The Royal Commission Recommended Abolishing Time Limits On Abuse Cases – A Year On, Nothing Has Changed
That report – Whanaketia – Through pain and trauma, from darkness to light – was published on July 24 last year. One year on, the government has yet to act.
Without that reform, survivors of historic abuse remain vulnerable to being turned away by the legal system – not because their experiences aren't credible, but because the law still treats them as being out of time.
The royal commission heard from thousands of survivors of childhood abuse in the care of state and faith-based institutions between 1950 and 1999. What stood out was how often that harm was made worse by silence, disbelief and legal systems that failed to respond.
Limitation periods in abuse cases
Under New Zealand law, people generally have six years from the time a harm occurs to bring a civil claim. That limit is set out in the Limitation Act 2010 for events after 2011, and in the Limitation Act 1950 for events before that.
For survivors of historic abuse, particularly childhood abuse, that six-year window rarely reflects how trauma actually works. Survivors often take decades to feel sufficiently safe and supported to come forward and name what happened to them.
The 1950 law allowed limitation periods to be paused if a claimant was under a ' disability ' – a legal term meaning they were either a child or, in the language of the time, of 'unsound mind'. In practice, this meant the six-year clock usually didn't start for children until they reached adulthood.
The 2010 law clarified this by explicitly saying the limitation period for children begins at 18. It also introduced a new 'incapacitated' exception, allowing the clock to pause for adults who are unable to make decisions or take legal action because of trauma or other conditions.
But in practice it's a narrow doorway. Courts require survivors to prove not just trauma, but a high legal incapacity threshold.
This means that even when the abuse is acknowledged, and even when survivors have strong evidence, civil cases are often barred. The bar is not that the harm didn't happen, but that it happened 'too long ago'.
How civil time limits deny justice
In 2019, former Air Force servicewoman Mariya Taylor brought a civil claim against the sergeant who had sexually abused her in the 1980s while both were stationed at the Whenuapai base.
The court accepted the abuse had occurred. But because Taylor was not legally considered 'disabled' by trauma, and the six-year window had closed, her case was struck out under the Limitation Act 1950. Adding insult to injury, she was ordered to pay costs to her abuser.
At 18, Taylor had entered a rigid military hierarchy where power and discipline made reporting abuse nearly impossible.
Her case shows how limitation periods can block even well-evidenced claims, and how institutional dynamics such as silence, shame and obedience often delay disclosure.
These same patterns were pivotal to the royal commission's findings.
Australia is ahead of NZ
Australia has taken a markedly different approach. In line with the final report of its own Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in 2017, every state and territory removed civil limitation periods for survivors of childhood abuse.
Survivors can now bring civil claims regardless of how long ago the abuse occurred. In landmark case in 2023, GLJ v. The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Lismore, the High Court of Australia rejected a request to shut down proceedings even though the alleged abuser and other witnesses had died. The court said the case could still go ahead using available evidence.
The GLJ decision is important for New Zealand courts. It shows that while removing time bars doesn't guarantee victory for survivors, it does give them the chance to be heard.
Delayed but not denied
Removing time limits for civil claims involving historic abuse, as the royal commission recommended, is now overdue.
A first step would be for the government to clearly commit to amending the Limitation Act 2010 to exclude claims of historic abuse – especially child sexual abuse – from the six-year deadline.
This would bring New Zealand into line with Australia and recognise what we now know about the delayed nature of disclosure, trauma and institutional silence. It would also honour the spirit of the royal commission's work.
As courts and commissions have recognised, removing limitation periods doesn't guarantee a win for survivors. But it does mean they're at least allowed to try.
