The
|
|
Such have been the strong emotions raised by the Peter Ellis
case that those who believe him innocent and those convinced of his guilt
will surely never see eye to eye. Now, however, is the time to put the matter
to rest. The Court of Appeal has twice reviewed his conviction for sexually
abusing children in his care at the Ellis' supporters will doubtless claim that Sir Thomas' one-man
inquiry was too narrow in its thrust. He was asked to decide whether evidence
given by children from the creche against Ellis was so suspect that the
conviction was unsafe and a pardon was warranted. Ellis' supporters would
have preferred a royal commission of inquiry with the power to summons
evidence. That, however, would have meant virtually a relitigation of the
case, and further potentially traumatic questioning for the children
involved. The interests of justice did not merit such a call on those
children. As the Court of Appeal suggested, the issue of the gathering of
evidence warranted investigation. But it is relevant that the court found in
its last judgment that there was not sufficient new evidence of
"contamination" of the children's testimony to set aside the guilty
verdict. Even when one of the children recanted testimony on the eve of an
appeal, it failed to sway the court. Sir Thomas' inquiry included an evaluation of opinions from
internationally recognised experts on sex abuse. Its thoroughness could be
gauged by the extension of the original reporting deadline. His report should
mean the Ellis case has run its course. The process of justice has been
served. |