Black Widow, The: How One Woman Got Justice for Her Murdered Brother

by Lee-Anne, Cartier,

  Rajon and Lacau managed to get out of the car in the pouring rain and flag down help. We were taken by ambulance to the medical centre at Cheviot and Karen met us there, while Wayne and Ben retrieved our gear from the car.

  We stayed the night at Karen’s and in a borrowed car headed up to the farm the next day.

  Rajon and Lacau loved it up at the farm. Anthony had baby calves for the girls to bottle-feed and look after. When we had been over in the holidays they had helped Anthony build a giant chicken house, so there were chickens to feed every day and eggs to collect. The girls were happy to get up early to feed the calves and chickens before school.

  The girls happily swapped their designer-brand clothes for Hunting & Fishing camo gear and Red Band gummies. Rajon recently said that the farm was the best place she had ever lived. They used to spend their days climbing the hills and around the creek, playing on a rope swing and riding their bikes — it was an effort to get them inside for dinner. When Anthony got them a beautiful baby girl kelpie they named Lily they couldn’t have been happier.

  WHEN I HAD BEEN IN New Zealand in July 2011 after giving my statement, I had bought a book at Christchurch airport called Helen: The Helen Meads Tragedy written by David White, Helen’s father, about the death of the Matamata woman at the hands of her abusive husband. The book was so compelling I read over half of it on the plane. It was in David’s book that I became aware of the Sensible Sentencing Trust (SST) and Garth McVicar, its founder. I tracked down Garth’s phone number and rang him. If only I’d known about SST right back at the start I would have had these wonderful people to help me navigate the muck-around I was getting from the police in the first investigation. Garth linked me to his wife Anne, who invited me to the annual Victims of Homicide Conference.

  In late September, while the girls helped Anthony paint the chicken house, I headed to Napier for the weekend for the conference, with Karen as my support person. I met a lot of incredibly amazing people, people who were in the process of overcoming horrific loss and pain and were there supporting others in similar situations.

  When I first found out I was having twins I didn’t know how I was going to cope or if I could do it, but we joined a multiple-birth support group and went along to family days and met other parents of multiples. There I got my reassurance that I could survive this, by seeing others who had — parents who had twins and triplets older than mine who had made it all achievable. So to see others who had gone through murder trials of their loved ones and come out the other side seemingly intact gave me hope that I could too.

  I was absolutely terrified of the trial, as Greg had said on many occasions that the defence would try to rip me to bits using the strategy that I had got people to collaborate with me in a vindictive move against Helen, who I hadn’t liked. It was good to finally be surrounded by people who totally understood my loss and the situation of a trial ahead of me.

  After the introductions, where everyone got up and introduced themselves and their loved one they’d lost and the circumstances surrounding that, I felt like I almost didn’t have the right to be there — that the others’ loved ones had suffered horrific, unspeakable deaths where Phil had merely gone to sleep one night thinking he was starting a new run at work the next day and dropping Ben’s hoodie to him. Phil never saw it coming. For him there was not the fear and the pain that others had suffered. I was grateful that Phil had a peaceful ending, and I felt for the other victims and for their loved ones who were not only hurt by losing them but dealing with the manner in which they died.

  I LOVED BEING ON THE farm too but things weren’t working between Anthony and I, and it was time to move on. The girls and I shifted down to Christchurch, staying with Andrea initially for a month until we found a rental in North Beach, shifting in the week before Christmas. It was good to be settled in time for the holidays. Anthony chopped us down a real Christmas tree and joined us for Christmas lunch.

  The main thought in my head was, bring on the New Year and the trial.

  The painted chicken house.

  Sixteen

  Frustration

  January 2013 arrived and the trial was nearing. It was time to get things organised for Mum and Dad.

  With Dad, Andrew, Lance and myself confirmed as witnesses and unable to enter the courtroom until we’d given evidence, I contacted Roger, who had given a statement but wasn’t going to be required as a witness, to ask him to be in court with Mum. He said he would’ve come over if he had been called as a witness, but then said that not everybody believed in my type of justice: that others believe it is God’s place to deal with it. I was furious and explained this was about being there for his parents, not his beliefs. He hung up on me.

  The first two weeks of January I was busy speaking with Victim Support and making accommodation and airline plans for Mum and Dad. I rang the Crown solicitor on 17 January regarding the trial and was advised that back in November Helen’s counsel, Margaret Sewell, had contacted the court, outlining Helen’s issues with her legal aid application in regard to discrepancies and financial information — including large sums of money that had left Helen’s account and been transferred into Barry’s. Helen had been warned in court on 14 December that if she didn’t supply this information she could be left at trial without a lawyer. A teleconference was called on 14 January regarding this matter, where Sewell advised she had disclosed the paperwork necessary but as yet hadn’t received a decision from Legal Aid.

  To further complicate matters, sadly Greg’s wife had passed away suddenly and he was in no position to be ready for a February trial. In light of these events, the judge ruled an adjournment of the trial until later in the year, with an expected start date of 12 August.

