Apart from his first appearance the day after he killed Sophie (I didn’t have the physical or emotional strength for that), I have attended all 10 of the judicial hearings where Weatherston has tried every possible avenue to exonerate himself or minimise his actions. I particularly remember his first appearance a week after he killed Sophie. I was sitting near the front in the District Court and when he came in he was quite close to me. It was a bit like a wedding really; our family and friends on one side and his on the other. Few of the details were known at that stage and he did have some support, most of which would dwindle away as his ghastly actions became known. He didn’t look at me but instead focused on the people towards the back of the room, mostly from the economics department at the university. Only I knew the full horror of what had taken place, although I was unaware of how he had mutilated Sophie at that stage, so it revolted me to see him smirk and wink towards his supporters. It also angered me to watch his mother herding her family and friends around. I do recall standing up with everyone else when the judge came in but when they sat down, I remained standing. I wanted Weatherston to see me, but he avoided any eye contact. God, I was determined. Another thing that annoyed me was his clothing — a suit and tie, not the skintight T-shirt he usually wore. He’d obviously dressed to impress but he didn’t impress me.
The next appearance gave the impression of a fiasco, this was between Len Anderson and Judith Ablett-Kerr. Whenever Anderson tried to address the judge, Mrs Ablett-Kerr kept interrupting and going on about how the family was engaging her. She was like a terrier. Rather than sort it out in chambers, Judge O’Driscoll told the lawyers to go away and sort it out themselves. Mrs Ablett-Kerr won in the end and I would feel content if Clayton Weatherston caused her many a sleepless night. Not only has he put us, and me as the principal witness in particular, through the gruelling ordeal of giving evidence, he has not once shown any remorse. When interviewed by a psychiatrist, Weatherston said he had thought about what happened so much that he was almost over it. Well, Clayton, if you are reading this book, let me tell you that I have thought about what happened very much also. In fact I have had precious little opportunity to think of anything else. And be under no misapprehension — I am certainly not over it.
The wait for justice has been cruel. Perhaps by outlining what transpired from his first appearance until sentencing it will show that our criminal justice system is in need of an overhaul. I know our case wasn’t unique because through Garth McVicar, founder of the Sensible Sentencing Trust, I have met many families who feel the ‘system’ has simply let them down. It has compounded their grief and trauma. If I hope for anything to come out of this, it is that those who have the power to make things happen for the better accept my challenge and improve the system. This is a plea from my heart: make it easier — please.
Over a long period of time I made diary notes of significant events as I waited to finally hear a jury pronounce Clayton Weatherston guilty. I am using those diary notes, my memory and newspaper reports of the trial to write this chapter. For the sake of accuracy I applied to the High Court for a transcript of the evidence given during nearly five weeks of testimony. The transcripts are a public record of what happened in a court that was open to the public. But my request was denied. The judge had to ask the defence and the Crown if they had any objections. Mrs Ablett-Kerr had to consult Weatherston and, based on the fact he is appealing his conviction, I have been denied access to a public record of who said what about my daughter’s death. On reflection, Justice Potter was probably right. Nothing should be done to give Weatherston any ammunition for an appeal. But from a victim’s point of view, one cannot help but feel the rights of the accused take precedence.
In February 2009 I was in Christchurch for another hearing. Kallum Croudis phoned, asking me to meet him and Crown prosecutor Marie Grills in a café. I took my lawyer brother Dave and his partner Ann along for support. The meeting was to tell me about a teleconference Marie had had the previous day with Judith Ablett-Kerr and Justice Fogarty. I could not believe that the defence team was advocating for the trial to be held in Auckland or Wellington. I thought, ‘What a bloody nerve.’ The argument was that with Dunedin being so small and with the university such an integral part of the city, along with the influence of the media, how could there be an unbiased jury. I think they also submitted that a jury could not remain dispassionate when this ‘perfect, beautiful and intelligent young woman was murdered in such a vicious way’. My answer to that was, So? That is exactly what happened. Get over it. Marie did point out that the media frenzy and portrayal of Weatherston had the potential to cause a retrial or appeal by suggesting a jury may be prejudiced. All this was too politically correct for me, but I did see there was no advantage to be gained by doing anything that might lead to an appeal. I am wise enough to know that someone as formidable as Judith Ablett-Kerr would have a field day.
