The eyes that did not see

By FRANCESCA MOLD

GISBORNE - He came to give them the apology they craved.

In a makeshift courtroom in Gisborne, the town's former pathologist, Dr Michael Bottrill, stood and faced his accusers.

More than a year after his laboratory work came under public scrutiny during a High Court trial, Dr Bottrill finally admitted that women had suffered from his actions.

He had entered the courtroom dramatically. Emerging from the back, he made his way past the silent women, escorted by his two lawyers, to the witness stand.

In an ill-fitting suit, he read from a one-page statement.

He confessed that he did not know the names of all the women affected.

But he had come to say sorry.

It was a watershed moment at the ministerial inquiry into cervical screening, a moment of intensely personal drama played out before a country waiting to hear this man speak.

His performance divided the 100 people, mostly women, in the public gallery. Some angrily described it as nothing but a "stage-managed publicity stunt."

Others said his apology would help them to move on.

When he began speaking, 14 women and their supporters showed their anger and hurt by turning their backs.

In doing so, some were forced to look at members of Dr Bottrill's family, who had come along to give him moral support.

Dr Bottrill said he had responded to the women's plea that he speak directly to them, "face to face and on the record."

As he spoke the words "face to face," he looked up at the crowd and saw the women's backs.

He said he wanted to "tender his apologies" and express his deepest regret to those who had suffered after relying on his reports. He ended by turning to the inquiry panel and thanking them for hearing him.

Then he was hustled from the room, passing once again the gallery of women, some of whom were crying quietly.

His family and one of the women clapped as he left.

Kerri Tombleson, who several days earlier had given graphic evidence of her experience with cervical cancer, mouthed "Thank you" as he passed.

He responded with a brief smile.

Outside the courtroom, women huddled together comforting one another, only to encounter journalists keen to hear their reaction.

Mrs Tombleson said she had clapped because Dr Bottrill had come and acknowledged what the women had been through.

"He apologised and that means heaps."

It must have been hard for him coming to a "hostile" place, Mrs Tombleson added.

But for others, including "Jane," whose High Court case brought the matter to public attention, the apology was a tactic to engender sympathy.

She described Dr Bottrill as a charlatan who had treated the Gisborne community as foolish for the 30 years he had practised there.

"He has taken and taken from this community and it's just an insult. What he has just done is not courageous."

Wendy Ure, who is also Dr Bottrill's neighbour, said the statement was as she expected - a public relations exercise.

But she also said that while Dr Bottrill had misread the women's smears, "we also had a system which let us down."

Ms Ure's words were backed up by Gisborne Cancer Society coordinator Janice Hobbs, who said that while there appeared to be an anti-Bottrill campaign, there were wider issues.