  The countdown had got down to 25 days and now we were back to over 200. It was so frustrating — and all the more so because if the original police team had done their job, the trial would have been before the earthquakes, any appeals would have been done and dusted, and we would be putting our lives back to some semblance of normality by now. However, there was no way I would have wanted the trial to go ahead without Greg or with any pressure on him to be ready, considering his personal circumstances.

  Dad had been terribly upset about being a witness. He was worried that with his failing memory that he wouldn’t be able to recall things as well as he did when he gave his statement. It would be over four years by the time of the trial. With Dad in his 80s it was all too much for him, so Andrew and I spoke with Greg and the Crown.

  Crown Solicitor Kathy Basire came back to us after discussions with Brent Stanaway, the lead prosecutor, explaining that if Dad pre-recorded his evidence then showed up at the trial, the defence could force him to take the stand and use the recorded testimony to trip him up. They advised that if Dad’s memory was not good enough for him to take the stand then he shouldn’t attend the trial.

  I was furious — how could such an ultimatum be given to my grieving father? Why should a man whose long-term memory was fading either be forced to give evidence or to not attend the only justice for his son?

  LANCE AND I ATTENDED A hearing in the High Court on 8 February, a jury trial call-over for the case. Helen was brought into the dock by prison guards, wearing a plain T-shirt, knit shorts and jandals. Everyone was there but Helen’s counsel Margaret Sewell. The court registrar rang to see where she was, and found that Sewell was not available for the hearing and was at her home out of Christchurch, but would make arrangements for a learned friend or her husband to attend on her behalf.

  Helen was put back into a holding cell while we waited. Once Rupert Glover, Margaret Sewell’s husband and legal partner, finally showed the hearing was very short. Once again the case was held over.

  IN MAY, KAREN TOLD ME she had seen a woman on the street who she swore was Helen or her double. I rang Greg, who said funnily enough Helen was due to come up for parole soon. What the? I rang Ruth Money from the SST, who got straight onto helping us get onto the Victim Notification
Register (VNR). There were initially some issues with us getting registered, as this wasn’t a crime we were officially victims of.

  We were registered by 24 May, then received notification on 30 May of Helen’s parole hearing, to be held the week beginning 17 June. I spent considerable effort trying to get in contact with Helen’s son Adam, and got him registered on the VNR too, which was an effort in itself as ‘the system’ classes ‘perverting the course of justice’ as a victimless crime!

  I’m not sure how ‘the system’ came to that conclusion but with lots of back and forwards between Ruth, myself and the Parole Board administration, Adam was allowed to register and make an oral submission on Helen’s parole. Both Andrew and myself made written submissions to the Parole Board.

  Jayne Crothall, who I had also met through the SST and who has attended many Parole Board hearings, both as a victim and as a support person for others, supported Adam and me at the hearing. In the end I was only allowed to be there as a support person for Adam and was not able to make an oral submission but that didn’t matter to me — getting Adam the opportunity to have his say was paramount.

  Helen’s eligibility for parole came only 10 months into a 32-month sentence. The Parole Board declined her application on this occasion, stating that Helen did not qualify for release under section 28 of the Parole Amendment Act. Helen was not doing anything personally to deal with her criminogenic needs (factors likely to affect her offending), and when it had been put to her that she participate in a particular programme to address this, Helen was not interested in doing so.

  MY BIRTH BROTHER GRANT AND his lovely fiancée Emily were getting married at the end of July, north of Townsville, and it fell in the school holidays so the girls came with me to Australia to catch up with friends and spend some time with their father and grandmother in Cairns, while I attended the wedding. It was going to be a good opportunity to help organise Mum and Dad for their trip to the trial the week after we returned.

  Before we went away I called in to Christchurch Central Police Station and picked up the summonses to appear for family members. Up to this point I had thought Dad had been removed as a witness. During our time in Australia I spoke to Greg about why this hadn’t happened. I spoke to Ruth from the SST who also spoke with Greg and was assured it would be sorted out at the pre-trial hearing on 26 July.

  I had a stopover at Rockhampton on my flight on 25 July to Townsville. While I was waiting there I gave Greg a call to make sure things would be sorted the following day at the pre-trial hearing. At this point he informed me that the lead defence counsel, Margaret Sewell, had had a brain aneurysm and was going into surgery on Monday so the trial would be postponed at the hearing the next day.

  I couldn’t believe it: what were the odds of this happening 18 days out from trial? The rug had been pulled out from under our feet yet again. How was I going to break a second cancellation to our family?

  I rang Ruth with the frustrating news and vented on her shoulder. I then spoke with Lance and made arrangements for him to attend the hearing so we had a clearer picture of what was going on.

  I was glad to put this mess behind me for a beautiful weekend at Mission Beach, being there to see Grant marry the love of his life at the picturesque Paralana Park.

  A FOURTH JURY TRIAL CALL-OVER was held on 16 August, where Rupert Glover advised the court that Margaret Sewell would take some time to recover and that he would be making an application to Legal Aid to take over as lead on the case. He chatted loudly before the judge entered about taking Sewell on a cruise in the meantime. That was nice — they could go on a cruise while we sat and waited longer for justice.

  A third date was set for the trial, starting 2 December 2013. Third time lucky, one would hope!

