Kiwi mum breaks silence after detained in US
New Zealand mother Sarah Shaw has spoken to media for the first time since her release, describing her three-week stay in a United States detainment centre.
Shaw and her six-year-old son Isaac were held at the facility in Dilley, Texas for three weeks after a mix-up with her visa at the Canadian border.
Speaking to King 5 news in her home state of Washington, still wearing an ankle monitor and facing further court dates, she described living in close quarters with dozens of other detainees, her son constantly with her.
"If I needed to go to the bathroom, Isaac was there, yelling at me outside the stall. If I wanted to take a shower he had to come with me, so we were completely joined at the hip."
She was detained on July 24, after driving across the border to Vancouver to put two of her three children on a direct flight to New Zealand to visit their grandparents.
The issue arose when she tried to re-enter the US without both parts of her visa renewed.
"I'd spoke to my attorney about it, and she'd said, 'You'll be fine, your paperwork's all valid'. She was kind of like, that would be worst-case-scenario. But I really didn't think that was going to happen."
She was detained by immigration officials and flown the centre in Texas - the nearest one which could accommodate families.
Her lawyer Minda Thorward told RNZ's Checkpoint programme yesterday that Immigration and Customs Enforcement had caved to the pressure, following international media coverage and involvement from New Zealand and US state officials.
But she was released with none of her documents and wearing an ankle monitor.
She was dropped off in Laredo, Texas, a two-and-a-half-hour drive from San Antonio airport, where her flight home was booked from - and only just made it onto the plane due to flight delays.
With more court appearances ahead, she was working with her lawyer to get the anklet removed.
Customs and Border Patrol told King 5 news: "When someone with an expired parole leaves the country and tries to re-enter the US, they will be stopped in compliance with our laws and regulations.
"If they are accompanied by a minor, CBP will follow all protocols to keep families together, or arrange care with a legal guardian."
A GoFundMe page set up to help pay her bills and rent while she was detained had by this afternoon raised more than $105,000 (more than $US61,000).
The page description has been updated thanking people for their support and saying "the fight is not over".
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
2 minutes ago
- Otago Daily Times
Court considers lifting name suppression for double-killer twice ruled insane
By Sam Sherwood of RNZ The Court of Appeal is considering whether a man who has twice been found insane after killing two people more than 20 years apart can be named. RNZ earlier revealed the man, who was made a special patient under the Mental Health Act after his first killing, was recently found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity for a second time after killing someone he believed was possessed. The revelations of a second killing prompted the chief victims advisor to call for a royal commission of inquiry into forensic mental health facilities. RNZ is unable to publish details regarding either killings due to an appeal against name suppression. That appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal on Thursday before president Justice French, Justice Campbell and Justice Collins. The court reserved its decision, which the justices said would likely take "several weeks". The man and the victim's family earlier lost a bid for name suppression in the High Court. In declining suppression, Justice Karen Grau said while the decision had been "very difficult", public interest must prevail. "There is rightly a high degree of public interest in learning of the circumstances in which a person who has been released into the community under the supervision of mental health services has gone on to kill again," she said. The man appealed the ruling to the Court of Appeal. The Crown and RNZ opposed the man's appeal. Failure to consider tikanga alleged The man's lawyer Jamie Waugh said the appeal was brought on the ground that the High Court failed to appropriately consider aspects of tikanga that were raised in the victim impact statements. He submitted that in doing so, the High Court had incorrectly assessed the nature and extent of hardship that would be suffered by the victim's whānau and incorrectly refused name suppression. Evidence was provided by a tikanga expert who submitted that a suppression order should remain until such a time as the man was to be released. Waugh argued the court should uphold the appeal and either permanently suppress both the man and victim's names and any identifying details, or order continued interim name suppression until such a time as the man was to be released. He submitted any legitimate public interest could be met through "careful reporting", despite suppression orders being in place - which he said had already occurred, and referenced several RNZ articles. From a tikanga perspective publication would be more appropriate if and when he was released, he said. Waugh asked what was being achieved through publication of the names at this stage. "What are we actually achieving through publication at this point? We know the risk to this whānau… it seems to me there is very little to be gained via justice through publication and lots to be lost by this whānau." Tikanga doesn't outweigh open justice - Crown Speaking in relation to tikanga on behalf of the Crown, Natalie Coates said the expert's evidence confirming publication could cause hardship had already been accepted by Justice Grau. The new evidence did not shift the balance away from open justice, she said. There were several reasons for