ACCforum: Traps for Sensitive Claimants - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Traps for Sensitive Claimants

#1 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1605
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 19 September 2008 - 08:11 AM

Of all the ACC Claimant groups, it is the Sensitive Claimant who is in the most unique position. What makes the SC unique is that the public believe that SC's get special treatment and large payouts after filling out a form or two. In essence the position of the SC is the most political of all claimants. In spite of the public perception the SC can expect to face a long and drawn out process where they will be challenged every step of the way. SC's also should be aware that there are groups who believe that Sensitive Claims encourage false complaints against people. The same groups then try to discredit claimants by pointing out that there is no obligatory investigation by the Police. Of course as no investigation is required it does not make sense that anyone would be falsely accused but do not expect logic or fairness to play a part in this sordid dynamic. Faced with a public perception that a SC will be heavily endowed with cash and the pressures of so called Justice Campaigners and the desire for sex offenders to create a climate of suspicion and prejudice against people who complain of sexual abuse, not to mention the rabid feminists who use sex abuse to push their own barrow and of course those who actually do make false complaints, the SC finds themselves in a difficult post when the SCU puts them through the ringer. Few will believe you when you say you are getting the ACC Treatment (and not in a good way) Here are some facts.

1) It is true that you do not need a conviction to make and have a claim accepted.
2) However when it comes to deciding actual entitlements it is a very different story. ACC do not ask the question did it happen? They ask the question can you prove that the event has incapacitated you to the point where you are no longer fit to work etc.
3) ACC likes to drag this process out for as long as possible to starve you of resource. They do this by dragging out the assessment process to the point of toture. They then interpret the reports in the way that suits them the best. Even if they have sufficent evidence to decline you at an early stage they won't. They will drag out the decision to the last possible moment to make sure that you are at your weakest if you decide to fight back. I call this the Handbrake method.
4) If you do decide to fight back then ACC will switch to the gaslighting technique. They will use any information that they have managed to get such as criminal history or background such as being a Prostitute (all common scenarios for SC's) to try and shame you or make you look bad. If they cant make you look bad then they will make you look mad.
5) They will try and make other issues your predominate issue. For example an SC has been beaten by her parents and emotionally abused by her mother. She has also been sexually abused by an Uncle. ACC will try and say that her issues are more to do with the physical and emotional abuse (which is not covered) than it is her sexual abuse (which is).

The defences against this kind of process are documented in my thread on Fighting ACC in the most Efficient Manner in the legislation section. I will give a couple of basic points here.

1) Get a lawyer or a good advocate. Do not delude yourself that you will not need one!
2) Document everything, do not talk to ACC on the phone and do not indulge in threats or hysterical behaviour even if you really feel the need. You will pay later.
3) Go to a GP who specialises in dealing with Sexual Abuse Victims. Many Doctors struggle in this area. Look up the specialist ones on the internet.
4) Ask for all letters being sent to specialists to be copied to you as they are sent. (Very Important)
5) Make sure you have a letter from your Doctor and or Lawyer to take to Creditors to protect your financial interests. (Very Very Important)
6)Read my section on dealing with ACC for more tips.

Remember that Prevention is far better than Cure.
Hope this helps

Lupine
0

#2 User is offline   Bill Birch 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 166
  • Joined: 04-June 08

Posted 19 September 2008 - 08:29 AM

An excellent post Lupine.

SCU has been a bit of a shocker and quite dangerous in some of its practices. However, I am aware that the SCU is currently going thru active change to improve. It'll probably take a few months to get up and running properly and they are probably a bit short staffed and behind in their work at present. But the SCU are in a position to put in place a template for claim management that hopefully other ACC branches can learn from.

Its a wait and see at this stage.
0

#3 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 19 September 2008 - 08:55 AM

Lupine

I am no way suggesting that SC victims do not go through hell.

But those points you are making are the same for all of us.

I have just been through three Reviews for Mental caused by Physical. It is 'covered' by ACC but still I have had three Reviews for the one claim. And all for the same issues of the assessor not doing the assessment probably. Making mistakes in her report.

