.

3. Victims are not well served by the present justice system, which is more heavily weighted in the favour of offenders. We experienced the unrepentant attitude of the Crown Law Office who told us New Zealand justice is geared for the offender. That may be a shameful fact but is not an arguable excuse for doing an inadequate job and not prosecuting to the full letter of the law and should not be the case in sentencing after offenders have been found guilty.

4. There appears to be more accountability for high profile crime in the public eye through media. Justice should not be structured by a high or low public profile and then interpreted and moderated by those in authority. Shannon's case emphasises the dangers of working within the confines and barriers prone to judging worth.

5. We lost Shannon to the brutality of this world and the treatment we received on Shannon's journey to justice was wrong if it were normal, and wrong if it were not normal. They got it wrong about Shannon Jon McComb and did not expect him to have people standing behind him who could interpret the law and would fight to bring about accountability for the injustices and indignities he suffered.

6. Those who hold these positions of authority need to be held accountable in some way when they deny the victim their rights in a court of law. The system holds only a semblance of justice and can be worsened by substandard work. Poor decisions made at a lower level of authority cause irreversible unacceptable Court Judgments to be made. Imbalance in charging has no accountability and the unacceptable consequences to victims weaken their already shattered world. The arsonist was prosecuted after Shannon's death and given an inappropriate charge due to inadequate decision-making. We were ignored and not treated as victims by Police and denied our legislated rights, which was aided and abetted by a Prosecutor who in our opinion did not do her job under the victim rights legislation.

7. There needs to be responsibility taken for accountability on those prosecuting on behalf of the public to insure victims are adequately represented. The injustices to Shannon highlight the absence of accountability. For example in our case the Judge could be given a duty to make sure impact statements are sought. If there is no accountability there needs to be a balanced structure allowing the inadequacy to be put right.

8. My son walked a path that defied most and sharing that journey with him I can speak resoundingly and factually from our experience and have drawn the conclusion. Shannon McComb did not go through the Justice System but suffered the indignities of the Injustice System of New Zealand.

9. Through our experience of constant battles with those holding authority we questioned if the New Zealand Justice System had designed the law for such unjust treatment? Victims should be given a fair say in a court of Law and should not have to battle the system for their legislated rights. As victims of a murder the Prosecutor and Police blocked our say and we had to fight for what was already legislated.

10. Victims need a voice within the Crown Law Office over the prosecution of the offenders. No one is more affected than the victims of murder regardless of what the public is told.

The Shannon Jon Mc Comb Story:

In October 2000 Shannon was one of two victims of arson at Fitzgerald Ave. The result of the fire was: Both were placed in medically induced comas for a week because of serious damage to their airways and lungs. R J died in hospital as an indirect result of his injuries from treatment given. Shannon's hands were burnt raw, with fourth degree burns to his left one and serious burns to his face lips and right hand. Shannon was crippled and unable to live inside a dwelling again due to the psychological damage of being trapped upstairs on fire.

He became homeless and a target of stereotypical belief. People unknown to him murdered him three years later, execution style noted as a hate crime by the appeal Judge. That fire cost Shannon his life while living and helped the murderers to kill him. Shannon like R J also died as an indirect result of the fire lit by the arsonist.

Affects On Shannon's Life
That fire deliberately started was a gross indecency on Shannon's life and the effects debilitated him physically emotionally and psychologically for the rest of his life. After the fire Shannon's appearance changed dramatically and this handsome young mans rapid decay of appearance affected him and all who knew him. He became a homeless recluse, fearing what society would do to him, wearing a uniform of dispossession and was shunned, targeted, taunted and called a freak on many occasions.

Fire Impact on Shannon and Our Family
We remember vividly the day we were told Shannon was in Christchurch hospital intensive care with near fatal injuries from a fire and told he may not be alive when we arrived. Within an hour we flew from Hamilton to Christchurch with other family members following later. We stayed for two weeks I was asked to stay on to calm Shannon. Shannon was in an induced coma for the damage to his lungs and airways for a week. When Shannon was woken it was obvious he was suffering serious psychological damage and I described his actions as a frightened trapped animal.

Upon release from intensive care Shannon left hospital in a taxi wearing only a hospital gown and was forcibly brought back and a guard placed at his door. Shannon left hospital early two weeks later and needed extensive medical treatment and care but could not care for himself properly mainly due to lack of dexterity with both his hands.

The fire also caused his gums to melt which caused the rapid decay of his teeth, which ACC refused to cover until we took them to court proving the fire caused the damage. Imagine one toothache, and then intensify that to a mouthful of decaying rotting teeth to begin to understand why Shannon began self-medicating himself with Poppy seed tea. This self-medicating and his crippled hands caused his inability to care for himself, becoming impossible to have his teeth fixed and for dentists to want to help him. Shannon lost his esteem and worth not having a smile to enhance his face because of decayed rotting teeth, hence becoming a disfigured psychologically damaged reclusive person that hid under layers of clothing.