For years, survivors have been told they've spoken too late. Reforming limitation laws won't undo the harm they suffered. But it will show their testimony matters, and that justice delayed does not have to mean justice denied.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
5 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Zuru's dispute with former Rascals nappy business partners heads to High Court
Zuru's own court filings describe itself as a British Virgin Islands company with registered offices in Hong Kong. Zuru's claims are primarily against Taylor, alleging he breached restraint provisions in the sale agreement and disclosed confidential information to businessmen who took over rival nappy brand Treasures. The suit also names Keith Taylor, father of Grant, and JJK Group, which acquired Treasures in 2020, as defendants. Taylor and the other defendants deny the claims and have signalled they will be vigorously defended. Zuru claims these breaches and disclosures caused it to lose tens of millions of dollars – Zuru claims the amount of damages it is seeking is confidential – from the lost opportunity to purchase rival nappy brand Treasures. Zuru was founded in 2003 by the Mowbray siblings to manufacture toys in China to sell through big-box retailers internationally, but has in recent years branched out into consumer goods. The business has vaulted the Mowbrays into the ranks of New Zealand billionaires. Their push for growth into new markets led to Zuru partnering with local nappy brand Rascals in 2017 and taking the brand international, particularly into the United States market. Taylor had, alongside his sister, founded Rascals in 2016, and he and Nick Mowbray are reportedly friends from high school. The subsequent growth of Rascals led to Taylor being named EY's entrepreneur of the year for product in 2019, the same year the company topped the Deloitte Fast 500. The following year Zuru bought out the Taylors for $30m to fully control the local and domestic arms of Rascals. Rascal and Friends was later rebranded as just Rascals and is now owned by Zuru. Photo / Supplied However, the deal – and the friendship between Nick and Grant – quickly soured, leading to legal action. Details of Zuru's claims came to light after the conglomerate took action in Wisconsin courts earlier this year to subpoena former Tall Blacks star Kirk Penney, a former partner of KKR Group, to gather evidence for the upcoming trial in Auckland. Penney was a shareholder and director, with two other businessmen, in JJK Group, which purchased rival, and formerly locally-manufactured, nappy brand Treasures in late 2020. Treasures' previous owner Asaleo Care announced it was closing the business in mid-2020 over an inability to compete with low-cost imported rivals. Rascals notes on its website that its own products are 'made with care in China'. Zuru claims Taylor disclosed confidential information to JJK about the nappy business and breached restraint provisions in the sale agreement, claims Taylor denies. Zuru's unredacted statement of claim in the Auckland case was included in filings to the District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin as part of the Penney subpoena. After Herald requests for comment about the details of its claims, a lawyer acting for Zuru refiled the statement of claim, redacting information that the company considered confidential or commercially sensitive. Nick and Mat Mowbray did not respond to requests to comment on the case or claims made by the defence. Taylor also said he did not want to comment, but lawyers acting for him released his statement of defence after being informed the applicants had disclosed their statement in US court filings. Taylor claims to have been friends and neighbours with one of the JJK principals, and any information disclosed was not confidential. He also said he ceased negotiations to buy Treasures once it was clear a restraint clause would be included in the final sale agreement. 'Designing and producing nappies is not complicated,' Taylor said in his statement of defence, disputing Zuru's description of some information as confidential or a commercial secret. Grant Taylor co-founded Rascals with his sister, then sold the business to former friend Nick Mowbray's Zuru conglomerate. Penney exited JJK Group in August last year when he resigned as a director and his shares in the parent company were bought by Treasures Holdings. The Companies Office lists two of Treasures Holdings' three directors as Nick and Mat Mowbray. This shareholding appears to have created an unusual situation where Zuru is suing a defendant that it partly owns. Penney recently moved to the United States to take up a position as special assistant to the head coach of the Wisconsin Badgers basketball team, a team where he made his name as a collegiate player two decades ago. Zuru's subpoena request states Penney 'is not a party to the New Zealand litigation, and Zuru has no intention to make him a party to the litigation'. Attempts to reach Penney for contact were unsuccessful. Sam Lowery, a lawyer acting for the JJK Group, said the claims were denied and a counter-claim alleging interference with Treasures retailers was afoot. 'From JJK's perspective, Rascals' case is hopelessly misguided. JJK has done nothing wrong and we look forward to that becoming clear at the public trial,' Lowery said. Matt Nippert is an Auckland-based investigations reporter covering white-collar and transnational crimes and the intersection of politics and business. He has won more than a dozen awards for his journalism – including twice being named Reporter of the Year – and joined the Herald in 2014 after having spent the decade prior reporting from business newspapers and national magazines.
