This incident in October 2009, was related to the recent death of the mother of both men. Her death had plunged Tim into severe depression. On the day of the shooting, Tim exerted great pressure on his younger brother to kill him, a factor that convinced the jury at David’s trial that he was not guilty of murder.

Our legal system, much to its credit, has sided very sensitively with David and the family. The terms for his release next month are characterised by great compassion, genuine care and robust effective support strategies. Here is a family in need of great healing, and the hope is that what is in place, will enable that to happen.

Is there not also a question here, however, of the level of perceived compassion, care and support that our mental health system has in responding to people such as Tim Bourke? If only both brothers had been better convinced that genuine help was at hand and that there was hope!

What is even more indicative of the depth of our national stigma towards mental illness is that at the time of the shooting, John Kirwin’s promotion of hope for people with depression was airing widely on television. It would seem that we too still have a long way to go towards understanding and healing.

The question I have after sitting with the news of the radical changes to our legal aid system is whether New Zealand will be better off as a result – and that means, ultimately, myself! The question is a good one for all of us surely, because in terms of the relative merits of different countries, the standard and quality of a nation’s legal system is really significant.

The crux of the issue is whether legal aid recipients have the right to pick the lawyer of their own choice or not. The new legislation argues no, they do not, but that you and I, in such a situation, do have the right to a legal process that is efficient and fair.  Does that mean then that I am better off, or at least, no worse off?

My conclusion is that it all depends on whose interests are being pursued by whatever lawyer I have. To the extent that the new changes successfully counteract such tendencies as lawyers taking on too heavy a case load and/or being merely out for the money, then we really are all that much better off.

Publicly acknowledged human rights don’t have to contradict an individual’s right to personal commerce and gain. However, to be a nation of people who can hold our heads high, compared to other countries and their institutions, we do need significant value indicators, such as our legal aid system. What we need is a process that clearly and graphically reflects where and how all of us as New Zealanders promote the movement of thought from Me to Us, that is, from being merely interested in personal gain, to achieving a greater common good enjoyed by all, in particular, those least able to provide for and defend themselves. When we do that, ultimately we will all be truly better off.

“The bitter past” was all too evident, and quite clearly, the tragic memory was far from “deleted.” Yet, in spite of this, Emma was still able to find it within herself to be conscious of the agony of another, even the pain of the very one a court had found guilty of being the cause of her own great anguish!

What an awe-inspiring example of the nobility of the human heart! Emma found it within herself to forgive, even though she too was injured, along with her second son, when Ashley’s car ploughed into them. And this, given the horrendous circumstances, was just a mere five months ago.Much has happened because of the accident, things that Emma and Duncan her husband cannot forget. In many ways, it is obviously still too close and raw for them, and for Ashley too, as the story makes clear.

So often, the presence of too much physical or emotional pain like this, as with the final victorious approach of death itself, pressures and constricts us effectively into a fetal position bound all too hopelessly in on itself. The marvel of this story is that something else emerged, something called compassion, the ability to ‘feel for the other.’

I suspect that ultimately what Emma and her husband found was that to discover and choose compassion is to nurture a “new way to remember,” that provides a way through the especially powerful, extremely alienating feelings associated with the tragic death of a dearly loved little son.

Forgiveness and compassion: steps prompted by an inner Wisdom present and at work within all of us.

“… forgiving what we cannot forget creates a new way to remember. We change the memory of our past into a hope for the future.”

Let us pray and make our own these words of Lewis Smedes.

At one level, how right it is to think of Brendon’s family and friends’ and the great loss that they are suddenly left facing. My hope is that they will receive the respect and answers from the North Shore hospital that will eventually enable them to find at least a modicum of peace for themselves. Another factor in this story, at least for me, was the realization of our sheer human vulnerability, no matter what our age in life, or our apparent state of health – here was a non-smoking, healthy living man who had died, aged only 37 years! Clearly, Brendon’s family has every justification for an explanation.

This in itself also led me to reflect on my own thinking about hospitals. To start with, I remember a grandparent of mine remarking once, “you only go into a hospital to die!” In her case, it proved to be a self-fulfilling prophecy at the age of 93! In contrast to this, I’d have to admit that my basic thinking is that a hospital’s job, its very reason for existing, is to get people well again!  To recognize that, however, is to beg the question, ‘what is realistic and what is not – just where and when do you have to recognize the absolute frailty of “this mortal coil” that is our life, no matter what our age?