The psychriatrist for cover was fab. But the assessor obviously should not be around people with the mental stressors that bring on anxiety, depression, etc etc. Depends what you are labelled with as to what you get given.

This has been the most trying of claims I have made of the ACC. And when you think how it should be treated considering the Nature of the covered injury. There is little if no sensitivity in the IA units that I can gather. It is atroucious!!

So it is off to Appeal hoping that the Judge will see in my direction.

I reiterate, this is not to belittle you post. It is to support it and let you know you are not alone.

Cheers Mini
0

#4 User is offline   freshrain 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6
  • Joined: 20-October 07

Posted 19 September 2008 - 12:29 PM

 MINI, on Sep 19 2008, 08:55 AM, said:

Lupine

I am no way suggesting that SC victims do not go through hell.

But those points you are making are the same for all of us.

I have just been through three Reviews for Mental caused by Physical. It is 'covered' by ACC but still I have had three Reviews for the one claim. And all for the same issues of the assessor not doing the assessment probably. Making mistakes in her report.

The psychriatrist for cover was fab. But the assessor obviously should not be around people with the mental stressors that bring on anxiety, depression, etc etc. Depends what you are labelled with as to what you get given.

This has been the most trying of claims I have made of the ACC. And when you think how it should be treated considering the Nature of the covered injury. There is little if no sensitivity in the IA units that I can gather. It is atroucious!!

So it is off to Appeal hoping that the Judge will see in my direction.

I reiterate, this is not to belittle you post. It is to support it and let you know you are not alone.

Cheers Mini


Not to belittle you either Mini, but there is a difference for sensitive claimants. For most SCs the whole claim is surrounded by extreme shame, and this issue is huge. And naturally going public about ACC treatment is not an option. There is a great deal of prejudice surrounding sensitive claims both for the reasons lupine has detailed and the mental illness issue. The public are imho more skeptical of sensitive claims than any other type of claim. Sensitive claimants are already severely mentally injured when they begin the ACC processes that have caused, and continue to cause, mental injuries in physically injured claimants who started the processes with good mental health. Claimants with mental injuries also start with ACC with the credibility issues surrounding mental illness.

Do ACC exploit this vulnerability? You bet. How much easier is it to psychologically break those who are already mentally injured? It has always been the most vulnerable claimants that are most easily shaken off the 'tail'. And I suspect for all these reasons, a disproportionate number of SCs with legitimate claims never get ERC etc in the first place

Thanks for your informative posts, Lupine.

I wish you all the very best with your appeal Mini, and again, I'm not belittling what you've been through.
0

#5 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1605
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 19 September 2008 - 03:25 PM

Hi All,

Thanks for the reasoned comments on this thread. I just wanted to qualify what I meant by Sensitive Claimants being in a unique position. I do not mean unique as in terms of suffering I mean that there are some considerations that the SC must factor in that are peculiar to SC's. These considerations must be taken into account when dealing with this specific type of claim. I am glad the SCU is trying to sort itself out but I would advise claimants not to take risks even so. ;)
0

#6 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

  Posted 19 September 2008 - 04:29 PM

Well if we all keep on keeping on, we may gain, some decent feedback from ACC for all.

That will be a great win for us all eh??

Go well and be kind to yourselves

Luv Mini
0

#7 User is offline   Phoeniks 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: 22-June 08

Posted 20 September 2008 - 01:38 AM

 Lupine, on Sep 19 2008, 03:25 PM, said:

Hi All,

Thanks for the reasoned comments on this thread. I just wanted to qualify what I meant by Sensitive Claimants being in a unique position. I do not mean unique as in terms of suffering I mean that there are some considerations that the SC must factor in that are peculiar to SC's. These considerations must be taken into account when dealing with this specific type of claim. I am glad the SCU is trying to sort itself out but I would advise claimants not to take risks even so. ;)