Scoop
2 days ago
- Scoop
The Royal Commission Recommended Abolishing Time Limits On Abuse Cases – A Year On, Nothing Has Changed
Among the 138 recommendations of the Abuse in Care Royal Commission of Inquiry's final report to parliament was a clear call: remove the legal time limits that prevent survivors of historic abuse from seeking justice in civil court. That report – Whanaketia – Through pain and trauma, from darkness to light – was published on July 24 last year. One year on, the government has yet to act. Without that reform, survivors of historic abuse remain vulnerable to being turned away by the legal system – not because their experiences aren't credible, but because the law still treats them as being out of time. The royal commission heard from thousands of survivors of childhood abuse in the care of state and faith-based institutions between 1950 and 1999. What stood out was how often that harm was made worse by silence, disbelief and legal systems that failed to respond. Limitation periods in abuse cases Under New Zealand law, people generally have six years from the time a harm occurs to bring a civil claim. That limit is set out in the Limitation Act 2010 for events after 2011, and in the Limitation Act 1950 for events before that. For survivors of historic abuse, particularly childhood abuse, that six-year window rarely reflects how trauma actually works. Survivors often take decades to feel sufficiently safe and supported to come forward and name what happened to them. The 1950 law allowed limitation periods to be paused if a claimant was under a ' disability ' – a legal term meaning they were either a child or, in the language of the time, of 'unsound mind'. In practice, this meant the six-year clock usually didn't start for children until they reached adulthood. The 2010 law clarified this by explicitly saying the limitation period for children begins at 18. It also introduced a new 'incapacitated' exception, allowing the clock to pause for adults who are unable to make decisions or take legal action because of trauma or other conditions. But in practice it's a narrow doorway. Courts require survivors to prove not just trauma, but a high legal incapacity threshold. This means that even when the abuse is acknowledged, and even when survivors have strong evidence, civil cases are often barred. The bar is not that the harm didn't happen, but that it happened 'too long ago'. How civil time limits deny justice In 2019, former Air Force servicewoman Mariya Taylor brought a civil claim against the sergeant who had sexually abused her in the 1980s while both were stationed at the Whenuapai base. The court accepted the abuse had occurred. But because Taylor was not legally considered 'disabled' by trauma, and the six-year window had closed, her case was struck out under the Limitation Act 1950. Adding insult to injury, she was ordered to pay costs to her abuser. At 18, Taylor had entered a rigid military hierarchy where power and discipline made reporting abuse nearly impossible. Her case shows how limitation periods can block even well-evidenced claims, and how institutional dynamics such as silence, shame and obedience often delay disclosure. These same patterns were pivotal to the royal commission's findings. Australia is ahead of NZ Australia has taken a markedly different approach. In line with the final report of its own Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in 2017, every state and territory removed civil limitation periods for survivors of childhood abuse. Survivors can now bring civil claims regardless of how long ago the abuse occurred. In landmark case in 2023, GLJ v. The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Lismore, the High Court of Australia rejected a request to shut down proceedings even though the alleged abuser and other witnesses had died. The court said the case could still go ahead using available evidence. The GLJ decision is important for New Zealand courts. It shows that while removing time bars doesn't guarantee victory for survivors, it does give them the chance to be heard. Delayed but not denied Removing time limits for civil claims involving historic abuse, as the royal commission recommended, is now overdue. A first step would be for the government to clearly commit to amending the Limitation Act 2010 to exclude claims of historic abuse – especially child sexual abuse – from the six-year deadline. This would bring New Zealand into line with Australia and recognise what we now know about the delayed nature of disclosure, trauma and institutional silence. It would also honour the spirit of the royal commission's work. As courts and commissions have recognised, removing limitation periods doesn't guarantee a win for survivors. But it does mean they're at least allowed to try. For years, survivors have been told they've spoken too late. Reforming limitation laws won't undo the harm they suffered. But it will show their testimony matters, and that justice delayed does not have to mean justice denied.
