|
TV3
November 16, 1997
The Case In Question
Producer: Amanda Millar And Melanie Reid
Reporter: Melanie Reid
Part Three
Intro Louise Wallace:
As we indicated, Melanie Reid has evidence that raises concerns about
some members of the jury that heard the case and brought in the verdict of
guilty.
Here in New Zealand
the law prevents us from naming or identifying jury members and also prevents
us from making any approach to jurors.
However, in the last part of this report we ask if two jury members could
have compromised Ellis's right to a fair trial.
Melanie
Reid
(V/O) The jury members... the three men
and nine women who decided Ellis had performed indecencies on seven small
children. Tonight we ask whether two of those jury members should have been
on the jury at all? Could they be described as being impartial? Firstly there
was the jury foreman. This is the marriage certificate of Crown Prosecutor
Brent Stanaway. It's signed by the minister who performed Stanaway's marriage
ceremony. That minister was the foreman of the jury.
Brent Stanaway told 20/20 he had not seen the jury foreman for fifteen and a
half years, and that he didn't recognise him until two or three days into the
trial. He did not think it was necessary to inform the judge of his past
connection. Nigel Hampton Q.C. has a different view.
Nigel Hampton:
I think it should
have been made mention of. I think it's quite alarming it wasn't. It's a
significant relationship I would have thought, significant enough to warrant
mention to the defence counsel and to the trial judge.
Melanie
Reid
(V/O) We know Stanaway did not tell the
trial judge but he cannot remember if he informed Ellis's defence counsel,
nor can the defence counsel remember if it was informed. But the fact remains
that the judge did not know of the past association between Stanaway and the
jury foreman
Nigel Hampton:
Ideally from a
defence perspective one would have thought that it would have resulted in,
particularly such a high profile trial, in a judge taking a cautious view and
aborting the trial and saying, 'I'm sorry we should start again, we can't run
the risk of such a relationship and possible influence entering into such a
trial.'
Melanie Reid:
(V/O): There is
another jury member whose impartiality could be questioned. This jury member
was living in a lesbian relationship...her partner worked in a small Christchurch building
and shared the same office, in fact she sat across the desk from a
complainant child's mother. What's more the child in this case was the
Crown's most credible witness and her mother also gave evidence against Peter
Ellis.
Nigel Hampton:
Who can tell now
what significance that would have had in terms of influencing other jury
members as to the believability, the credibility, the acceptability of the
evidence of this particular child. I am quite sure from what I am now told
about it that that would have led to a stopping of the trial and of starting
again. It was vital that you got a jury that was as impartial, as objective,
as detached from any of the players at all as they could possibly be. And
here as I say, I'm quite alarmed at the thought that there were at least two
members of this jury that were not, or could be seen to be not in that sort
of category.
Melanie
Reid
Has it jeopardised Peter Ellis's ability to have a fair trial?
Nigel Hampton:
You can't help
but be left with the feeling that it had the potential to affect Ellis's
case. And if it had that potential to affect, well that really is sufficient
in itself in a way to put a very large question mark in my mind at least,
against what occurred.
Melanie
Reid
So how serious is it?
Nigel Hampton:
I think it's
serious. I think it's the sort of material that has to be made available to
whoever is advising Peter Ellis now, and for those people to make what use
they can of it. Now it may be that they want to try and reopen the matter in
front of the Court of Appeal, I don't know, but I think that it certainly is
serious enough to take that step to say that there are concerns now as to the
composition of this jury and that may have had some affect on the outcome of
this trial.
Melanie
Reid
(V/O) Peter Ellis is currently being
represented by Judith Ablett Kerr, Queens Council, a leading criminal
barrister. 20/20 has given the new information revealed on this programme to
Mrs Ablett Kerr. This week she confirmed that she will shortly petition the
Governor General requesting Peter Ellis a free pardon. In the meantime Peter
Ellis continues to serve his time at Rollerston Prison. He is nearly five
years into his ten year sentence.
Louise Wallace Back Announce:
And the Detective
who featured in this story...seven months after Ellis's trial ended, Colin
Eade retired from the police exhausted and incapable of continuing police
work. He is currently studying journalism at Christchurch Polytech.
Link to "The Case In
Question" Part 1 - Nov 16, 1997
Link to "The Case In
Question" Part 2 - Nov 16, 1997
Link to "The Case In
Question" Review - Nov 23, 1997
|