Lupine I am not with SCU but have the same difficulty. I have had PTSD from an armed robbery in my workplace and I've been treated pretty badly considering the nature of my claim. So, just to let you know that it isn't just SCU claimants that are broken by the ACC mismanagement and delay tactics etc. I also am working on this issue- getting documentation of it. Problem is finding a treatment provider or assessor who is prepared to stick their neck out for you and diagnose this stuff accurately. My clinical psych. (who I think is a bloody godsend incidentally) won't come to an ACC meeting with me as my support person due to the probability of having sessions stopped or something like that. I have to admit I think she's a bit gutless for that but I guess one needs to earn a crust you know?! Thanks for a very interesting, informative read though, Phoeniks.
0

#8 User is offline   flowers 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 25-March 04

Posted 20 September 2008 - 08:19 AM

Excellent post Lupine.
Good comments.
hope works out for all, Good stuff!

Attached File  lupine_sig_2.gif (20.25K)
Number of downloads: 0 Attached File  lupine_sig_4.gif (17.15K)
Number of downloads: 0
Attached File  lupine_sig_3.gif (23.96K)
Number of downloads: 0 Attached File  lupine_sig_1.gif (8.09K)
Number of downloads: 0
some avata's 4 U
0

#9 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1605
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 20 September 2008 - 10:20 AM

 Phoeniks, on Sep 20 2008, 01:38 AM, said:

Lupine I am not with SCU but have the same difficulty. I have had PTSD from an armed robbery in my workplace and I've been treated pretty badly considering the nature of my claim. So, just to let you know that it isn't just SCU claimants that are broken by the ACC mismanagement and delay tactics etc. I also am working on this issue- getting documentation of it. Problem is finding a treatment provider or assessor who is prepared to stick their neck out for you and diagnose this stuff accurately. My clinical psych. (who I think is a bloody godsend incidentally) won't come to an ACC meeting with me as my support person due to the probability of having sessions stopped or something like that. I have to admit I think she's a bit gutless for that but I guess one needs to earn a crust you know?! Thanks for a very interesting, informative read though, Phoeniks.


Hi Phoeniks,

I understand the very difficult position you find yourself in. Unless I miss my guess ACC will say that your PTSD claim is not covered because it is not caused by a discrete injury as defined by the act? I recall a case where a milkman hit a young man while driving his milk truck. The actual event caused the driver to suffer stress and anxiety after the incident to the point where he could not work but the sticking point was that he himself did not suffer from a Personal Injury as defined by the act. Sexual assault is covered by the act with its own section for this reason (and one of the reasons why the public think SC's get special treatment). This situtation leads to a nasty situation where people are the victims of crime, few get cover. If you were struck or physically injured during the robbery you get cover for physical injury. If you were not physically harmed it becomes a whole new ball game. Even if you suffered a physical injury you would likely have to link your PTSD to the injury itself, not the experience itself if you see what I mean. So if you were struck on the head it would make an easier claim (in my opinion) than if you were struck on the leg. There are some very fine distinctions I fear. Another example is say a woman is attacked and in fear of being sexually assaulted but the offender does not succeed in laying a hand on her in a sexual manner she will most likely not get cover even though the fear generated by the experience holds a great significance. The people I would go and see if I was you is the Sensible Sentencing Trust who I believe are aware of this issue. They may be able to help you but I cant say for sure as I havent dealt with them but politically they have similar issues and ideals. Your Clinical Psych will be under strict protocols not to advocate for the client and they will lose their contract if they do. Sad but true.
0

#10 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1605
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 20 September 2008 - 10:24 AM

 flowers, on Sep 20 2008, 08:19 AM, said:

Excellent post Lupine.
Good comments.
hope works out for all, Good stuff!

lupine_sig_2.gif lupine_sig_4.gif
lupine_sig_3.gif lupine_sig_1.gif
some avata's 4 U


Hi Flowers

Thanks for the avatars thats most kind :D
0

#11 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 20 September 2008 - 10:28 AM

Lupine

The law regarding the drivers or anyone suffering mental or emotional stress due to hitingand harming a person while driving has recently been covered.