This too is why the Parrish family need a sensitive response from the North Shore hospital, along with answers from them and indeed, from the coroner.

Here though, I would like to think, is a genuine sign of hope. You see, it used to be the case, and not so long ago either, that doctors were considered as All-Knowing and above reproach professionals, a class of being far superior to the relatively uneducated, largely labouring types to whom they were therefore unanswerable. That’s not the case now, because today our hospitals, by and large, have made great strides to be ever so much more ‘user-friendly,’ indeed accountable.

In my experience, the complaints procedures in our hospitals are characterized by an atmosphere of openness and concern, there is an apparent readiness to listen to anybody, professional or hoi polloi. On the other hand, the actual process of investigation is still so often a matter of an in-house colleague to colleague, “let’s be chums,” enquiry which leaves me wondering, Who’s there to thoroughly follow up on what the complainant says? To lay a complaint and then simply hear back something like, “We are satisfied with what the staff member has told us” is to call into question the sincerity of the entire process. Along with a readiness for accountability, there has to be genuine transparency as well.

Hospital boards and their committees need to be acutely aware that the image so often in the minds of ordinary citizens when making a complaint is that it’s still largely a David verses Goliath affair. In such a contest, one party is feeling very little indeed while the other party is seen as a well-endowed, multi-tentacled beast, an entire health-care system with multiple resources at its disposal.

Brendon Parrish’s family want to stand up for a loved one no-longer able to do so for himself. They desire to see that even in death, the very best is done for him, someone they love. Let’s hope and pray that all of our hospitals and district health boards, (indeed, any and all public institutions for that matter), have in place both the intention and the processes to best facilitate such an outcome, and that these continue to work to the best possible effect.

On the one hand, I’m so aware of infants such as 3 year old Nia Glassi, and Riley Osborne, just 16 months old, both of whom died violent deaths at the hands of ‘family.’  I’m also painfully aware of the yet many other vulnerable young amongst us who have had to be admitted to hospital because of severe physical abuse inflicted on them in their homes.

To our collective shame, New Zealand’s rate of infanticide is the third highest in the OECD, being 4-6 times higher than that organisation’s average! Horrendously, little Nia and Riley are but the tip of an iceberg! I believe, however, that anti-smacking legislation would not have made the slightest impact on the people responsible for Nia and Riely’s deaths. Adults who take to little children with such a level of violence, even prolonged witnessed abuse, have long past the point where such genteel laws have any impact.

Given this, to my mind, anti-smacking legislation misses the most important target. Instead it seeks to criminalise Jo and Joan Bloggs who love their children and are well able to moderate their behaviour to suit every occasion. These parents need to be encouraged, not legislated against so that they are lumped in with men and women imbued with a real penchant for violence against others.

To me, the shame of this referendum is that $9 million dollars is being wasted on a meaningless process when it could be getting used for value education programmes teaching mutual respect and promoting the dignity of human life in every form. Our legislators, when the eyes of the world are so aware of this ugly shadow side to our country, have once again taken the easiest, most convenient option rather than act to more effectively address the real, underlying issues – all the many and varied ways our national culture promotes violence, be that from the ever increasing use of the haka, the on the field modelling by our national sports teams, our driving etiquette (or lack of it) and so on.

The challenge this referendum raises for us all is our need as a nation to get serious about the horrendous level of violence that exists amongst us.

Later, I had to admit, that that was not a very helpful reaction,especially given what it revealed about the image of him that I was holding on to. Basically, I was still seeing him as a “killer,” and this latest charge was significantly different.

Fast-forward now to the last week of May, and Bailey Junior is sentenced. This time there were no angry gestures or obscenities. In the end, the judge’s sentence seemed reasonably fair, even lenient. End of story, at least for now.

But what about this: I discovered that I’m not the only one who is too easily condemnatory.  You see, at least on the channel I was watching last week, they didn’t simply give us the footage of Bailey Junior “on the day” – they had just as much, if not more footage from his first appearance almost a month earlier!

Why they did that, I don’t know. What I’m left thinking, however, is that by using that old footage, they certainly weren’t merely “telling the story” or “giving the facts” from the day. No, they were promoting an angle, nuancing this man’s story to create a negative, even hostile reaction to him. In short, Bailey Junior wasn’t just sentenced in court, another much harsher sentence was pronounced on him by the news channel I was watching – this young man, they declared by adding that old footage, will always be like this! In this instance, the media were branding him, criminalizing him, pitching his story their way, and it was a way that was quite condemnatory of him