|
Otago Daily Times
Friday, 9-July 1999
Ellis appeal court hearing ends
NZPA
Wellington: The Court of Appeal hearing into the 1993
convictions for child abuse of Peter Ellis ended yesterday with a strong plea
the court use wide discretion in deciding what evidence it would consider
admissible.
Giving her summary address, Ellis' counsel, Judith Ablett-Kerr QC, urged the
five-judge appeal bench to take a "liberal approach".
"Because it's important that justice be seen to be done and that's what
this court is really about, about justice," she said.
"I understand the rules, that [evidence before the court] can get out of
hand . . . but this is a highly unusual case."
She urged the judges to go even beyond the six grounds that Governor-General
Sir Michael Hardie Boys had given for allowing the second appeal.
"In fact there was a seventh ground, and there always is in my submission,"
Mrs Ablett Kerr said. "And that seventh ground was justice itself."
Closing the hearing, court president Sir Ivor Richardson said the judges
would take "a considerable time" to carefully consider the material
before it, and would deliver their judgement "in due course".
Earlier, concluding the Crown case, Simon France argued the risk of
contamination of children's evidence was known and investigated.
The context in which the material had been gathered was appreciated at the
trial, and it could be demonstrated its significance had not been
underestimated, he said.
The Crown accepted that inappropriate questioning by parents had taken place,
but "it's not a perfect world".
Addressing the research put forward by the defence, as providing new insights
into mass allegations, he said: "There must be something new and
significantly new, one would expect, before one revisits jury decisions, and
a decision of the Court of Appeal on the same issue."
In her reply address, Mrs Ablett Kerr faced lengthy questioning from the
bench on the "newness" of research into mass allegations that would
warrant a fresh look at the Ellis case decisions.
She said the court had to recognise the "fundamental ground" behind
the Governor-General's referral of the case to appeal had been that
"there may have been a miscarriage of justice".
|