I have not got the exact wording here but it will be on the online in knowledge basket or recent law changes to ACC via the Labour Dept from August this year I think.

I dont if the new law can assist anyone in the nature of sexual attack, where the actual act does not take place but I dont see why not.

maybe you would care to research and put up online.

Cheers Mini
0

#12 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 20 September 2008 - 12:44 PM

Maunga

Have a look at the comments I made in Dopples thread re the 1982 definition of "Personal Injry by accident".

It is only in rough draft form in my brain and the bit online in Dopples thread at the moment.

This is regarding "Damage to the body or mind". I wonder how many drs would care to put their signature to a paper that says that your relatives mind/mental damage was not caused through something of a cerebro-vascular episode in the course of his employment that has caused his PTSS".

I have not got the 1982 Act so cannot help you out much here. but you would want to research the on going acts for the definition of the same "Personal Injury by accident" and compare them. Not to mention the sections of the Act.

Definitions in the 1982 Act come under section 2.

This goes the same for phoenix as well.

Cheers Mini
0

#13 User is offline   Phoeniks 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: 22-June 08

Posted 20 September 2008 - 02:34 PM

 Lupine, on Sep 20 2008, 10:20 AM, said:

Hi Phoeniks,

I understand the very difficult position you find yourself in. Unless I miss my guess ACC will say that your PTSD claim is not covered because it is not caused by a discrete injury as defined by the act? I recall a case where a milkman hit a young man while driving his milk truck. The actual event caused the driver to suffer stress and anxiety after the incident to the point where he could not work but the sticking point was that he himself did not suffer from a Personal Injury as defined by the act. Sexual assault is covered by the act with its own section for this reason (and one of the reasons why the public think SC's get special treatment). This situtation leads to a nasty situation where people are the victims of crime, few get cover. If you were struck or physically injured during the robbery you get cover for physical injury. If you were not physically harmed it becomes a whole new ball game. Even if you suffered a physical injury you would likely have to link your PTSD to the injury itself, not the experience itself if you see what I mean. So if you were struck on the head it would make an easier claim (in my opinion) than if you were struck on the leg. There are some very fine distinctions I fear. Another example is say a woman is attacked and in fear of being sexually assaulted but the offender does not succeed in laying a hand on her in a sexual manner she will most likely not get cover even though the fear generated by the experience holds a great significance. The people I would go and see if I was you is the Sensible Sentencing Trust who I believe are aware of this issue. They may be able to help you but I cant say for sure as I havent dealt with them but politically they have similar issues and ideals. Your Clinical Psych will be under strict protocols not to advocate for the client and they will lose their contract if they do. Sad but true.