Injustices To Shannon
Shannon now wandered aimlessly and he could no longer care for himself he was crippled maimed and burnt and had lost his best friend in the fire and to add insult to injury the Police and some members of the public blamed him.

The Police removed him from his hospital bed and took him to the Police Station and gave him a rough time blaming him for the fire and the death of R J and then later returned him to his hospital bed. They did this because Shannon was unable to remember how his shoe and hat were at the bottom of the fire escape but told his mother four weeks later when his memory returned. He was trapped in his burning room unable to get out through his doorway and tried to get out through his window to the fire escape. He put his leg up and his head out and his hat and shoe fell off and out but he was unable to use his melting hands, to push himself up and out.

The Police ignored Shannon was hallucinating from the affects of the drugs he was given while in an induced coma; that he was still in shock from the trauma of being on fire and from his best friend dying because of that fire. It is clear to me having lost a son to murder that those working on this case were clueless as to the affects of shock and trauma or how vulnerable a person in that situation is, or were too insensitive to care.

The word got around the Police had taken Shannon from his hospital bed and subsequently some friends of R J now believing Shannon was responsible beat him in the first two weeks of his leaving the hospital even though his injuries were raw and incapacitating and he could not defend himself. Shannon left Christchurch and came home because he feared for his life.

Imagine that, to be the victim of this brutal crime, to lose your best friend in that brutal crime, to suffer life-altering injuries from that brutal crime and then the ultimate indignity to be blamed and physically beaten for that brutal crime. Shannon carried emotional psychological and physical pain because of that brutal crime and it changed his and our lives forever. Shannon died still traumatised from that fire with the blame of that brutal crime hanging over him.

The Police investigation was inept in our opinion and clearly took the easy way in Policing by placing blame on the already vulnerable in life. Why would Shannon light a fire outside R J's room and just across from his own, thereby trapping himself in an upper story? Any clear thinking person would understand that notion. Had the Police rather concentrated on those with a previous arson history and living in the area at that time it need not have been hard to find the arsonist. Perhaps then the Police would not have been able to later lay a lesser charge on the arsonist thereby compounding the indignities this brutal crime imposed on Shannon and his family.

Shannon was the victim of many people in his short lifetime and even after he died the abuse continued in the courtroom through the actions of an inept Prosecutor and Police Officer when the arsonist received a charge and sentence that did not fit his crime, which the Judge noted while sentencing. Shannon was robbed of his right to be heard and for the arsonist to know, the full consequences of his actions when the Prosecutor made no effort to contact the family or submit victim impact reports for appropriate sentencing.

The affects of the fire were ignored even though it was the catalyst that stole Shannon's life from him, and nor did he recover from the path the arsonist placed him on, dying a recluse hiding in a world of fear addiction and pain. This was inept Policing and a Prosecutor who clearly did not do her job under the victim rights act or the act needs changing to avoid repeats of what happened to us.

Without accountability who is left with the bitter taste?
Because Shannon's lifestyle was vulnerable and he was unable to defend himself he was murdered execution style by people unknown to him, three years later. The appeal Judge noted it was a hate crime because of his lifestyle. The fire cost Shannon his life while living and was a catalyst to his murder. Shannon like R J died as an indirect result of the arson.

Fire Impact on Family
The Police said we were not victims or affected by that fire.
Shannon's fear of dwellings and humans increased when a shed used for shelter was burnt down traumatising him further. As Shannon's mother I still suffer the affects of my son becoming homeless and unable to care for himself or live inside and I felt his pain at soul level.

Shannon rang every two weeks and I listened to his pain and watched his dissolution with life and suffered negative talk about both of us because family members and society did not understand. After his murder Shannon's living conditions became public knowledge through an unfair documentary that murdered his memory, just as the fire murdered his reputation while alive. My reputation as a mother was also maligned.

The trial Prosecutor spoke about Shannon in the same undignified lingo as those that began his murder and those biased to the homeless. We lived with the media words as they called him homeless and vagrant, homeless only because of that fire. Shannon was not given the compassion he earned in life for tragic circumstances and that was a hard thing for his family to live with.

Below is the substance of a complaint we are making to the crown prosecutors office and the Police Complaints Authority.

Subject: Arson of Fitzgerald Ave House by Arsonist (CRI-2005-085-007643).
The Lack of consultation and opportunity to submit victim impact statement or a letter to the court regarding the impact of the offence on behalf of Shannon Jon McComb (victim) by his family.

October 30th 2001 arsonist burned down house in Fitzgerald Ave our son seriously injured

February 8th 2004 our son Shannon McComb was murdered. TVNZ broadcast a documentary featuring our son in February 2005.

After seeing the documentary the arsonist handed himself in, confessing to the offence of arson. The arson caused serious burn and smoke inhalation injuries to Shannon and the death of his best friend R J.

8th February 2006 the second anniversary of Shannon's death, the Police officer notified us of the confession and prosecution saying he waited till the appeal period had elapsed. Denying our right to attend and supply victim impact statements on behalf of Shannon.

The Police officer knew of this from July 2005, was acutely aware of Shannon, having worked on his murder trial, and knew how to contact us.