Ms Grills gave me, for want of a better word, a dressing-down about the media. I was close to tears and the only thing that kept the floodgates in check was the fact she kept saying, ‘We are doing this for Sophie.’ She implored me to stay away from the media and make no comment. It’s not like I sought them out. Hardly a day went by without some media outlet asking me to comment even if it wasn’t directly concerning our case. Ms Grills said the Crown would put up a counter-argument to hold the trial in Christchurch as opposed to the North Island. To me this was nothing more than a trade-off. I’m of the mind that Mrs Ablett-Kerr only opted for Auckland or Wellington to ensure she at least got Christchurch.
After the meeting we went to a pre-trial hearing regarding a change of venue. I thought this would be my chance to hear Mrs Ablett-Kerr’s submissions to justify a change of venue and to listen to the Crown’s response. I was sadly mistaken. Because I was the principal witness, I was excluded from the hearing. I felt totally alienated and while people were in court discussing which city the trial of my daughter’s murderer should be in, I was walking alone in a nearby park. At least I thought I’d be able to find out what was said because my brother Dave, my rock through this whole ghastly process, was present and he would tell me what went on. Wrong again. Justice Fogarty suppressed the proceedings and he then directly addressed Dave, telling him he was not to discuss matters with the family. I believe that was outrageous, but I respected the ruling and would never jeopardise my brother. He has such integrity that he wouldn’t reveal anything, no matter how much he thought I needed to know. Sophie’s murder had a profound effect on me and the trial was going to compound things and already I was beginning to feel alienated — shut out of the process that was meant to see justice done. Any matters like a change of venue would obviously have an impact, yet I not only couldn’t have a say but significant decisions were being kept secret from me.
And so ended the ninth hearing I had attended and by this time I had already spent the best part of 12 days in court (see Appendix 1, page 256). And the trial, unbeknown to me, was still months away.
My frustration was mirrored in an email I sent to Kallum Croudis that said:
I know court fixtures are out of your hands but I can see why people get so angry. The Bain retrial is the bane of our lives and quite frankly I think other trials being delayed because of this are offensive and certainly cruel. [Preparations for David Bain’s retrial appeared to be monopolising legal resources in Dunedin and Christchurch.] I feel our mental health is suffering. I live on antidepressants and sleeping pills. To begin with I didn’t care about drugs, I just wanted to get through each day for Sophie and try to sleep without nightmares. I thought naïvely this would only be for a short time and then I will wean off them, but already nine months have gone by.
My elderly parents (mid-eighties) have lost all spark. They shouldn’t have to be going through this sort of thing at their age. I love my job which I have been doing for 25 years but I am on autopilot these days. I do my best while there but my heart is not in it. As you can imagine seeing young mums with babies d
oesn’t help me as Soph always wanted to have a family. Gil works in Central, a place we have loved but have no heart for now. This has turned our world upside down. (I am sure it has for the Weatherstons also.) We don’t expect any privileges but we do expect a fair deal and this court system is not fair to victims. To have to wait 18 months (and that is not definite) is really quite unreasonable. I know I can hear you sighing with exasperation, sorry! Enough said, I guess. We don’t want you to feel we are blaming you. All of us have to work within the system and I guess we are not the first victims to vent their spleen at the police.
As usual I had myriad questions to ask Kallum next time we met and he was quite relaxed and forthcoming, which I really appreciated. He then said we shouldn’t have to pay our accommodation expenses in Christchurch. That was big of him. When he added it might break his budget, I retorted with perhaps the Crown should have fought harder to have the trial in Dunedin — easier for everyone and considerably cheaper. It was all confusing to me, especially as I turned my mind to our supporters and how to get the boys over from Australia, or family from as far away as Whangarei, who were desperate to be there for us. Our closest friends from Dunedin could make the four-hour drive to Christchurch, but where would they stay?