Lupine I do have cover for mental caused by physical from ACC although I had to take court action back in 2003 to get this cover. This was 6 years after the event and I'll never get that time back unfortunately, not to mention the huge stress that fighting for it placed on me at a time when I should have been focussing on getting well. Thanks for your suggestion re the sensible sentencing trust- I have recently found that according to the Victims Rights Act 2002 I am not covered except for the purposes of treatment (I smell ACC here). For 2 reasons; noone was charged with crime (hence I cant seek restoratative justice etc.) and other is that a victim under the Act must have been physically injured during the event. I did sustain a bilateral shoulder injury from being pushed forward with a gun in my back and having my collar pulled back by the offender simultaneously. I still cant work due to the PTSD not being fully worked through and the fact that this took place at work seems to have been ignored by ACC- this is important because I wont be pushed back into an environment that is unsafe and unsupportive in terms of the people I work with/for. I need a guarantee that I will be looked after if/when I do return to some kind of workplace. That is really why being at University was so good for me last year, there are disability support services (including a room for me to go to when I'm having a panic attack and am particularly vulnerable) that wouldnt be available to me in a workplace environment. But ACC stopped me from studying in order to go through a work ready program and I've had a damned relapse, basically back to square one, due to not having my brain stimulated which I believe is the KEY to moving beyond PTSD and depression. Sorry this post is so long but I find it really difficult to express all of this in a succinct way so bear with me. What I'm looking at now is the fact that this all happened in 1997 and I think that National dropped the mental injury cover in 1998 so I should have been automatically covered when it happened but was told I wasnt. That meant I had to accept therapy from an unqualified therapist at the time as I couldnt access therapy from ACC. Who knows how much damage he did to me? I also paid for the physical rehabilitation luckily finding a provider who halved her price for me due to the messed up predicament I was in and so ACC have actually never treated the physical part of my claim. I am pursuing this also. I'm in the process of contacting VictimSupport for a couple of reasons but the problem with them is that they all bloody operate out of police stations which is a huge trigger for me having been their main suspect in the crime at the time I was a victim and totally traumatised- was pretty much broken in an interview/interrogation which didnt take place at a police station. So I cant even go in to the damned Victim Support premises to sit and talk with someone like I want to. Well thats enough I guess thanks for listening y'all, its amazing what support/encouragement one can get from complete strangers! One last thing is I think my case could be a good one to try to get ACC on bad handling of a claim (particularly a sensitive one) as they cant get me on inappropriate sexual stuff i.e. not having been a prostitute, as the sexual doesnt come into my claim other than fearing rape during the event. But I want to be able to portray the impact of ACCs victimising and traumatising behaviour in my case. I have emailed John Miller who won the case in 2003, but havent heard back yet, and am fully prepared to be a test case for that issue so we'll wait and see. LOL Phoeniks

0

#14 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1706
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 20 September 2008 - 07:30 PM

 MINI, on Sep 20 2008, 12:44 PM, said:

Maunga

Have a look at the comments I made in Dopples thread re the 1982 definition of "Personal Injry by accident".

It is only in rough draft form in my brain and the bit online in Dopples thread at the moment.

This is regarding "Damage to the body or mind". I wonder how many drs would care to put their signature to a paper that says that your relatives mind/mental damage was not caused through something of a cerebro-vascular episode in the course of his employment that has caused his PTSS".

I have not got the 1982 Act so cannot help you out much here. but you would want to research the on going acts for the definition of the same "Personal Injury by accident" and compare them. Not to mention the sections of the Act.

Definitions in the 1982 Act come under section 2.

This goes the same for phoenix as well.

Cheers Mini


one needs to check the Act that the claim comes under to determine cover.
0

#15 User is offline   redsquare74ucys 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 626
  • Joined: 23-June 07

Posted 20 September 2008 - 10:58 PM

Hi Lupine!

Thanks for your posts. Boy I need an advocate. I sent emails to my CM to try and clarify things (still unsure of my entitlements re treatment and have many issues regarding my case). Only some of these were answered (I asked ACC to communicate by email or mail).

ATM ACC has put my file through a "file review" after I raised concerns about two of the events accepted for cover.

The first was accepted, then in a report (ACC GP assessing %) it was stated as not covered(?). I emailed asking if I should take the date that I recieved the report as a decision (then I would know that I had three months to review it). No response to this question so I instructed my lawyer to proceed. This is something I wanted to avoid because I know my condition will worsen under the stress.

The second was treated in the report (ACC GP) as a single event in 1996 when it was actually a series of events that continued for years. I was originally told it had been marked as ongoing. WTF happened??

This has caused me much distress that I really didn't need right now. To add insult to injury - lol - ACC haven't been able to offer any suitable treatment. Please note, I'm not asking anyone to make suggestions for treatment. So don't do that ok! Instead I am paying someone to help me. I can't afford it, can't afford not to have it. Also I need to feel in some kind of control.

My lawyer says that I will need to be reassessed by an independant expert. This is EXACTLY what I wanted to avoid. I just want this over ASAP.

Knowing what I know now I would have done things very differently.
0

#16 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1605
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 21 September 2008 - 07:15 AM

 redsquare74ucys, on Sep 20 2008, 10:58 PM, said:

Hi Lupine!

