Joanna Gash (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On 28 February 2005, Michael Carey of Sanctuary Point in my electorate of Gilmore was murdered most brutally and callously by Michael Rudzitis, an acquaintance of his who shared an interest in betting. Mr Carey’s death has left his partner, Nicole Robach, wondering about the injustice of it all, and it is for her that I am making this statement. Nicole is aware of the fact that this statement is being made in parliament.

Nicole has the care of the couple’s two children and is understandably seeking closure to her nightmare, which I will describe. Mr Carey’s murderer was found not guilty on the grounds of being mentally ill and is at present incarcerated at the psychiatric wing of Long Bay jail in Sydney.

My statement concerns two aspects of New South Wales legislation which impact on this case, and together have contributed to the torment that Ms Robach lives with constantly. Whilst I concede that the legislative aspect is beyond the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth, the impact of it is certainly not and it is my intention to raise awareness of these two pieces of legislation on third-party victims like Ms Robach and her two children.

The first aspect concerns the Charter of Victims Rights in New South Wales whilst the second relates to the Mental Health Act (NSW) 1990. I will commence with the latter first, as I consider that the provisions of the Mental Health Act, as it applies in this case, make the concept of the Charter of Victims Rights a hollow instrument. Under the Mental Health Act it is a condition of Mr Rudzitis’s incarceration that his case be reviewed at least six-monthly to determine his mental state. The implications of this provision are that Ms Robach is condemned to revisit the crime whilst ever Mr Rudzitis remains at the pleasure of the New South Wales Minister for Health.

For many victims the ordeal of the trial is very traumatic, and Ms Robach is already suffering mightily, as can be expected, and to subject her to this type of torment on a repeated basis is cruel and inhumane. Presuming that Mr Rudzitis will never be released, Ms Robach has become a psychological prisoner of the system. Not only that but Mr Rudzitis, from jail, has made threats to harm her and her children, albeit indirectly, adding to the weight of stress she is under already.

Rudzitis has been tried and found not guilty on the grounds of mental incapacity and therefore he cannot be tried again if ever he is released. That he is capable of carrying out his threats is not in question; after all, he has committed murder once before. The real concern for Ms Robach is that if he ever persuades officialdom that he is sane and he is released, she will live in perpetual fear for herself and for her children for the rest of her life. This is not justice, it is a travesty of justice, and the question arises: just who is being punished—the innocent mother of the victim’s children or the mad killer presently in jail?

It is often stated that the system is biased towards the perpetrator and against the victim, and this is one of those cases where I believe this to be true. It seems that, whilst Mr Rudzitis’s welfare is being well and truly catered for, it is at the expense of Ms Robach’s state of mind. Who knows how much damage this uncertainty is causing her and her children, and how can it be said that justice is being done? In this particular matter, it seems a compelling case has been made to reconsider the implications of the six-monthly review criteria for third-party victims, especially if it can be shown that emotional if not mental damage is being done.

Whilst I have no argument with the need to have a review, the rights of all concerned need to be weighed in the balance. Perhaps consideration can be given by the New South Wales government to put in place measures whereby people like Nicole Robach are spared pain for a much longer time. I believe that consideration ought to be given to including third-party victims in reviews if there is a strong likelihood of the forensic patient being released. In such a scenario, the victim can perhaps lay their case before the review panel and use a victim’s statement to argue against the release. This would do much to alleviate the repetitive burden and stress and would allow these victims some chance of getting on with their lives.