this, Coates said the evidence before the High Court did speak to the impact on the whānau which Justice Grau grappled with in ruling against name suppression. Coates also said there was no evidence that tikanga supported permanent suppression or secrecy. She said tikanga was "an ingredient in the analysis, but not a controlling one". "Tikanga doesn't justify a departure from open justice." Deputy Solicitor-General Madeleine Laracy said the Crown submitted RNZ had shown "great interest" in the case and its audience was national. She said there was no information reported to link the man's two killings. "That is where we say the public interest in this is acute," she said. "The public interest in this case is in understanding the detail of those prior failures and seeing them in the context of what is happening here." Laracy said there was an inquiry ongoing by Health New Zealand and there would be an inquest. The autonomy of "other fact-finding processes" was important. She said due to the suppression orders the whānau of the first victim could not be told what had happened, which she argued was "quite a restriction for the court to sanction". Laracy accepted that linking both cases would result in reporting of details from both homicides which were "brutal and awful". The Crown said the appeal should be dismissed. Robert Stewart KC on behalf of RNZ said Justice Grau had considered the hardship for the whānau in her consideration of the victim impact statements. Stewart KC said permanent suppression would make it "extremely difficult" not only for the media to report on any inquiries, but also for those inquiries to feel they can explore things in a way that the public can understand what they have done and why they have done it. "We are looking at the wider public interest and wider circumstances of the events, what caused them, and what is going to happen as a result in terms of further inquiries that are obviously going to take place and the concern the judge had was; how are those matters going to be properly reported if there is going to be suppression of the appellant and the victim in this case?" He said Justice Grau got it right when she said all those levels of hardship did not outweigh the importance and the interests in the presumption of openness, open reporting and people's right to freedom of expression. The second killing To be released into the community after being designated a special patient, requires the sign off of the minister of health, the attorney-general and the director of mental health. The man was released more than a decade ago, and later had his status changed to being a patient under the Mental Health Act. At the time of his second killing he was subject to a community treatment order. In her ruling, Justice Grau said that in the weeks leading up to the second killing, the man's mental health was "rapidly declining". He was admitted to a mental health facility following an altercation with a relative. About a week later he was released. He had issues with a relationship that he was in and was using cannabis. Court documents reveal the second killing occurred when he stabbed a person to death. He later told an associate he had killed the victim. Asked why, he said the victim was "possessed". "I had to do it." The police later found the victim dead. When the man was later found by police and told he was under arrest for murder, he said: "Yes, I know." In ruling the man was insane for a second time, the judge said there was no question that he was responsible for the killing. Two health assessors' reports had been ordered to address his fitness to stand trial, and whether he had a possible defence of insanity. Both report writers assessed him as being fit to stand trial and as having an available defence of insanity. Justice Grau said he was "mentally impaired" and suffered from a longstanding diagnosis. The Crown agreed the only reasonable verdict was that of an "act proven but not criminally responsible on account of insanity". In her judgment, the judge addressed the victim impact statement. There was "shock, disbelief, and grief" in relation to the victim's death. The offending was described as a "cruel and heartless act". "The whānau feels that the mental health system has failed." The judge said the criminal charge "could not unpick what has happened in the system and what could and should have done, but it is hoped that answers will come, both for the whānau and for the wider community". The defendant was described as a "caring person when he was well". But, at the time of the killing he was "clearly unwell". The man's former partner earlier told RNZ there was a "massive" failure by the mental health system, both in protecting him, but also the wider community. "It failed him, it failed everybody twice." RNZ earlier obtained a copy of a letter from the man's father to the presiding judge. The man's father alleged that on the day he killed for a second time, he was supposed to be drug tested. "He turned up for the appointment but was not tested because the staff member said that he was acting cagey and she didn't want to make him feel like he was being picked on. "This is a so-called health professional who observed unusual behaviour from a person with severe mental health issues and they didn't do anything about it. She didn't test him and basically allowed him to leave. A few hours later [he killed again]." The man said his son told him he had to go have a drug test "so he was expecting it, but nothing came of it". The man's second killing "could and should have been prevented", the father says. "How can someone who has previously killed another person be able to remain free when the warning signs are right there for all to see?" Review underway Chief Victims Advisor Ruth Money earlier told RNZ the case was "my worst fear", adding she felt "physically