When questioned, he replied ;
A charge of arson laid was appropriate without enough case to charge manslaughter or murder ( even though R J died days later in hospital.)

He submitted information on the fires affect on our son, for sentencing
He did not consider us victims or able to submit impact statements even after supplying him with the appropriate legislation.

We requested immediately from the Judge, the court sentencing notes and permission was granted one hour later.

Reading the sentencing notes we note there was no coverage of Shannon's extensive injuries and noted only as "a claw like hand." The Judge referred to the lesser charge as a "nasty arson" and noted the offender was lucky not to be facing murder/manslaughter charges.

His notes paragraph 7 disturbed us "There is no victim impact statement relating to the arson in Christchurch." He knew the two worst affected were deceased and there would be other disadvantaged persons.

Shannon became a nameless person without advocacy in a court process dealing with the crime that stole his life from him while living even though his family was willing and able to represent him.

We believed ourselves to be victims under the Victims Rights Act 2002 section 20 yet the Police and Prosecution did not think so. There should be a duty on the Police/Prosecution to ensure victim’s families are contacted and offered the opportunity to make a statement regarding the affects of the offence and in particular when the victims are deceased at the time of trial or sentencing.

We are asking the Prosecutor/Police to explain the following:
Why were we not consulted earlier or given the opportunity to submit an impact statement for sentencing or a chance to offer a letter to the judge with more facts to help him reach a more appropriate sentence. Why a heavier charge was not considered? Surely owning up should not affect the charge for the crime committed. If that were the case would we not have all suspects handing themselves in when the water surrounding them was getting too hot?

What is needed to have a sustainable case, when the perpetrator is cooperating, admits his crime by statement and, believes he needs to be punished.

Is it normal practice for the Police not to charge arsonists with manslaughter or murder when the result of their intentional burning of a dwelling house (knowing it to be occupied) causes the death of one and the serious and permanent maiming of another?

That question causes particular vexation when a father was charged with manslaughter, had no evil intent, allowing his child to ride a farm bike to feed out with him.

Can the Police explain the inconsistency of charging the father with manslaughter, who was negligent, but had no evil intent and his lifetime sentence would be harsher than any custodial one? To not charging the arsonist with murder/manslaughter who had evil intent, and intended to kill and harm. The arsonist did not own up or seek help like the farmer did; he chose to watch our son burning and then walk away without seeking help for his victims.

The Judge noted the arsonist's history of arson and indicated he would not be welcomed into residential rehabs because of being a fire hazard to society. We have seen the end result of his crimes and suffered immensely because of it. Why were we ignored when legislation defines how victims are to be treated?

Is it standard practice for Prosecution/Police not to contact the families when a victim is deceased prior to offenders trial and not to submit victim impact statements and if so why?

Is that the way the Prosecutors/Police treat families of violent crime even though there is legislation to protect them from being re-victimised by governmental departments.

Do we need to question the Crown /Police knowledge of the victim impact legislation; and if not their knowledge then perhaps in this case their motive.

Why was there a need to write this letter if the above departments were doing their job? And perhaps this emphasises a strong need for accountability when they fail in their duty.

Does the Crown Prosecutor/Police place more value on property than some human life?
Is it not part of the Prosecutions case to submit Victim impact statements as to the affects for sentencing? The Judge thought so but it appears the Crown Prosecutor /Police did not, making absolutely no attempt to ascertain what happened to the people who had both since died and evidenced by the lesser charges lain. Did these people hold lesser value than historic buildings or properties covered by insurance? The Police sought impact statements from property owners but not from the family whose son died from the fire and our son who died as an indirect result of that fire.

When we questioned the Detective about not being informed of this case going to court he did not believe we were victims of that fire and thought we wanted monetary compensation and told me to let it go and move on with my life. The reality was we needed to speak on behalf of our son who lost his life, through an arsonist who had a history of fire lighting, which indicated to us in the worst possible way he is a fire hazard to society. The ruination of Shannon's life and the effect on ours compensation was the last thing on our minds, how can you compensate what happened to Shannon and R J? The gross indignity of this crime and the ignoring of it by those of authority compounds our every waking day.

Thanks to the efforts of the Prosecutor/Police the perpetrator and public will never know the true effect on Shannon. Those who could speak for Shannon with authority were denied that right thereby keeping it open and alive with no closure within a system that is not, geared for justice and victim rights but landslides the re-victimisation of those who have already suffered enough. Once the opportunity to speak as a victim at sentencing is gone it is lost forever. Having to write these letters evidences that.

Does a person appearing in court some years later lessen the offence or the effects of the offence? Or should a lenient charge be laid and the seriousness of the effects on the victims be ignored because of death. Just because the arsonists repugnant crime eventually got the better of him, it is no excuse for the Police to say "he would not have been charged had he not given himself up."