  For the first two trial dates Justice Graham Panckhurst was set as the judge, but he was not available for the trial date in December, so Justice David Gendall was appointed to the case. I had previously Google-researched Justice Panckhurst and was humbled that a man of such stature and experience was to preside over the trial, so I was understandably disappointed that he would not be available for our December date. I spoke to Ruth about the assignment of the new judge and she informed me he was the brother of Justice Warwick Gendall, who had previously sat on the bench of the High Court. I was impressed that he was a part of such an academically and legally accomplished family.

  Coincidentally, that year at the annual Victims of Homicide Conference, run in 2013 by the Red Raincoat Trust, an arm of SST, Justice Warwick Gendall spoke to our group, as the head of the Parole Board. Meeting him in this environment gave me a very positive feeling about his brother running our coming trial.

  ON 24 AUGUST 2013, I made an official complaint to the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) regarding what I saw as the police’s failure and negative attitude in the first investigation. The IPCA informed me on 9 October that they’d put the matter back in the hands of the police to deal with:

  Dear Ms Cartier

  Further to our letter of 27 August 2013 Police have now forwarded a report to the Authority to assist with its enquiries. The Authority has now independently assessed the report in conjunction with the information you provided regarding your complaint.

  In your complaint you raise issues regarding the standard of investigation completed by Police following the death of your brother.

  The Authority has referred the matter back to the Police as it is considered that your complaint may be able to be resolved by way of mutual agreement between you and the Police.

  You will be contacted by an officer assigned to enquire into your complaint. The Police may also wish to meet with you to discuss your concerns. If you have any queries during this process, you should contact the assigned Police officer.

  At the conclusion of the enquiry you will be advised in writing of the nature of the mutually agreed outcome or, in the absence of such an agreement, the decision reached by Police on your complaint. If you have any residual concerns following receipt of the final letter from the Police, you may advise the Authority of the nature of your concerns. Consideration will then be given as to what further steps, if any, should be taken.

  I thought the IPCA was just a waste of space. Why have it if it just gives things back to the police to deal with? I knew at that point that it would just be swept under the carpet.

  ON 16 OCTOBER I CALLED in to Christchurch Central Police Station to give Greg the information for the accommodation the police needed to sort out for Andrew for the trial, so he was at the same place as Mum and Dad. Greg broached the subject of my IPCA complaint, letting me know that as per the above letter the IPCA had referred the matter back to them for conciliation. He explained that a civilian police employee would be dealing with the matter.

  In the mail that Saturday I received the following letter from Greg:

  Dear Lee-Anne

  Re: IPCA complaint 2013-1434

  I am writing to you in response to your letter to the IPCA about the actions of Detective Sgt X and Detective Y in investigating the death of your brother Philip Nisbet in 2009, and actions of Sgt Z in attending the scene at the time.

  As explained in our conversation earlier today (16 October 2013), the complaint was forwarded to Christchurch for local conciliation. This was done this morning and my one-on-one conversation with you, which I will summarise here in writing.

  In relation to the police officers complained of, Sgt Z resigned from the police force prior to you making the complaint to the IPCA, so no further action can or will be taken about him. I agree with you that his direction to the attending constables that the death be treated as a normal suicide was incorrect, especially as the attending constables were suspicious about the cause of death.

  Constable A had limited involvement in the original enquiry and had only just joined the CIB at the time. I have not spoken to him as his role was so limited. In relation to Detective Sgt X and Detective Y who investigated the death in 2009, there were aspect
s of their enquiry that were not completed to the standard expected of CIB investigators. I have explained what these identified deficiencies were and will not repeat them here. In 2011 I reviewed their original investigation, as did Detective Senior Sgt Neil (Timaru CIB) and identified a number of aspects of the original enquiry that had not been completed properly, principally being the handling and recording of exhibits, the interviews of the suspect, and a number of important enquiries not having been completed, such as interviewing all available witnesses and finding out where the fatal dose of Phenergan had been purchased from and by whom. I have personally spoken to both officers about the aspects of the enquiry that were not completed to the standard expected, and can assure you that both are now aware of these deficiencies, and that a repeat of them will not occur. You indicated to me that this was your main concern i.e. avoiding a repeat of this occurring, and I am confident that that is the case.

  Both officers have acknowledged that the original enquiry may have been completed better and that they would do things differently next time.

  I sincerely apologise on behalf of the NZ Police for the delay in investigating this matter properly and in a timely manner.

  I am hopeful that the trial of Mrs Milner in December 2013 for the murder of Mr Nisbet will provide some closure and justice for you and your family.

  Thank you for your complaint to police. Without such complaints, New Zealand police are unable to uphold the standards expected of its staff. A copy of this letter will be forwarded to the IPCA. The authority is entirely independent of the police. If you are dissatisfied you should advise the authority in writing.

  Yes, I was dissatisfied, and saddened that the police informed me after the fact that our casual conversation was in fact our IPCA conciliation meeting. But after giving so much of my time and energy into getting justice for my brother I didn’t have it left in me to fight the police. I am sure those involved in the failure will eventually be bitten by karma — I’m just a little disappointed I won’t have a front row seat.