sick" when she read about the man's second killing. "It's pretty hard to see how this could be any worse." Money wanted an "urgent review" for any patient who has had their status changed. "Clearly something is seriously wrong with how these people have chosen to re-classify their status," she said. "It's getting to the point where we need a royal commission to find out what's happening in these facilities." In an earlier statement to RNZ, the director of mental health Dr John Crawshaw said they were limited in what they could say regarding the case as there was ongoing legal action and name suppression in place. Crawshaw confirmed there were specific processes set out under the Criminal Procedure Act and the Mental Health Act that must be followed when the status of a special patient was reviewed or changed. "The thresholds for decision making under the act are long standing. These processes are always followed." When a patient was moved from special patient status they were frequently subject to continued compulsory treatment orders, Crawshaw said. A Health New Zealand spokesperson said an external review of the care the patient received leading up to their offending was in progress.
RNZ News
32 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Court of Appeal considers lifting name suppression for double-killer twice ruled insane
Photo: RNZ The Court of Appeal is considering whether a man who has twice been found insane after killing two people more than 20 years apart can be named. RNZ earlier revealed the man, who was made a special patient under the Mental Health Act after his first killing, was recently found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity for a second time after killing someone he believed was possessed. The revelations of a second killing prompted the chief victims advisor to call for a royal commission of inquiry into forensic mental health facilities . RNZ is unable to publish details regarding either killings due to an appeal against name suppression. That appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal on Thursday before president Justice French, Justice Campbell and Justice Collins. The court reserved its decision, which the justices said would likely take "several weeks". The man and the victim's family earlier lost a bid for name suppression in the High Court. In declining suppression, Justice Karen Grau said while the decision had been "very difficult", public interest must prevail. "There is rightly a high degree of public interest in learning of the circumstances in which a person who has been released into the community under the supervision of mental health services has gone on to kill again," she said. The man appealed the ruling to the Court of Appeal. The Crown and RNZ opposed the man's appeal. Court of Appeal president Justice French Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone The man's lawyer Jamie Waugh said the appeal was brought on the ground that the High Court failed to appropriately consider aspects of tikanga that were raised in the victim impact statements. He submitted that in doing so, the High Court had incorrectly assessed the nature and extent of hardship that would be suffered by the victim's whānau and incorrectly refused name suppression. Evidence was provided by a tikanga expert who submitted that a suppression order should remain until such a time as the man was to be released. Waugh argued the court should uphold the appeal and either permanently suppress both the man and victim's names and any identifying details, or order continued interim name suppression until such a time as the man was to be released. He submitted any legitimate public interest could be met through "careful reporting", despite suppression orders being in place - which he said had already occurred, and referenced several RNZ articles. From a tikanga perspective publication would be more appropriate if and when he was released, he said. Waugh asked what was being achieved through publication of the names at this stage. "What are we actually achieving through publication at this point? We know the risk to this whānau… it seems to me there is very little to be gained via justice through publication and lots to be lost by this whānau." Speaking in relation to tikanga on behalf of the Crownc Natalie Coates said the expert's evidence confirming publication could cause hardship had already been accepted by Justice Grau. The new evidence did not shift the balance away from open justice, she said. There were several reasons for this, Coates said the evidence before the High Court did speak to the impact on the whānau which Justice Grau grappled with in ruling against name suppression. Coates also said there was no evidence that tikanga supported permanent suppression or secrecy. She said tikanga was "an ingredient in the analysis, but not a controlling one". "Tikanga doesn't justify a departure from open justice." Natalie Coates who spoke at the hearing on behalf of the Crown. Photo: RNZ / Dom Thomas Deputy Solicitor-General Madeleine Laracy said the Crown submitted RNZ had shown "great interest" in the case and its audience was national. She said there was no information reported to link the man's two killings. "That is where we say the public interest in this is acute," she said. "The public interest in this case is in understanding the detail of those prior failures and seeing them in the context of what is happening here." Laracy said there was an inquiry ongoing by Health New Zealand and there would be an inquest. The autonomy of "other fact-finding processes" was important. She said due to the suppression orders the whānau of the first victim could not be told what had happened, which she argued was "quite a restriction for the court to sanction". Laracy accepted that linking both cases would result in reporting of