The Web Of Deceit Around Jonathan Allan Barclay
Much of my time this week has revolved around the issue of Debbie Ashton - a 20-year-old woman killed in a car crash by recidivist drink driver Jonathan Allan Barclay.
Miss Ashton's death is all the more tragic because it was completely avoidable. Barclay had been convicted of drink driving just four weeks previously, being disqualified from driving for six months and fined $500.
It is fair to say that such a recidivist offender should have received a heavier penalty than, what amounts to, just a slap on the wrist. But Barclay's new identity - through the Witness Protection Programme (WPP) - meant the judge treated him as a first-time offender.
Instead of being locked up, Barclay was let loose to kill an innocent young woman. Details have now become publicly available, with the release of an inquiry report into this case showing that the protection of criminals' rights seem more important to the authorities and the Government than the safety and protection of the law-abiding public.
Events to date:
* Dec 2005: Barclay sentenced for burglary and dishonesty charges; later released on parole.
* Jul 2006: Barclay given a new identity and re-located to Nelson under the WPP.
* Oct 2006: Barclay, under a new WPP identity, charged with driving with excess breath alcohol.
* Nov 7 2006: Barclay fails to disclose his previous identity to police or court, and is dealt with as a first offender on the charge of driving with excess breath-alcohol. Fined $500 and disqualified from driving for six months.
* Dec 5 2006: Barclay's speeding car crosses the centre line on Paton Road, Hope. He crashes into Debbie Marie Ashton's car. She dies three hours later in hospital.
* Feb 16 2007: Barclay has his parole revoked and is recalled to prison.
* May 31 2007: Barclay sentenced to five-and-a-half years in prison for the manslaughter of Debbie Marie Ashton.
* Oct 23 2007: then State Services Minister Annette King announces terms of reference for a Ministerial inquiry into the issue.
* Oct 28 2007: the 'Sunday Star-Times' covers the case, reporting that Barclay is on the WPP and naming Debbie Ashton as his victim.
* Dec 2007: draft report completed and presented to Government.
Last month it became clear that the Government had been sitting on the report for more than six months, with current State Services Minister David Parker having received a copy on December 14 2007. On June 26 this year, I raised this in Parliament and named Barclay in the process.
In doing so, I raised Mr Parker's ire: although media had previously published all the details of the case, the Government argued that there was a suppression order preventing these details being used.
Minister Parker subsequently lodged a Breach of Privilege complaint against me with the Speaker. He said I had brought Parliament into disrepute, and his greatest complaint was that I had put Barclay's life in danger in prison.
I was actually calling for transparency and accountability at all levels, right up to the Ministers' offices, and for the release of the report that showed - among other things - that Police and Corrections knew of Barclay's use of his 'new' name, but failed to give the judge the information that would have seen Barclay returned to prison.
The report - the 'Ministerial Inquiry Into Matters Relating To The Death Of Debbie Marie Ashton' - was released this week, and has prompted apologies from all and sundry. For Debbie Ashton's family this is no comfort.
It was also revealed that the widely-quoted suppression order covered only Barclay's 'new' identity; other details - his birth name and involvement in the WPP - were not suppressed.
As such, there can only be two explanations as to Mr Parkers' actions - or lack thereof: either the suppression order was an excuse to conceal what he knew would be an extremely embarrassing hornet's nest if the report were released publicly; or he didn't know the suppression order did not cover Barclay's name and WPP status or Debbie Ashton's name.
With this Minister frequently touted as Labour's most promising 'hot shot' lawyer, either scenario is an indictment of his behaviour and he should be held accountable for his actions alongside the Government departments that have been found wanting.
In the follow up to these revelations, many media outlets have asked whether I will call on Minister Parker to apologise in Parliament for attacking my credibility. My reply is that I won't be holding my breath - Labour's many apologies are only given to mollify the public.
Transparency and accountability are in short supply under this Labour Government. Dodging embarrassing situations in Parliament by using bogus suppression orders is an outrageous abuse of position. State Services Minister David Parker - like many of his Labour colleagues - has employed the tactic of shooting the messenger to get out of a tight spot of his own making.
If I have forced the Government to release information that should have been made public long ago, I'm doing my job as an MP - it might not be in Mr Parker or Labour's interests, but it's not their interests we're elected to serve.
ENDS