Thanks for your posts. Boy I need an advocate. I sent emails to my CM to try and clarify things (still unsure of my entitlements re treatment and have many issues regarding my case). Only some of these were answered (I asked ACC to communicate by email or mail).

ATM ACC has put my file through a "file review" after I raised concerns about two of the events accepted for cover.

The first was accepted, then in a report (ACC GP assessing %) it was stated as not covered(?). I emailed asking if I should take the date that I recieved the report as a decision (then I would know that I had three months to review it). No response to this question so I instructed my lawyer to proceed. This is something I wanted to avoid because I know my condition will worsen under the stress.

The second was treated in the report (ACC GP) as a single event in 1996 when it was actually a series of events that continued for years. I was originally told it had been marked as ongoing. WTF happened??

This has caused me much distress that I really didn't need right now. To add insult to injury - lol - ACC haven't been able to offer any suitable treatment. Please note, I'm not asking anyone to make suggestions for treatment. So don't do that ok! Instead I am paying someone to help me. I can't afford it, can't afford not to have it. Also I need to feel in some kind of control.

My lawyer says that I will need to be reassessed by an independant expert. This is EXACTLY what I wanted to avoid. I just want this over ASAP.

Knowing what I know now I would have done things very differently.


Hi Redsquare,

The best way to approach the variances in your Personal Information is to use the Privacy Act. If in the event you feel that information being put together and used by ACC is misleading or incorrect and ACC is aware of this then that is a potential breach of Rule 8 of the Privacy Act which states that information used must by correct and complete and not misleading. Another Privacy Rule of interest is Rule 7. Rule 7 states that you are entitled to have your comments placed with your information and those comments must be included when the information in question is used in the process. I suggest that you type up the correct version of events, show the text to your lawyer and then have the information you provide attached to the information held by ACC under Rule 7 of the Privacy Act. This means that any specialist or reviewer will see that information before any meetings and that is important. It makes sure your correct version is part of the documentation process.
0

#17 User is offline   redsquare74ucys 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 626
  • Joined: 23-June 07

Posted 21 September 2008 - 10:04 PM

 Lupine, on Sep 21 2008, 07:15 AM, said:

Hi Redsquare,

The best way to approach the variances in your Personal Information is to use the Privacy Act. If in the event you feel that information being put together and used by ACC is misleading or incorrect and ACC is aware of this then that is a potential breach of Rule 8 of the Privacy Act which states that information used must by correct and complete and not misleading. Another Privacy Rule of interest is Rule 7. Rule 7 states that you are entitled to have your comments placed with your information and those comments must be included when the information in question is used in the process. I suggest that you type up the correct version of events, show the text to your lawyer and then have the information you provide attached to the information held by ACC under Rule 7 of the Privacy Act. This means that any specialist or reviewer will see that information before any meetings and that is important. It makes sure your correct version is part of the documentation process.


Thanks Lupuine,

Valuable & timely information. My lawyer has only just started proceedings so hopefully I can write this over the next week or so.

Don't suppose you have any tips for dealing the Police? I took along someone from rape crisis when I told them about the complaint. Just waiting now for them to let me know if they can take it further - they are waiting on another report before they decide. Haven't had the evidential interview yet (hmmm, hope I get to have one at all). The two detectives seemed friendly enough, but their cops so who knows.
0

#18 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1605
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 22 September 2008 - 08:27 AM

 redsquare74ucys, on Sep 21 2008, 10:04 PM, said:

Thanks Lupuine,

Valuable & timely information. My lawyer has only just started proceedings so hopefully I can write this over the next week or so.

Don't suppose you have any tips for dealing the Police? I took along someone from rape crisis when I told them about the complaint. Just waiting now for them to let me know if they can take it further - they are waiting on another report before they decide. Haven't had the evidential interview yet (hmmm, hope I get to have one at all). The two detectives seemed friendly enough, but their cops so who knows.