details from both homicides which were "brutal and awful". The Crown said the appeal should be dismissed. Robert Stewart KC on behalf of RNZ said Justice Grau had considered the hardship for the whānau in her consideration of the victim impact statements. Stewart KC said permanent suppression would make it "extremely difficult" not only for the media to report on any inquiries, but also for those inquiries to feel they can explore things in a way that the public can understand what they have done and why they have done it. "We are looking at the wider public interest and wider circumstances of the events, what caused them, and what is going to happen as a result in terms of further inquiries that are obviously going to take place and the concern the judge had was; how are those matters going to be properly reported if there is going to be suppression of the appellant and the victim in this case?" He said Justice Grau got it right when she said all those levels of hardship did not outweigh the importance and the interests in the presumption of openness, open reporting and people's right to freedom of expression. To be released into the community after being designated a special patient, requires the sign off of the minister of health, the attorney-general and the director of mental health. The man was released more than a decade ago, and later had his status changed to being a patient under the Mental Health Act. At the time of his second killing he was subject to a community treatment order. In her ruling, Justice Grau said that in the weeks leading up to the second killing, the man's mental health was "rapidly declining". He was admitted to a mental health facility following an altercation with a relative. About a week later he was released. He had issues with a relationship that he was in and was using cannabis. Court documents reveal the second killing occurred when he stabbed a person to death. He later told an associate he had killed the victim. Asked why, he said the victim was "possessed". "I had to do it." The police later found the victim dead. When the man was later found by police and told he was under arrest for murder, he said: "Yes, I know." In ruling the man was insane for a second time, the judge said there was no question that he was responsible for the killing. Two health assessors' reports had been ordered to address his fitness to stand trial, and whether he had a possible defence of insanity. Both report writers assessed him as being fit to stand trial and as having an available defence of insanity. Justice Grau said he was "mentally impaired" and suffered from a longstanding diagnosis. The Crown agreed the only reasonable verdict was that of an "act proven but not criminally responsible on account of insanity". In her judgment, the judge addressed the victim impact statement. There was "shock, disbelief, and grief" in relation to the victim's death. The offending was described as a "cruel and heartless act". "The whānau feels that the mental health system has failed." The judge said the criminal charge "could not unpick what has happened in the system and what could and should have done, but it is hoped that answers will come, both for the whānau and for the wider community". The defendant was described as a "caring person when he was well". But, at the time of the killing he was "clearly unwell". The man's former partner earlier told RNZ there was a "massive" failure by the mental health system , both in protecting him, but also the wider community. "It failed him, it failed everybody twice." RNZ earlier obtained a copy of a letter from the man's father to the presiding judge. The man's father alleged that on the day he killed for a second time, he was supposed to be drug tested. "He turned up for the appointment but was not tested because the staff member said that he was acting cagey and she didn't want to make him feel like he was being picked on. "This is a so-called health professional who observed unusual behaviour from a person with severe mental health issues and they didn't do anything about it. She didn't test him and basically allowed him to leave. A few hours later [he killed again]." The man said his son told him he had to go have a drug test "so he was expecting it, but nothing came of it". The man's second killing "could and should have been prevented", the father says. "How can someone who has previously killed another person be able to remain free when the warning signs are right there for all to see?" Chief Victims Advisor Ruth Money Photo: RNZ / Niva Chittock Chief Victims Advisor Ruth Money earlier told RNZ the case was "my worst fear", adding she felt "physically sick" when she read about the man's second killing. "It's pretty hard to see how this could be any worse." Money wanted an "urgent review" for any patient who has had their status changed. "Clearly something is seriously wrong with how these people have chosen to re-classify their status," she said. "It's getting to the point where we need a royal commission to find out what's happening in these facilities." In an earlier statement to RNZ, the director of mental health Dr John Crawshaw said they were limited in what they could say regarding the case as there was ongoing legal action and name suppression in place. Crawshaw confirmed there were specific processes set out under the Criminal Procedure Act and the Mental Health Act that must be followed when the status of a special patient was reviewed or changed. "The thresholds for decision making under the act are long standing. These processes are always followed." When a patient was moved from special patient status they were frequently subject to continued compulsory treatment orders, Crawshaw said. A Health New Zealand spokesperson said an external review of the care the patient received leading up to their offending was in progress.