The Police chose not consult with the victim's families. Would lesser charges and sentence be appropriate for old murders such as the Jules Meekus case? Had the Police done a better job at the time of the fire the arsonist would have been found in the area and easily with his previous history. His ability to calmly walk in and out undetected describes how dangerous he is. Death occurred; and arguing that the medication killed R J and not the fire is a diminutive truth and I have no doubt trial by jury and media involvement would have brought about the appropriate charge laid and a different sentence.

Imbalance in Charging
Did these two people not have enough value placed on their lives to have that happen? We ask that question having noted murders/manslaughters having more publicity seem to have a more answerable justice. For example, one of the three boy racers who took part in a car race on the highway but who was not part of the subsequent, two car crash, taking two lives, was charged with manslaughter and jailed. The Detective said they did not charge the arsonist with manslaughter/murder because it was the reaction to the treatment used in intensive care that killed him. Why would Police not get a conviction for an intentional fire when they could with a non-intentional car accident he was not involved with?

Could it be that case was in the public eye and the arson was not, or was it the supposed lifestyle and imaginary lack of care around Shannon and R J that caused this decision? Are some lives worth more in New Zealand? Such an imbalance does nothing for the victims of crime who suffer more injustice by those authorising the charge laid. Is the Crown and Police more intent on discouraging streetcar racing than intentional fire lighting?

What accountability is there when Police do not get it right, and do not dialogue with the families? The result is the victims are left to take the direct impact again

Victim Impact Statements
We found the Judges to be accommodating but not so the Police and Prosecutor. Imagine standing your ground with people fighting for justice while in severe throes of grief. The prosecutor ignored us before the murder trial and ignored our request to speak to them via Police and then through direct email.

Our experience was; the Prosecutor and Detective were either not up with the play or they were blocking the Victim Rights Act. Both gave us inadequate and incorrect information and involvement with Victim Impact Statements was actively discouraged. Ambiguity surrounded the involvement of impact statements and we would have thought it was their duty under the Victims Rights legislation to know or find out the correct information.

The Detective said he did not know what happened in other courtrooms but in Christchurch Court; Judges did not allow victims to speak because of a lack of time. We were already impacted with the ultimate magnitude of the taking of Shannon's life and not allowed to speak for him or us was inconceivable and archaic, especially knowing court processes allowed it and it was legislated.

Straight after the deposition hearing while standing in the doorway of the victim support room, and with a tone of opposition and not one of unity, Detectives said they would take things out of our impact statement they did not like, rather than talking of altering them together so they could be submitted, as we wanted them.

When Police and Prosecutor blocked our way to do so it escalated, to our needing to go to parliament to get the victim impact statements into the courtroom the way we wanted them to be and what we wanted was simple and not extraordinary. Shannon had been portrayed unfairly in the media as a homeless vagrant and the photos used in the trial or newspaper did not portray Shannon as he was nor did it represent his life before the fire.

The person supplying this photo (Police did not seek one from us) reported in the newspaper Shannon was unloved had no family who cared for him and made up things about his background which were figments of his imagination. We were his family, he is cherished by us and we needed to acknowledge that in the courtroom for Shannon and us. I was later told each time they used derogatory terms in the courtroom about Shannon indicating he was worth nothing, I made involuntary sounds I was unaware of.

The court clerk began giving me the evil eye, which incensed my family because of his uncompassionate behaviour toward a mother of a murdered son whom had emotions pulled from her in every direction and those pressures compounded by those who were clueless.

All we wanted to use in our impact report was a voice recording of Shannon expressing his love for his mother and wishing her a happy mothers day and one photo each. The voice recording was a verification of his mother's impact statement, and what she said in her pages Shannon said in a few words, a public sacred moment between mother and child that confirmed the love between them and the huge loss that impacted her.

While in the Police room and immediately after the trial we asked the Prosecutor who walked in if we could use the voice tape in court and she replied she did not know. Rather than bothering to find out, the Police told us ten minutes later we could not use the voice recording or the photo each because submitting them would be prejudicial to the killers of my son. I expected to hear that from the defence not the prosecution and I said they needed to find out rather than guessing. They did not, they were not going to summit them and that was that.

It was prejudicial to my son not to use them. My son had no voice, no life and no photo of him before the fire and they were protecting the interests of the killers who had killed my son in a brutally unmerciful way. There was no protest from the defence attorneys over the impact statements photos or voice recording and nor did they mention them as prejudicial in their appeal. When we asked the Prosecutor directly our correspondence was ignored.

In frustration we contacted Sensible Sentencing and were directed to an MP in Christchurch and he provided an answer on what the legislation meant and what our rights were. The directive from parliament was for the Police/Prosecutor to put our request before the Judge who had the final say as to what was and was not allowed in the courtroom, which is standard practice for a Prosecutor in their everyday work in a normal court process. There was no problem with the judge accepting it or with the registrar arranging it.

“I have heard from the Crown that the Judge is happy to include both the Phone exerts and photos' as part of your VIS reports.”

I learnt when Police told me my young son and my statements were sent straight to the Judge there was a question over Shannon's twelve-year-old brother giving an impact statement by video. If my son was old enough to suffer the affects of the murder of a brother surely he was old enough to testify to his pain. There was no mention of the other four reports going to the judge.

