Sophie's dad says victim impact statement censored

Clayton Weatherston murder trial

1 of 22

PETER MEECHAM/The Press Zoom

The grandmother of Sophie Elliott is comforted by Garth McVicar from the Sensible Sentencing Trust outside the Christchurch High Court after Clayton Weatherston was found guilty by the jury of murdering Sophie Elliott.

Relevant offers

Crime

Baby murder-accused sobs, sniffles in court NZ police access Facebook evidence Warning: Man approaching children Jail for stabbing ex-partner with screwdriver Megaupload accused to spend another weekend in jail Wellington man fit for trial on wife's murder Teen jailed for sexual assault Drink-driver who attacked officers jailed Accused 'shut eyes and pulled trigger' Baby death accused wants conviction discharged

The Government is reviewing rules around victim impact statements after the father of murder victim Sophie Elliott says he had to read a censored version of his statement in court.

The night before Clayton Weatherson was sentenced for stabbing Miss Elliott 216 times, police gave Gil Elliott a copy of his statement with entire sections crossed out, at the judge's request.

Read Mr Elliott's statement here.

Mr Elliott told the New Zealand Herald the censorship was "just another way the justice system puts victims down".

He was calling for a law change to give victims more freedom in reading their statements – a call backed by the Sensible Sentencing Trust.

Sensible Sentencing Trust chairman Garth McVicar said statements should not be watered down, and trust members had been advised to resist reading censored statements, despite the threat of being charged with contempt of court.

Justice Minister Simon Power said a review of victims' rights was under way and a report was due by the end of the year.

He and Mr Elliott had planned a meeting to discuss justice system issues, but Weatherston's appeal against his conviction had caused that meeting to be postponed.

There were no specific restrictions on reading statements in the Victims' Rights Act, but there was a case law precedent preventing victims from criticising the offender or the justice system.

Victims were confined to comment on the crime's impact on them.

- NZPA