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
Mt Eden prisoner reportedly sexually assaulted as calls for help dismissed
Mt Eden Corrections Facility is New Zealand's largest remand prison. Photo: RNZ/Calvin Samuel The head of an independent watchdog for Corrections says she expects Mt Eden prison to have an action plan within the next week to address key problems identified by an inspection late last year - including prisoners feeling unsafe and limited rehabilitation activities amidst staffing shortages. The inspection report was released on Wednesday by the Office of the Inspectorate, which is part of Corrections but holds independent oversight of the corrections system. It revealed one prisoner was reportedly sexually assaulted by a cellmate, after multiple calls raising concerns were dismissed by staff. Mt Eden Corrections Facility is New Zealand's largest remand prison, and received an average of 600 new prisoners each month at the time of the inspection in October 2024. The report found that, at the time, the prison's staffing was at about 85 percent of what was needed, with the largest shortages in the custodial staff team - which had 76 vacancies. It found that many prisoners spent 22 hours a day in their cells, partly to due to the staff shortages, and many felt unsafe in shared units. Chief inspector Janis Adair said the draft findings were sent to Corrections in April, and that the Mt Eden prison had already had several months to work on an action plan to fix the problems. "My expectation is that the site should've got on to develop the action plan in readiness for providing it to me once the report was released. "That action plan will be monitored by myself and by my office in terms of attending to those deficiencies we've identified," she said. Adair said she would give Corrections one more week to complete its action plan. Chief inspector Janis Adair. Photo: Supplied / Office of the Inspectorate She acknowledged that many prisons across the country struggled with staff retention and recruitment post-Covid. She said while Mt Eden Prison's staffing levels had increased to 95 percent since the inspection last year, she remained concerned that many staff there had less than two years' experience working in a New Zealand prison. Adair said she had visited the prison, as she would routinely do prior to a release of a major report, about two weeks ago. "I'm not aware of any significant developments which would give me confidence to say there have been improvements in rehabilitation and release planning," she said, when asked about her thoughts on the visit. The report had highlighted that some prisoners had nowhere to go on release as case managers had not been able to arrange any accommodation for them before sentencing. Adair said she also remained worried about prisoners spending long hours in isolation at the facility. She said the prolonged periods of not having meaningful activities to engage in, and the lack of social contact, puts extraordinary pressure on the individuals. "For prisoners across New Zealand, [there are] increasing challenges with health and mental health issues - if you're already unwell, mentally unwell in that kind of environment, it's going to place more pressure on you, the longer you are held in that situation," she said. Among key concerns highlighted by the report was that intercoms calls made by prisoners from their cells were sometimes ignored by custodial staff, or in other cases were not dealt with promptly. One prisoner was reportedly sexually assaulted by a cellmate, after multiple calls raising concerns were dismissed by staff. The prisoner assaulted said he had submitted a complaint about his treatment by staff, but the inspectorate found there was no record of the complaint. Adair said the response by staff in this incident was inadequate and "deeply concerning". She said when they found out about this incident, she personally wrote to the general manager of the prison to set out her expectations. "The purpose of having a cell intercom is so that prisoners can alert and call for staff attention and that those cell intercom calls must be attended to and responded to promptly and appropriately," she said. Adair said the incident remained under investigation by her office. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
