|
|
The
Christchurch Civic Creche Case |
|
|
|
|
December 21 1997. The issue of whether
justice was done in the Christchurch Civic Creche child-abuse case has been
debated since day one -- and will not go away easily. The fact that police
are now to investigate themselves aspects of their own handling of the case,
including allegations concerning the detective heading the inquiry, is
scarcely likely to reassure those who are convinced creche worker Peter Ellis
was innocent of the charges, did not get a fair trial, and has already been
wrongly imprisoned for four years. Those who have been
campaigning on behalf of Ellis now have a number of MPs, including some in
the coalition Government, supporting their cause. Alliance MP Rod Donald,
whose partner was on the creche management committee and who had a daughter
at the creche, says he believes there was a witchhunt against Ellis, and that
at another time in history he may have been burned at the stake. New Zealand
First MP Rana Waitai, a former police district commander, says all his
instincts, honed during his 31 years as a police officer, tell him there is
something "terribly wrong and unjust" in the Ellis case. Labour MP
Phil Goff, his party's justice spokesman, says he has "long had an
unease" about the case based on a number of things including accusations,
made by the children, that were not presented to the jury because they were
"so bizarre and incredible that they would have damaged the credibility
of the entire case". NZ First senior whip Ron Mark says he believes in
Ellis' innocence, and his party colleagues have agreed to do what they can
"to ensure that the injustice dealt to this man does not continue".
Given what the senior whip says about the support of his colleagues, it is
unfortunate for Ellis that granting him a pardon was not negotiated as one of
the clauses in the coalition agreement. MPs are just as likely
to be deluded as anyone else, of course, in their convictions. But given the
increased level of debate about the trial and conviction, it must be presumed
that when former detective Colin Eade, who headed the case, says Ellis was
"guilty without a doubt", he is basically confirming the lack of
doubt in his own mind, and not referring to the doubt which exists in the
minds of so many others. Doubt is the operative
word, as it has been in many other cases in recent years. Surely it has now
become time, when so many areas of major doubt are raised about whether
justice has been done in a particular case, for the first step not to be
automatically simply to ask the police to hold an internal investigation, and
to pronounce on their own handling of the case. That is not to
pre-judge the outcome of the police investigation, or to say there was
anything wrong with the way the case was handled or justice was dispensed. It
is merely to say that the public relations interests of the police would also
be better served, in such important cases, if the investigation or review was
carried out by an independent judicial authority from the outset. The
argument for doing so in the Ellis case is even stronger because the performance
of organisations other than the police is also in question. |