Incorrect information meant my husband who had a law degree needed to read legislation and spend time researching it. Imagine facing all we were facing, holding down a job and researching law at the same time. We were denied our right to grieve without added pressure in an already pressured world and we both suffer physical problems now.

As victims, what happened to us was indecent, fighting while vulnerable to get what we were entitled by legislation. Victims without our knowledge would accept at face value the information the "professionals" provide and be unsatisfied later. It is clear reading through the emails the attitude from the Police that tried to block us at every turn.

Victims should not have to battle the system that is suppose to bring about justice and allow a victim a fair say in a court of law. Those who hold these positions of authority need to be held accountable in some way when they deny the victim their rights in a court of law.

Imbalance of Justice
Has the New Zealand Justice System designed the law for such unjust treatment? Our paths first divided with the Police after the deposition hearing when we complained to the Police the killers of our son were in court with no court orderly present and were having unsecured visits with their family in the courtroom inches from us. The Police allowed that to continue after we complained until a court security person who had been a prison warden questioned it indignantly. The Police never answered our complaint formally even though they answered governmental ministers

Deposition Complaint 26 June 2004
On February the 8th our son and stepson Shannon Jon Mc Comb was murdered in Christchurch. This had a crushing affect on our family and one can only know this trauma through experience. It changed our view of life and speaking from mine I crossed a line there is no crossing back from and "I have become foreign to whom I thought I was."

We are writing to you because a situation arose in the deposition hearing in Christchurch Court held 16th and 17th June that was offensive to us. Our son died a violent death with a judge describing it as "a sustained callous brutal beating". The pathologist in the deposition hearing said the first brutal beating of Shannon could have killed him but did not have time too because the final beating was so severe it did kill him.

We heard in the hearing the killers went back five times to beat Shannon, taking time out between beatings to go off in their car, have a smoke and discuss if Shannon had got back up yet. They beat him with fence palings, jumping on his back and stomping on his head finally stabbing him twice in the back as he lay dying. Hearing this we realised what the lady undertaker in Christchurch was meaning when she said she had stayed for a long time with Shannon's body praying over it because it was in such bad shape.

We are gentle people unable to handle violence, unable to watch it on television or read about it. For us sitting and listening to the pathologist report was a violence in its self. We watched the Police confession video hearing both murderers admit to killing Shannon, one with detail. We heard one had yelled from a Police car window "he had just killed someone." The other laughed in his confession saying Shannon and his life style was disgusting to him and bragged of his martial arts expertise.

They pursued Shannon along with the three Police witnesses from Friday night till Sunday morning. They began with throwing stones on the Friday and one Police witness said, "Shannon did not appear to be frightened of us." The next day they took weapons of intent to Shannon's abode ransacking it when he was not home. The two murderers went back early hours Sunday morning brutally attacking Shannon for two hours finally killing him. They said they drove friends past the crime scene more than once telling them they had killed Shannon. We gained the impression of a bragging without remorse and were reminded of serial killers who keep a trophy.

Shannon was on an invalids benefit with fourth degree burns to his hands that were seized and unable to make a fist or grip to defend self and weighed only 49 kilos. Seeing the murderers the first time was huge and we cannot describe the emotions felt. We knew we could expect what we heard from people capable of violent premeditated murder these two admitted too. But we expected better from police in charge of the case finding a "conscious decision" made by them offensive, hence this letter.

After each courtroom break, the murderers walked to the courtroom rail to talk and hug their family unsupervised. We asked where the prison guards were and the police replied, "They (the murderers) were not going anywhere." I persisted asking why they and their families were not being sent a strong enough message; they had brutally killed our son. At the end of the hearing and watching the confession video and after they were committed to trial, their family stood inches from us with their son being close enough to touch. A court security guard questioned this asking "was anything being passed between these people." The answer was yes and a family member was censored

We told detective constable by mail we found this offensive and he replied the Police made a conscious decision to allow this and these people had not been convicted of murder yet and were being visited in prison by family and prosecution witnesses. I reminded him I no longer had a son, of their confessions, the brutality of the pathologist report, and that they had not been acquitted of this charge either and stated I was taking this further through written complaint. Perhaps the police are misjudging the capabilities of these people as Shannon did. I remind you of the Police statement "these people are going nowhere"

And of the prosecution witness's statement of Shannon in court "He did not appear scared of us at all, he was just standing there using something electronic."

And finally ... Shannon died a violent death at the hands of these people twenty-six hours later.

Another prosecution witness said Green had told him that a person walking past intervened for Shannon, and Green getting the knife from his car said he would take him on and "kick his head in" if he did not leave. Which is what they did do to Shannon. A detective stated earlier to us" the scary thing about these murderers was they looked like you and I."

