|
NZ Government
March 10, 2000
Ministerial Inquiry To Be
Held Into Ellis Case
Media Release
The retired Chief Justice, Sir Thomas Eichelbaum, has been asked to undertake
a ministerial inquiry into Mr Peter Ellis's case, Justice Minister Phil Goff
announced today.
'I want to emphasise that it is extremely rare for further inquiry to be
conducted into matters that have been considered by the Court of Appeal.
However, in this case the Court itself indicated that there were matters that
might be more appropriately addressed by an inquiry of this kind.'
Peter Ellis twice petitioned the Governor-General for the exercise of the
Royal prerogative of mercy, in 1997, and again in 1998.
As a result the case was referred back to the Court of Appeal. In its
subsequent judgment, the Court indicated that in its opinion no miscarriage
of justice had occurred in Mr Ellis's case. However, the Court also commented
that there were matters that might more appropriately be the subject of
further inquiry. The Court was unable to resolve all matters fully because of
the form in which some of the evidence was presented and the nature of its
appellate role.
Following this judgment, Peter Ellis petitioned the Governor-General for a
third time in October 1999, requesting a pardon and a Royal commission of
inquiry into his case.
'I have asked Sir Thomas Eichelbaum to look into the matters that the Court
of Appeal indicated it could not appropriately consider,' Mr Goff said.
'In particular, I have asked Sir Thomas to identify current best practice for
investigating mass allegation sexual abuse cases, and to determine whether
these practices were followed in Mr Ellis's case. I have also asked Sir
Thomas to seek the opinion of at least two internationally recognised experts
in the area.'
'I recently met with representatives of the crèche children's families. I
understand and sympathise with their concerns. The need to minimise the
distress for the crèche children was one of the key factors that influenced
the shape of the inquiry. This was why I have established a ministerial
inquiry and not a commission of inquiry. A ministerial inquiry is more
flexible, more low key and more discreet. It is also likely to be speedier
and much less of a burden on the taxpayer.'
TERMS OF REFERENCE.
The Minister of Justice appoints you to inquire in the manner set out below
into matters which may be relevant to the assessment of the reliability of
evidence given by the children who attended the Christchurch civic crèche
against Peter Hugh McGregor Ellis and to report on whether there are any such
matters which give rise to doubts about the assessment of the children's
evidence to an extent which would render the convictions of Peter Hugh
McGregor Ellis unsafe and warrant the grant of a pardon.
You are to:
(1) (a) Review
the reports and memoranda listed in the schedule and;
(i)
identify the processes, practices
and procedures currently accepted internationally as best practice for
investigating mass allegation child sexual abuses and interviewing children
in these cases; and
(ii) identify any risks associated with a
failure to adhere to best practice.
(b)
On the basis of the evidence given
at both the depositions and the trial, assess whether the investigation into
the events at the Christchurch civic crèche case and interviews of children
were conducted in accordance with best practice as now understood.
(c)
If you conclude that the interviews
were not conducted in accordance with best practice, identify the nature and
extent of any risks which arise, which might affect the assessment of the
reliability of the children's evidence. In conducting this task you are not
required to attribute or apportion blame to particular individuals who
undertook the interviews. The focus of the task is on the evaluation of
systems and techniques and their impact on the children.
In
undertaking the tasks referred in (1) above, you are to invite, and consider,
written submissions from the Crown Law Office (on behalf of the Police,
Department of Social Welfare and Specialist Interviewers), Peter Ellis, the
families of children who gave evidence at the Ellis trial, and the
Commissioner for Children.
(2)
For the purpose of the assessment and the conclusions under (1) above, you
are to:
(a)
Seek and evaluate opinions from at
least two internationally recognised experts (if possible with experience in
mass allegation child sexual abuse) on whether there are features of the
investigation and/or interviews of the children (on the basis of the evidence
at depositions and trial) which may have affected the reliability of the
children's evidence, and if so, their likely impact.
(b)
In selecting the experts from whom opinions are to be sought you are to:
(i)
invite and consider submissions
from the Crown Law Office, Mr Peter Ellis, the families of children who gave
evidence at Mr Ellis's trial and the Commissioner for Children; and
(ii)
make such further inquiries as you
consider necessary to ensure that the experts from whom opinions are sought
reasonably reflect the range of professional views.
(3)
In light of your assessment and conclusions in (1) and (2) above, you are to
report by 31 August 2000 on whether there are any matters which give rise to
doubts about the assessment of the children's evidence to an extent which
would render the convictions of Peter Hugh McGregor Ellis unsafe and warrant
the grant of a pardon.
SCHEDULE
Report of the Inquiry into Child Abuse in Cleveland 1987;
Report of the Inquiry into the Removal of Children from Orkney Isles in
February 1991;
The 1992 Memorandum of Good Practice (England);
The Joint New Zealand Children and Young Persons Service and Police Operating
Guidelines of March 1997;
The Final Report of the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police
Service of May 1997;
Law Commission. Total Recall? The Reliability of Witness Testimony. A
Consultation Paper (July 1999); and
Analysis of Child Molestation Issues Report No 7, A Report by the 1993/4 San
Diego County Grand Jury, June 1, 1994.
|
