The father of Dunedin murder victim Sophie
Elliott was forced to read a heavily censored version of his
victim impact statement to her killer in court.
Gil Elliott has revealed he was given a statement with entire
sections crossed out with a marker pen at the judge's request
the night before Clayton Weatherston's sentencing.
Mr Elliott is angry about the censorship, saying most of what
was taken out was innocuous in a legal sense, but very
important to Sophie's family.
It meant he did not get to "have a crack" at Weatherston, who
stabbed his daughter 216 times.
Mr Elliott now wants a law change to give victims more
freedom when reading their statements.
The Sensible Sentencing Trust is backing Mr Elliott's call,
and has directed its members to refuse to alter their impact
statements until the law is changed.
Mr Elliott said the censoring of his statement was "just
another way the justice system puts victims down".
He had worked on the statement over the 18 months between
Sophie's murder and Weatherston's sentencing, completing
dozens of drafts.
It did not contain any personal abuse, nor did it say what
sentence Weatherston should get, he said.
But on the night before the sentencing, he was handed the
altered version with deletions already marked and had to read
from this in the courtroom.
Mr Elliott was particularly disappointed he could not address
some of Weatherston's claims during the trial, particularly
that Sophie attacked him with scissors.
The rules about victim impact statements are set down in the
Victims' Rights Act 2002 and while there are no explicit
restrictions, case law dictates victims cannot criticise the
offender or the justice system, and must confine their
comments to the crime's "impact" on them.
The restriction caused an outcry when the son of murdered
Tokoroa teacher Lois Dear was told to tone his statement down
in 2007.
He was eventually allowed to read it unaltered.
Sensible Sentencing Trust chairman Garth McVicar said victim
impact statements should be allowed to keep their integrity
and and not be watered down.
He said members would ignore attempts to censor statements
and read them in full, even if it meant being charged with
contempt of court.