How can these people be presumed not dangerous and not at high risk given what they are known to have done and considering the prison sentence they will likely receive. Often people on remand talk through a barrier yet in this instance they were allowed intimate unsupervised contact with "who ever". Detective Constable said the Police did not want to be seen too tough although he knew our perspective would be different. Why would the perpetrators feelings be given more consideration than the victims when we are no longer able to hug and talk to our son and are left to live our life sentence within the realisation of Shannon's violent last two hours of life?

How many times do prisoners such as these, need to be treated in such a lackadaisical low security manner resulting in unwanted escape or further violence with the excuse somebody "did not think" they posed much risk. They were huge risk to our son who also believed they posed no risk the day before and he died brutally at their hands. What does somebody have to do to be considered high risk?

We consider Shannon's murder one of the most violent brutal cold and calculating murders in the history of New Zealand. If they are capable of this brutality, which is foreign to any normal person at "this young age", then their behaviours are quite unpredictable and need to be taken very seriously by society. What we heard in the hearing and given their age indicate to us these two people had a deep desire to violently kill, which they acted upon. How can anybody predict what their capability is?

Allowing these people low security is risking harm to society again before they are convicted of their first crime. They have harmed us and have gone past the innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the Police who were in charge of the security of these people and know what these people have done and confessed too.

They are entitled to their visitation rights in prison and there was no need to give them further access in public nullifying the gravity of the crime they committed which was abhorrent to us and no doubt would be abhorrent to the rest of the New Zealand public.

We have been told they will not be treated as if they are not violent killers in the next trial and we have seen prisoners of crimes of less magnitude treated with higher security and we are appalled that the Police in charge of these prisoners allowed this.

How can the murder of our son result in the view the prisoners are low risk?

When dealing with the security of people of serious crimes shouldn't the Police err on the side of caution?

Why was there no court orderly in court?

Why was there not one court orderly for each prisoner given their level of violence and how they work together?

This violence was inflicted on us by these two cold and calculating killers how much more abuse will we be inflicted with and by whom?

What we experienced breeds resentment and to heal we need to have a respect not only for the justice system but also for the Police system. More importantly the murderers of our son need to know respect and value of human life and if they are not treated accordingly they will never gain an inkling of what they already lack.

We await your reply.
Richard & Kristine Johnston

Cc Minister of Justice
Cc Detective Inspector Christchurch Police
Cc Minister of Police
Cc Registrar Christchurch District Court Cc Detective Constable
Cc District Commander Christchurch Police
Cc Inspector Hamilton Police
MINISTRY OF JUSTICE

15 July 2004
Dear Mr & Mrs Johnston
Thank you for your correspondence of 26 June 2004. I acknowledge the comments and concerns you have expressed.

The issues you raise are matters that fall within the responsibility of the Police in accordance with the memorandum of understanding that exists between the Ministry of Justice and New Zealand Police.

Recently, this office has taken the opportunity to provide general feedback in writing to the local Police reflecting your concerns.

I notice you have forwarded copies of this correspondence to various members of the Police including the Minister, In my opinion it is most appropriate that the Police address your concerns.

Yours sincerely
Area Court Manager

Crown Law Office
There is an imbalance of justice between the victim and perpetrator and we were acutely aware of that through the appeal of Shannon's killers when we knew the Crown Law Office was not adequately representing him. It was dismaying to know the murderers and their families can dismiss their counsel and victims cannot. The defender goes to the ends of the earth to win and the Prosecutor does not need too having no responsibility for the consequences of inept inadequate work, which was blatant in Shannon's case and then again not having impact statements submitted when the subsequent arson charge was laid.

The following unrepentant attitude of the Crown Law Office who told us afterwards the New Zealand justice system is geared for the offender. That may be a shameful fact but is not an arguable excuse for doing an inadequate job and not prosecuting to the full letter of the law and should not be the case in sentencing after offenders have been found guilty.

When the killers appealed we decided we were going to contact the Prosecutor to be told days before the appeal date he had not begun work with their office yet. Due to one of the defence attorneys the appeal date was changed. Determined to have contact we persisted and after complaining to Solicitor General we dialogued with the Prosecutor. Again the Prosecutor was not up with the play on Victims rights Act or the process of the court and communicated incorrect information to us. We were lucky enough to contact a court registrar who managed to get permission from a Judge to allow us to send a letter in unsigned by email so it would get there in time.

The victims only get one chance at this, when the Crown Prosecutors or Police do not do an adequate job, or give wrong information denying the victims rights why are their mistakes left without any form of responsibility and how acceptable is that when the victims need to learn again to accept the unacceptable in life that compounds their situation.

That alone allows the Prosecutor/Crown Law Office to treat the victims in a casual dismissive manner and ignore legislation designed to help the healing process, which under this current law does not go far enough. One needs to question this attitude when their work environment in a courtroom is process and procedure and respect and decorum. Respect and decorum needs to follow over to the victims of the crime they are prosecuting.

Appeal Court Date/Court President
The appeal venue was set at Wellington not Christchurch. This was normal and good for us because we did not want to travel to Christchurch from Hamilton. Our family been able unable to support us in court because of the travel distance and having been to Christchurch three times already was emotionally taxing.

