King Annette: Urgent Debates — Ministerial Inquiry—Death of Debbie Marie Ashton 
King Annette: Urgent Debates — Ministerial Inquiry—Death of Debbie Marie Ashton 
[Volume:648;Page:17253] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I want to acknowledge the courage the determination and the grief of the Ashton family and their commitment to trying to ensure there cannot be a repeat of the tragic circumstances that led to the death of their daughter Debbie. I travelled to Nelson twice to see the Ashton family: first on 12 September last year to discuss with them the terms of reference for the independent inquiry conducted by Kristy McDonald QC and secondly on 19 December to deliver to the family the first draft of the report a day or two after I had received it. At both meetings with the family the Hon Dr Nick Smith was present as the Ashton’s local member of Parliament and I want to acknowledge his advocacy for the family. I also acknowledge the cooperation given by the New Zealand Police and the Department of Corrections to the inquiry particularly the tireless efforts of Win van der Velde the National Crime Manager who worked closely with the family from the outset. The New Zealand Police and the Department of Corrections have both apologised unreservedly to the Ashton family for the human errors that occurred and they have endorsed the recommendations of the inquiry. 
The purpose of the independent inquiry which I set up in my former role as Minister of State Services was to determine the unvarnished truth of what happened and to provide a full frank and transparent analysis of the events that resulted in the tragic death of Debbie Ashton. The actual terms of reference for the inquiry were as follows. I specifically asked Ms McDonald to inquire into and report on the circumstances in which the driver was able to use his new identity to be treated as a first offender; secondly whether and to what extent there were failures in the systems practices or procedures of those agencies that dealt with those circumstances that caused or contributed to the driver being in the position of being able to drive a vehicle on 5 December 2006 thereby causing Ms Ashton’s death; and thirdly the nature timing and appropriateness of enforcement action taken against the driver while he was on parole. It was important that Debbie Ashton’s family Government agencies and the public understood what went wrong in terms of human error and failure of systems in order to ensure that there is no repeat of these circumstances and that there is accountability. 
The inquiry found that human error was a key factor. The offender should have been recalled to prison when convicted of driving with excess breath alcohol and the decision not to recall him was inexcusable. As QC Kristy McDonald pointed out instances of human error are inevitable when the Department of Corrections manages on a daily basis around 38000 people on community sentence. However systems should have been in place to avoid such errors which led to the tragic consequences that occurred in this case. The inquiry found that the systems policies and practices of the Department of Corrections were inadequate. There were failures in communication and a failure to provide proper direction and oversight as the Hon Nick Smith has already pointed out. The Department of Corrections and the New Zealand Police accept in full the criticisms made and the recommendations to remedy the deficiencies that existed in the area of dealing with offenders who were under the police witness protection programme. They are committed and to a large extent have already implemented the recommendations made by the inquiry. Kristy McDonald acknowledges that all who made mistakes in this case regret them bitterly and that they have been open and frank in acknowledgment of their errors. 
The police witness protection programme was established in the late 1980s to address the risks involved when members of the public were prepared to come forward to assist in the resolution of serious crime. Although the programme has continued to evolve the focus of the programme remains on providing a safe environment for witnesses and their families who are under a genuine threat to life or of serious bodily harm. The evidence from these witness programmes has shown that there has been the successful prosecution of offenders involved in the top echelon of criminal offending—such as serious violence homicide and transnational organised crime. The focus of staff involved with the programme is to assess and mitigate the risks surrounding the witness and to work with witnesses in their integration to the community under a new identity. In this tragic case the police focused on the risk to the witness and they accept they failed to manage the risk of the witness himself to the community he was relocated to; and for this the police apologise to the Ashton family. They did not manage that risk to the community to which he was relocated. 
The police witness protection programme continues to monitor and manage a number of witnesses and their families and most people would agree that there remains a need within police investigation and the judicial process for the protection of witnesses who are prepared to come forward to testify against criminal activity. Although that need remains there can be no excuse for putting at risk the lives of innocent people as happened in this tragic case. Since the inquiry the police have acknowledged the recommendations and they have further enhanced their processes and risk mitigation to try to ensure that a repeat of Debbie Ashton’s tragic death can never happen again. Although it is not possible to reverse the tragedy of Debbie’s death it is critical that all factors that contributed to the error—of leaving the offender in the community whereas he should have been recalled to prison—are addressed. The protection of identities under the witness protection programme is important but the paramount obligation of the Department of Corrections and the police is the safety of the community. Fundamental changes have been made to the management of offenders on the witness protection programme who are on parole and I am assured by the Department of Corrections and the police that the inquiry’s recommendations to prevent any further tragedies of this nature will be fully implemented. 
In my view there is still one outstanding issue to be addressed and the Hon Nick Smith made mention of it. The outstanding issue is about the lawyer who represented the prisoner. This lawyer defended a man who had two different identities and whilst defending him on two separate occasions with two different identities knew exactly what this man had done. The lawyer knew his past; he knew the man was lying. In my view he had a duty to advise the court of this man’s two identities. That issue still needs to be addressed and I believe it will be addressed by the Law Society because I am aware the family intend to take it further. I hope they do because lessons have to be learnt by everybody involved in this tragic case including the lawyer. 
I repeat that I have been moved by the courage and determination of the Ashton family and I thank them for their willingness to go along with an inquiry that was essential to reveal the errors and to help eliminate them in the future. I know that was really very painful for the family. It is my hope that the inquiry will have achieved that and I do hope that the Ashtons share that hope. I assure the Ashton family who I hope are listening today that both David Parker and I have done our best endeavours to ensure that we can resolve this dreadful tragedy.