NZ Herald
5 days ago
- NZ Herald
Conservationists warn over Thailand's growing captive lion population
'It's absolute madness,' said Tom Taylor, chief operating officer of conservation group Wildlife Friends Foundation Thailand. 'It's terrifying to imagine, if the laws aren't changed, what the situation is going to be in 10 years.' The boom is fuelled by social media, where owners like Tharnuwarht post light-hearted content and glamour shots with lions. 'I wanted to show people ... that lions can actually bond well with humans,' he said, insisting he plays regularly with his pets. He entered Big George's enclosure tentatively though, spending just a few minutes being batted by the tawny striped liger's hefty paws before retreating behind a fence. Since 2022, Thai law has required owners to register and microchip lions, and inform authorities before moving them. But there are no breeding caps, few enclosure or welfare requirements, and no controls on liger or tigon hybrids. Births of protected native species like tigers must be reported within 24 hours. Lion owners have 60 days. 'That is a huge window,' said Taylor. 'What could be done with a litter of cubs in those 60 days? Anything.' Illicit trade Taylor and his colleagues have tracked the rise in lion ownership with on-site visits and by trawling social media. They recorded around 130 in 2018, and nearly 450 by 2024. But nearly 350 more lions they encountered were 'lost to follow-up' after their whereabouts could not be confirmed for a year. That could indicate unreported deaths, an animal removed from display or 'worst-case scenarios', said Taylor. 'We have interviewed traders [in the region] who have given us prices for live and dead lions and have told us they can take them over the border.' As a vulnerable species, lions and their parts can only be sold internationally with so-called Cites permits. But there is circumstantial evidence of illicit trade, several experts told AFP, speaking on condition of anonymity to avoid angering authorities. Media reports and social media have documented lions, including cubs, in Cambodia multiple times in recent years, though Cites shows no registered imports since 2003. There is also growing evidence that captive lion numbers in Laos exceed Cites import licences. In Thailand, meanwhile, imports of lion parts like bones, skins and teeth have dropped in recent years, though demand remains, raising questions about how parts are now being sourced. Thai trader Pathamawadee Janpithak started in the crocodile business, but pivoted to lions as prices for the reptiles declined. 'It gradually became a full-fledged business that I couldn't step away from,' the gregarious 32-year-old told AFP in front of a row of caged cubs. She sells 1-month-olds for around 500,000 baht (US$15,500 or $25,900), down from a peak of 800,000 baht ($41,200) as breeding operations like hers increase supply. Captive lions are generally fed around 2kg of chicken carcasses a day, and can produce litters of two to six cubs, once or twice a year. Pathamawadee's three facilities house around 80 lions, from a stately full-maned 9-year-old to a sickly pair of 8-day-olds being bottle-fed around the clock. They are white because of a genetic mutation, and the smaller pool of white lions means inbreeding and sickness are common. Sometimes wrongly considered a 'threatened' subspecies, they are popular in Thailand, but a month-old white cub being reared alongside the newborns has been sick almost since birth. It has attracted no buyers so far and will be unbreedable, Pathamawadee said. Thailand's captive lion population has exploded in recent years, with nearly 500 registered individuals in zoos, breeding farms, petting cafes and homes. Photo / Lillian Suwanrumpha, AFP She lamented the increasing difficulty of finding buyers willing to comply with ownership rules. 'In the past, people could just put down money and walk away with a lion ... Everything has become more complicated.' Legal review Pathamawadee sells around half of the 90 cubs she breeds each year, often to other breeders, who are increasingly opening 'lion cafes' where customers pose with and pet young lions. Outside Chiang Mai, a handler roused a cub from a nap to play with a group of squealing Chinese tourists. Staff let AFP film the interaction, but like all lion cafes contacted, declined interviews. Pathamawadee no longer sells to cafes, which tend to offload cubs within weeks as they grow. She said several were returned to her traumatised and no longer suitable for breeding. The growing lion population is a problem for Thailand's Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation (DNP), admitted wildlife protection director Sadudee Punpugdee. 'But private ownership has existed for a long time ... so we're taking a gradual approach,' he told AFP. That includes limiting lion imports so breeders are forced to rely on the domestic population. 'With inbreeding on the rise, the quality of the lions is also declining and we believe that demand will decrease as a result,' Sadudee said. Already stretched authorities face difficult choices on enforcing regulations, as confiscated animals become their responsibility, said Penthai Siriwat, illegal wildlife trade specialist at WWF Thailand. 'There is a great deal of deliberation before intervening ... considering the substantial costs,' she told AFP. Owners like Tharnuwarht often evoke conservation to justify their pets, but Thailand's captive lions will never live in the wild. Two-year-olds Khanom and Khanun live in a DNP sanctuary after being confiscated from a cafe and private owner over improper paperwork. They could survive another decade or more, and require specialised keepers, food, and care. Sanctuary chief vet Natanon Panpeth treads carefully while discussing the lion trade, warning only that the 'wellbeing of the animals should always come first'. Big cat ownership has been banned in the United States and the United Arab Emirates in recent years, and Thailand's wildlife rules are soon up for review. Sadudee is hopeful some provisions may be tightened, though a ban is unlikely for now. He has his own advice for would-be owners: 'Wild animals belong in the wild. There are plenty of other animals we can keep as pets.' -Agence France-Presse
