Scoop has an Ethical Paywall
Work smarter with a Pro licence Learn More

Gordon Campbell | Parliament TV | Parliament Today | News Video | Crime | Employers | Housing | Immigration | Legal | Local Govt. | Maori | Welfare | Unions | Youth | Search

 

Ryan Becker's ACC Review Decision


Ryan Becker's ACC Review Decision

The review decision is a clear example of the shallowness of the ACC review and appeal process; evidence ignored, evidence withheld, evidence considered out of context. The general public should be alarmed that basic human rights are being thrown into the rubbish tin. ACC's favoured modus operandi, deliberate, calculated disregard of the law.

Young Ryan's parents have evidence of the causal relationship between his dog- attack induced brain injury and his current and on-going medical condition, evidence that includes, among others, reports from a specialist who was subsequently removed from Ryan's case, a specialist whom ACC relied upon for its decisions. This evidence was not made available to all parties.

The decision of ACC to threaten the Becker family with police action after refusing to allow them to provide medical evidence to Dr Wise in Australia when he was assessing Ryan Becker "on the papers", ACC's decision so contravenes fundamental human rights as to make the decision biased and so untenable and erroneous that the ACC decision simply cannot stand. The legislation states that the reviewer must "adopt an investigative approach, comply with the principles of natural justice and exercise due diligence"

The chances of restoring public confidence in this case from the reviewer's decision, where he simply glossed over this fundamental human rights issue, is seriously diminished if not destroyed.

The risk of further erosion of public confidence is not fanciful when evidence of gross substantive and procedural unfairness is evident.

Advertisement - scroll to continue reading

Are you getting our free newsletter?

Subscribe to Scoop’s 'The Catch Up' our free weekly newsletter sent to your inbox every Monday with stories from across our network.

There is a positive obligation by the State under international law to intervene to protect against activities of public authority third parties like ACC and reviewers.

It was for both ACC and the reviewer to find compelling justification for interference with the rights of the Becker family and not for the Becker family whose rights were at risk to provide compelling justification for deciding otherwise. (See R A and Others) v Lord Saville of Newdigate and Ors QB (2001) Rose and Sullivan L.JJ)

Murray Jorgensen

President

Acclaim Canterbury

ACC Support-Action Group Canterbury Inc.

© Scoop Media

Advertisement - scroll to continue reading
 
 
 
Parliament Headlines | Politics Headlines | Regional Headlines

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

LATEST HEADLINES

  • PARLIAMENT
  • POLITICS
  • REGIONAL
 
 

InfoPages News Channels


 
 
 
 

Join Our Free Newsletter

Subscribe to Scoop’s 'The Catch Up' our free weekly newsletter sent to your inbox every Monday with stories from across our network.