Hi Redsquare,

If your lawyer has only just started proceedings then that is no problem. It takes a long time for the legal system to grind through its processes so you should be able to get what you need done. Just make sure that your Lawyer examines your corrections before you send them to ACC and of course they will have more weight if they are sent by your Lawyer. It is good to write your own stuff because it saves money but just stick to the facts and keep it dry. Thats how battle are won in the Legal Arena (and it is an Arena).

Dealing with the Police: The sex crime units the Police use are generally very good and very professional. I would have no concerns per say about dealing with them but there will be pressures from elsewhere that you may wish to consider. This is especially true if the person you are accusing is a Family Member or a close friend of people you know. The Police have to consider three things when looking into these matters. The interest of the State, the public interest and the rights of the accused. As a complainant you will have the status of State Witness so your interests coincide with the interests of the State. Your status a victim is addressed further in the Victim Impact process but this is not a factor this early in the investigation. So here is a basic example of how these things can go.

Complainant is believed (unless evidence indicates otherwise as can happen) First Test passed unless evidence indicates otherwise.

Public Interest Test is applied. Complainant believed but no evidence to back claim and or defense has a vast amount of ammunition making a conviction extremely unlikely or the chain of evidence simply won't meet Court Standards. Test failed, Complainant is considered Bona Fides but case cannot be made therefore not in the public interest to proceed as cases of this nature are extremely costly. If evidence exists and the case has a chance then this test is passed.

Rights of the Accused is more a matter of procedure but say the Accused is to ill through dementia or similar then the case will likely not go ahead as there cant be a fair trial even if the State and Public Interest tests are passed.

It is hard to secure a conviction in this country as too many people have used sexual abuse to further their own agendas and the public have an inate suspicion in these matters. However it is not impossible. Expect the Defense Lawyer (your strongest foe) to attack you over any ACC claim you have made etc. Trust no one and above all stay Frosty. Dignity often wins on the day but strong emotion and or dramatics hangs sexual abuse complainants sure as eggs are eggs.
0

#19 User is offline   redsquare74ucys 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 626
  • Joined: 23-June 07

Posted 22 September 2008 - 10:21 PM

 Lupine, on Sep 22 2008, 08:27 AM, said:

It is hard to secure a conviction in this country as too many people have used sexual abuse to further their own agendas and the public have an inate suspicion in these matters. However it is not impossible. Expect the Defense Lawyer (your strongest foe) to attack you over any ACC claim you have made etc. Trust no one and above all stay Frosty. Dignity often wins on the day but strong emotion and or dramatics hangs sexual abuse complainants sure as eggs are eggs.


!! I thought ACC sensitive claims were confidential and not able to be accessed by anyone else outside of ACCSCU? Do you mean they can request this as of right?

Thanks for your reply. I didn't expect you would be able to help but this has been really useful. I'm really isolated here and feel safest over the internet. Also my impairment means that I have a great deal of difficulty talking to others like rape crisis workers, etc etc.

I've heard the drop out rate in R. trials is very high. Are there any statistics showing why? This information would be really useful to me. As morbid as it sounds I wish I could sit through a R trial to see what will happen and how I am likely to be attacked. The accused has my life story so I guess I would be attacked for existing at all. *sigh*
0

#20 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1605
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 23 September 2008 - 06:40 AM

Hi Redsquare,

The information on your file itself should be safe enough but it is not impossible that some information on that file could be dragged into the fray somehow. Even then the Judge would would have to rule on whether that information could be put before the court. However it is almost certain that the defense would ask you if you are a SC to play on the public perception that SC's are in it for the money. If asked if you are a claimant you would be under oath and would have to say yes. (else its perjury and the end of your credibility). For more information it would be best of you asked the Professionals. The reason why many cases drop out is because it is a stressful process (though the accused certainly feels the burn as well) that takes on average around 18 months. The best way to get through it is to listen to the Police and do exactly what they recommend. This is a fight like any other fight. He or she who fights well will win or at least come out knowing they did their best. Rape cases are often lost because the victim manages to portray themselves as unstable and or vengeful and the jury apply their own values to what they see. War has rules and this is legal warfare.
0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

2 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users