Then there were seemingly inconsequential things like leave. I’d had so much time off work I had no leave left, either annual or sick. To attend the trial I took my four weeks’ long-service leave, something I’d been saving for a decent holiday. That’s where the true generosity of my workmates came to the fore. They ever so kindly donated some of their own leave to me, bless them. That to me was a stunningly nice gesture, but should it have to come to this? One thing Gil and I resolved to do was to find a better system and to advocate for change. I just hoped I would still have the strength to do it once the trial was over. In a diary entry I wrote to Sophie:
Dear Soph,
In some ways I’m glad the trial will be in Christchurch. As much as we won’t be home with you there will be an inordinate amount of attention and I’m at a point I really can’t be bothered. So many people care about you and us and they do mean well, but it is getting difficult for me to remain composed and polite when all I want to do is curl up into a ball and think about you.
A few days after the pre-trial hearing, Dave took me through the rather alien environment of the High Court in Christchurch. Having a look around, along with an explanation of who sits where and their various functions, was comforting.
I had such a loathing for what Clayton Weatherston had done to Sophie it no longer mattered where the trial would be just so long as it was sooner rather than later. It was already 14 months since Sophie had died and I was becoming increasingly impatient. I acknowledge that this happens for other families too. Soon after having made a comment to a Sunday newspaper, I received an anonymous letter from a lady. She told me she had been waiting 21 months for a trial resulting from the death of her little boy. In the letter she chastised me for being impatient, even suggesting I use my energy to grieve for my daughter and let the judicial system ‘run its long, arduous course’. Initially the tone of the letter and the fact the writer didn’t have the courage to identify herself hurt, but now I feel that she, like us, has been treated abysmally by the system. I empathise with the unidentified woman and I don’t want victims of the future to be faced with dilemmas we found so unnecessary. I’ve never allowed advocating for change to overshadow my grieving for Sophie. There is a better way and I’m determined to point this out to those who can do something positive towards that goal.
At the end of March I was in Dunedin’s Ironic café for lunch when I saw Marie Grills come in. I didn’t feel like approaching her initially, but then thought I should at least acknowledge her and went over to say hello. I asked her if everything was on target for the 25th. I told her that based on information from the police we had begun making our bookings. When Marie said it wasn’t up to the police and the date set was tentative, I was shattered. As far as I knew the date had been agreed to.
The day after that meeting I spent crying — crying through frustration, anger, despair and sadness. The following day I felt more composed so emailed her some of the thoughts I couldn’t express in the café. Rereading that email (and Marie’s rather curt reply where she misspelt my name) shows how easy it is to become frustrated. The email in part read:
Dear Marie
I wanted to clarify some of the issues we briefly discussed in the café on Monday. I was acutely aware that you were working so did not want to carry on a lengthy discussion with you.
Firstly, I was not aware Gil had written specifically about our case to government ministers. We have a difference of opinion on some issues and he chose not to tell me as he didn’t want to put me in the position of having to defend his action. We are hurting over the delays and are not happy as I am sure you well know. I think moving the trial away from our home town was the last straw. However, for all that we have gone ahead with planning and have arranged a flat for a month from the weekend of 22 May. Our sons have booked their tickets to New Zealand and made the necessary arrangements for leave from work. Gil and I have also made our leave arrangements, as have relatives from up north. We are well aware that there could be a delay for unforeseen reasons and that while we wouldn’t like it we would have to go along with it obviously. You said Bain was on track but a delay of up to two weeks could be possible. This would put extreme pressure on us psychologically as well as financially with the flat, leave from work etc.
