The programme dealt with the arrest, remand and trial of a deaf man charged with murdering a 15-month-old child in Wanganui in 1988. The child died of chest injuries. The police case was that Mr Curry confessed to hitting the child.
Mr Curry was acquitted following a trial almost two years later. The documentary attacked police handling of the homicide investigation.
Police Commissioner John Jamieson said yesterday the film was flawed and failed to comply with the Broadcasting Act in a number of ways, particularly in respect of balance.
“TVNZ knew the programme would be controversial and this was enhanced by a great deal of prior publicity.”
“They would have been well aware police were significantly constrained in what they could say publicly in support of the original prosecution and trial because Mr Curry had been found not guilty,” he said.
“This was not acknowledged, nor were we provided with a reasonable opportunity to present significant points of view on the programme. The officer in charge of the case, Detective Senior Sergeant Peter Scott, was interviewed at length, yet the programme showed only a few short sections of the interview.”
“The law requires broadcasters to meet requirements of balance, yet it painted some pictures which were at variance with the facts.”
Mr Jamieson said he was disappointed the producer had ignored the findings of the three Court of Appeal judges, who considered the admissibility of the statements taken from Mr Curry.
The court said, of the second statement obtained from Mr Curry, that “nothing better could have been obtained, however and by whom an interview with him was conducted”.
In allowing the second statement, the court had no criticism of the police and found that having regard to the exceptional difficulties of communicating with the accused, police did nothing unfair, Mr Jamieson said. He said he was pleased the Police Complaints Authority was investigating the claims.
Deaf want interpreters in court
The Ivan Curry documentary has prompted the deaf community to insist that professional sign language interpreters be used in all police and court work in future.
New Zealand Association of the Deaf president Jennifer Brain said yesterday the programme showed the dangers of police using a communicator who was untrained in legal matters, and who also did not understand the differences between signed English and New Zealand sign language.
“New Zealand sign language is the natural language of deaf people,” she said.
“The direction and location of the sign, as well as facial expression, can alter the sign’s meaning.
“Signed English, on the other hand, is a language made up by educationists and comprises signs for every word as in spoken English.
“New Zealand sign language does not have a sign for each word, and the order of the words in any one sentence is different.”
The New Zealand Association of the Deaf has a register of New Zealand sign language interpreters who are experienced in legal work.
“We are asking the Ministry of Education to make sure that no person who is a ‘teacher of the deaf’ or a deaf ‘adviser’ be used in police or courtroom work unless this has been approved by NZAD.
“All requests for police or courtroom interpreters should come through the NZAD or our welfare offices, which run rosters for the professional interpreters on our register.”
Ms Brain said this request will also be put to the Commissioner of Police later this month. — NZPA