The date was changed for medical reasons and reset for Christchurch three months later meaning my daughter would be unable to travel for it and neither could the rest of the family. My health was bad and we were advised by the justice victim support we could apply to have the location changed. I have enclosed the letters, which are self-explanatory and the request denied because of a "principal".

A principal that meant nothing because we were the only ones in attendance at that appeal and I doubt anyone in that community knew about the appeal or cared where it was held. I found the reason given absolutely appalling and the lack of empathy given to those most affected by this crime described the callousness of the system that is not designed to cater for victim rights or needs. (Attached letters are self-explanatory)

23 March 2005
Dear Registrar of the Court of Appeal,
We are the parents of murder victim Shannon McComb, who was murdered by Morice and Green. We are writing to you to request that the appeal against sentence by Morice and Green have a change of venue. We would like to request Auckland, which is a two-hour drive from our home. Since Shannon's murder, our family has travelled to Christchurch for the deposition hearing, the court trial and the sentencing. The distance and the cost on these three occasions made things more difficult for us financially physically and emotionally.

We needed to have more time off work and traveling by aeroplane is more expensive because we need to book a seat that is changeable at any time because of the court process. It will cost our immediate family of three people, $1500 to travel to Christchurch for the appeal. If availability of planes is not there we may also need to stay over night. That is only the plane fare there will also be time off work and other travelling costs incurred There were seven immediate family members who travelled from Hamilton to Christchurch for the last three court processes.

It has however become difficult for them to go again because of the cost and the distance with their workloads, the financial cost and health. Shannon's sister is self-employed and to shut her small business has more costs added on top of the plane fare. She spent time this year ill due to the grief and affects of Shannon's murder and the trial.

Shannon's mothers health has deteriorated since Shannon's murder and She became ill with the hospital saying there is no physical reason why and believe it is the emotional distress she has been living under. Her conditions are triggered by stress and the last year has taken a toll on our family.

We were relieved when the original appeal date, which was postponed, was in Wellington because none of us like going to Christchurch. It causes emotional distress, which affects us for along time after we leave the city our son and brother was murdered in. We were distressed finding out the venue had been changed from Wellington to Christchurch.

The cost to travel to Wellington by plane for the three of us is $1320 but we could drive the eight hours to save money if the appeal was unable to be in Auckland. But that would mean four of Shannon's family would not be able to attend. Travelling is stressful while ill and the less travel the better it will be for Shannon's mother. Please could you give our request serious consideration?

Yours faithfully Richard and Kristine Johnston

13 April 2005
Dear Mr and Mrs Johnston

Thank you for your letter of 23 March 2005.

The court has sympathy for your situation.
Confirming the scheduling of cases in the court including divisional sittings is organised, not only considering cases in advance but also to meet the needs of the Court and Counsel.

In this case added consideration was given in that the offending and the original trial occurred at Christchurch amongst the community.

The matter will remain listed in the Criminal Appeal Division in Christchurch.
You may already be aware of this, hut there is an allowance available for travel. I am not sure of the process around this but would suggest that you could talk with the Victim Advisor at your local District Court.

Yours sincerely

15 April 2005
Dear Registrar Court Appeal

Thank you for the court letter dated 13th April.

I would like to ask the court why the consideration of the community of Christchurch has been given more weight than the family of the victim? The original court date was set for Wellington and when I asked the Police about that I was told Wellington was the normal venue for appeals. We were told it was usual practice to take the appeal away from the city of the murder and unusual to have the court of appeal sitting in the same city as the murder.

I would like to know why Christchurch is now being given more consideration when the first date was set for Wellington, which was cancelled because of the defence, and no weight was given to the Christchurch community then?

We have lost our son and brother to murder and that is a crime against life. Many in our family have not been able to attend the trial because of the distance. The sickness and health of the deceases mother is also a consideration as earlier stated and we have given good valid reasons as to why the appeal needed to at least go back to Wellington the original venue. We understand that the crown counsel is from Wellington and we the victim's families are in Hamilton. Not enough weight has been given to the victim's family's circumstances on the decision to reassign the venue from Wellington to Christchurch. We are tired, worn out and we cannot take any more surprises. We need to ask the court why we were never consulted in this process? The death of our son by murder and the justice that follows affects us more than anybody.

The court states that there is an allowance for travel. We receive a percentage of the cost to travel to an appeal or deposition. If we were talking money perhaps it needs to be realised that there are many costs we have had to pay because of the murder of our son Shannon, such as bringing his body home from Christchurch by plane, then by hearse from Auckland to Hamilton, the cost of two funeral directors, two coffins and loss of work costs and wages at the time of the murder and throughout the court processes. Most of that was not covered and our family has paid substantially financially.

We were unable to have the support of our family at the trials for those reasons. We are not complaining of paying for this for our boy but are stating the obvious which is we would not have had this cost if he was not murdered by Morice and Green. The system does not pay full costs for anything and the family picks up the ultimate cost which is not only monetary but the destroying of our life.

