CAT/C/68/D/852/2017 Act 1994. They had 39 allegations against Dr. Leeks of “infamous conduct” in a professional setting when practising at Lake Alice in the 1970s. The complainant was set to fly to Australia and give evidence, but on the eve of the date set for the formal hearing, 19 July 2006, Dr. Leeks resigned all forms of practice. The Board accepted this and the hearing therefore never took place, as the Board considered that it had no jurisdiction over a practitioner who had resigned. In 2011, the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency stated that “the community was protected from all forms of Dr. Leeks’ Lake Alice conduct” and that the outcome was the same as if a complaint against Dr. Leeks had been successful. 2.7 Also in 2003, following the invitation of the Government of New Zealand to former Lake Alice victims who had received an apology to make a criminal complaint to the police, the Citizens Commission on Human Rights submitted several complaints to the police. In 2006, the complainant himself submitted his case to the police, alleging criminal conduct by former Lake Alice staff, including Dr. Leeks. The police investigation of the complaints of the complainant and other victims was initially focused on possible violations of the Mental Health Act 1969. The police explained that the Act was the correct legal framework under which to examine the complaints, but that part of the law required complaints of that type to be made within six months of the alleged incidents. In 2010, the police therefore closed the investigation on the grounds that they could not mount a criminal prosecution, given the passage of time since the events had taken place, the unavailability of witnesses, and the likelihood of a defence that the time limit had been exceeded and that there had already been an investigation. 2.8 On 4 June 2009, the Committee adopted concluding observations on the fifth periodic report of New Zealand and requested the State party to “take appropriate measures to ensure that allegations of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in the ‘historic cases’ are investigated promptly and impartially, perpetrators duly prosecuted, and the victims accorded redress, including adequate compensation and rehabilitation” (CAT/C/NZL/CO/5). 2.9 In 2015, the complainant requested the police report of the investigation regarding his complaint of torture and ill-treatment. This report included the fact that the police considered that the treatment the complainant had received amounted to a crime.7 Despite this finding, the police held that it was too late to prosecute. The complaint 3.1 The complainant alleges that he was a victim of ill-treatment and torture in the Child and Adolescent Unit of Lake Alice Hospital. He complains that the State party has not ensured accountability for the staff at the hospital who abused and ill-treated children in their care. The State party’s Medical Council accepted the resignation of Dr. Selwyn Leeks in 1999, thus claiming no jurisdiction over him. The Australian Medical Practitioners Board did the same when Dr. Leeks resigned from all practice in 2009, the day before they were to begin a hearing into his practice. The State party’s police claimed they could not prosecute Dr. Leeks or other Lake Alice staff, due to the statute of limitations. Without any investigation, the alleged perpetrators received no disciplinary punishment and the State party medical authorities did not denounce the actions of former Lake Alice staff and their treatment of the victims. No official medical reviews of the practice at Lake Alice and no statement barring such practices have been released. 3.2 The complainant submits that the State party did not consider that there were avenues of formal investigation available, such as a ministerial inquiry. Lake Alice was administered and staffed by government employees. A formal inquiry would be one 7 Part of the police report stated: “On the face of it there appears to have been at least one occasion in 1974 when Mr. Zentveld received Ectonus therapy as opposed to ECT and there is no record of this event in the notes. It is therefore considered that a charge could be considered in relation to the application of Ectonus therapy to Mr. Zentveld in 1974.” Ectonus is another treatment that, according to a police report of 22 March 2010, entails the electroconvulsive therapy machine being used on a different setting to the setting than would be used to deliver electroconvulsive therapy. It involves the patient receiving an electric shock at a lower level of electric current as a means of modifying behaviour. It has since been characterized as “aversion therapy”. 3