My brother Dave and I met Kallum in his hotel the day after the last hearing in Christchurch. As is my custom I had a number of questions written down and he answered them. He told us to all intents and purposes the 25th was fixed. Justice French would be on the bench and you and Craig Power would be the Crown solicitors. He also said he wouldn’t be in the trial but John Hedges would be and Kallum would be in the next door courtroom [with the Bain retrial] for advice if needed. I appreciate as you said it is not up to the police to organise the representation of the Crown. However, this conversation with Kallum gave us confidence to go ahead with arrangements.
The issue we have is confusion over communication or lack thereof. On one hand the police have always said they are our first port of call. Now we are heading to a trial it seems the communication is fuzzy. This does not help us. We are appreciative of all that has been done but all we are asking for are lines of communication so we know what is happening and where we are at. Had this occurred it is probable Gil’s letter to Parliament and media issues may not have been necessary. We will not sit back for Sophie’s sake as we know she would want us to see justice done.
We are not asking for much but just some clarity and reassurance that the date of 25 May is fixed and progress is being made.
Yours sincerely
Lesley Elliott
Dear Leslie [sic]
Thank you for your email. The police will continue to be the line of communication in all matters relating to the trial. The trial has been scheduled for 25 May as you have been advised.
Kind regards, Marie
In early May we heard the trial had been put back two weeks, which was annoying, not just because of the inconvenience but because of the reason we were given. The defence had only just received two psychiatric reports which were supposed to have been completed in early April, therefore not allowing the Crown psychiatrist time to read them before the trial date. So the trial was put off from 25 May to 8 June. Needless to say I was angry. The defence had had 15 months to get those reports done and now, because they were not ready, our lives went on hold once again. There was nothing we could do. We were powerless and the system just carries on regardless of others’ circumstances. All our travel and accommodation arrangements were changed and fortunately we were assured the flat we had booked in Christchurch would still be available. Thankfully Air New Zealand management was sympathetic to our plight and waived any penalty payments the boys and other relatives would have incurred.<
br />
As it turned out the psychiatric assessments on Weatherston did not show anything that might allow him a defence of insanity, so I was left with the impression that Clayton Weatherston was in fact ‘normal’. That realisation compounded matters. It meant he knew and understood what he was doing to Sophie.
Near the end of May I picked up my summons. I wrote in my diary that night:
Hi Soph,
It’s all set to go and seems so very real now. Why are we doing this? You should still be alive and with us. I’ve heard that Ablett-Kerr and the ‘vermin’ have been locking horns. The fact there may be dissension in the ranks of the defence gives me some heart. I’ll bet JAK will have cause to regret taking Weatherston as a client.
Soon after, came one aspect of the legal process I couldn’t accept then and still can’t — the question of a dead person’s privacy. To best explain how I feel about this issue and even further delays to the trial, I rely on the diary entries I penned at the end of May:
Dear Soph,
Detective Sergeant John Hedges rang today and told me Mrs Ablett-Kerr is harping on about your diary. I don’t really know what’s in it as I’ve had nothing more than a cursory glance just to feel closer to you than for any other reason. What I have read seems to have no relevance to your death other than what you wrote about him. I hope you said plenty about ‘vermin’ that the Crown can use to their advantage. In the meantime I feel aggrieved that other people are reading your private thoughts. Your privacy should be protected. Enough is enough!
The police have printed off all 150 pages. You amaze me, Soph. How did you find the time?
Hi Soph,
We had another briefing with the police and it was all very informative and quite jovial. Then they dropped the bombshell; the trial has been delayed another two weeks so here we go again, changing bookings and rearranging work/leave schedules. I could hardly speak. It’s as if we don’t matter. The reason this time is because the defence contends the police didn’t disclose the diary, but from what I understand the ‘diary’ was shown in disclosure documents. Why Mrs Ablett-Kerr didn’t request them earlier is anyone’s guess. Perhaps she didn’t appreciate its relevance. I’m beginning to see why so many people in our situation become disillusioned.
Sophie’s Legacy Page 16