The only reason we are going to this appeal is because the killers of my son believe that the sentence of seventeen years is too long for killing our son. We however have a real life sentence and this murder has destroyed our lives and health and still we are not being considered as much as the defence counsel, the people convicted of the crime and their families. The first court appeal date was set in Wellington but was changed because of the health of one of the lawyers for the defence. Why is his health given more consideration by the court system than the health of the victim's mother?

We contacted the court first through the Victim advisor in New Plymouth at the end of February after getting the new date and venue and then again through a victim advisor in Hamilton via when no reply came. It took the court until the 23rd of March to tell us to put our request in writing which we did the same day via email, and still we did not receive a reply from the court until 13 April even though the court knew booking plane tickets to Christchurch were imperative. Why did it take the court six weeks to get back to us? We think the location of the appeal trial needs to be reviewed

We await your reply
Yours faithfully
Richard and Kristine Johnston
cc. Attorney General
cc. Solicitor general
cc Chairman Select Committee Law and Order
cc. MP
cc Minister Justice

President COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
27 April 2005
Dear Mr. and Ms Johnston

I write in response to your letter of 15 April 2005 to the Court Manager, Ms Claire Brown.

The responsibility for the assignment of cases to divisions of this Court and to particular Judges, lies with me, as President. In doing so, I am guided by a number of matters, including a Gazetted process and administrative considerations, about once or twice a year a Division of the Court sits for a week in the South Island. This is because it is an important principle that, in criminal matters, justice should be, and be seen to be, dispensed in the community in which the crime occurred. This is particularly important when the offence is as serious as murder. This principle has often been invoked by the Courts when faced with an application for a change of venue.

In your letter you ask why the consideration of the Christchurch community has been given more weight than the family of the victim. The issue is really one of applying the long-standing principle I have mentioned. It is the case that the sentence appeal was originally scheduled for hearing in Wellington. That was because it could be heard appreciably sooner at that venue than in Christchurch; but when the Wellington fixture had to be vacated, the principle I have mentioned could, and should, he given effect. The same response is made to your remarks about the health of one of the counsel.

Please accept that I have every sympathy for the grief and distress that this dreadful crime has caused to you and your family. But I must assign cases in accordance with established procedures and principles.

Yours sincerely
Court President

We contacted the Chief Justice, Attorney General, Solicitor General, with the same cordial reply “sorry not appropriate for me to step in” as a family most affected and interested in the outcome had to walk through with compounded hardships because nobody was prepared to show empathy or compassion.

TVNZ and The Media
There needs to be something in the victims rights act giving victims protection from the media. We suffered from the total insensitivity of TVNZ and the powerlessness of the Privacy Commissioner, the ombudsman, Broadcasting Complaints Authority and Human Rights Commission. None of them have any teeth or power and it was disconcerting knowing TVNZ at its aggressive worst got away with acting as they did. We have many emails and letters that testify to the culture working in that organisation and we know of letters they received asking them not to act in such a heartless manner.

The documentary made of our son murdered his memory and although he was a victim of murder and we were victims according to the victims rights act we were unable to stop the broadcast of the insensitive documentary about our son despite going to every avenue possible including all the relevant ministers. Everyone we spoke to was sickened by our story but could do nothing.

Shannon McComb never signed a release form, which meant he did not waiver his rights but they played the documentary anyway, which meant they did not have the rights to broadcast a documentary that was made privately for commercial gain. On Shannon’s death I inherited those rights as his next of kin and made it clear to the producer, TVNZ and all concerned I gave no permission for the broadcast of the documentary. TVNZ gambled we would not take them to court knowing we had already said we could not afford it emotionally or financially.

Our aim was to stop the playing and once it was played it was too late. They knew we were victims and our son had been murdered, they knew we did not want the showing of the footage of our son as it would murder his memory and they simply went ahead with it. It was not their right because it was not current event or news it was a private documentary made for commercial gain.

All Broadcasters should be included in the list of Organisations, which must have regard for victim’s rights to be treated sensitively under the victim rights act. The ministers told us it was not appropriate for them to interfere on day to day running, which may be true about Political matters but this was not a political matter it was a humane matter and there needs to be some place that will protect the vulnerable from being shunted by these organisations.

Broadcasting standards authority would appear to offer some protection but no, we found them to be totally ineffective and a waste of time. How many complaints do they ever uphold? There is no protection from the media from the broadcasting standards authority before a broadcast is played. There needs to be some privacy protection in the victims rights act for victims because we found there is no protection in the broadcasting act or the privacy act and the broadcasting standards authority could do nothing until after a broadcast is made and even then did nothing. All the people in authority including ministers ignored the fact there was no release of Shannon’s rights, which is called “a talent release form”.

Summary:
There is huge emotional and financial cost to victims including time off work and attending court processes. Funeral costs not fully covered by ACC. In my opinion “Victim’s get a raw deal”, and our experience was an even rawer one from those in the justice system. Those in authorities that do not perform their duty need to be held accountable; it should not be the victim that pays for the inadequate work done. It prolongs and magnifies the already untenable situation.