|
|
The
|
|
Convicted
pedophile Peter Ellis has surely exhausted the judicial options to clear his
name, says The Press in an editorial. The
ministerial inquiry into his case gave no grounds for Justice Minister Phil
Goff to recommend a pardon. This result was not surprising, given the limited
nature of the inquiry. Most New Zealanders will now hope that some finality
has been brought to a case that has aroused such deep emotions. Few The
second hearing did open the way for the ministerial inquiry. The courtfound
that there were issues outside its jurisdiction which merited further
inquiry. These were whether the way in which the evidence of children was
acquired was safe. One year later Sir Thomas Eichelbaum has delivered the
report which dashed Mr Ellis' hopes. Supporters
of Peter Ellis will argue that the inquiry's terms of reference were so
limited that it was set up to fail. It is certainly true that Mr Ellis'
chances of winning his pardon through this process were very slim. Yet it
must also be remembered that even a ministerial inquiry into a case that has
been heard in the Court of Appeal is extremely rare. With good reason,
justice ministers are traditionally reluctant to intervene in the judicial
process. It
must also be noted that Sir Thomas is a highly respected former Chief
Justice. Two internationally renowned experts on child abuse and children's
evidence were consulted. In essence, they all agreed that the reliability of
the evidence that convicted Peter Ellis was not undermined by contamination
by others. According to Sir Thomas, far from this being a borderline
judgment, the margin by which Mr Ellis had failed to prove his case was
"distinct". Children's
Commissioner Roger McClay speaks for many New Zealanders when he hopes the
case will now go away to allow the families involved to get on with their
lives. He has previously criticised the extent to which publicity over the
case has focused on Peter Ellis himself and cast doubt on the reliability of
the children. The history of this case, however, suggests that even this
week's decision will not close the issue. Mr
Ellis and his lawyer are adamant that their fight will continue. Undoubtedly
they will press again for a wider inquiry, but this seems a remote
possibility. Mr Goff's comments, when he released his decision, had an air of
finality about them. He argues that between the various judicial hearings and
the inquiry, all matters relevant to the conviction have been considered. To
reinvestigate the case, including reinterviewing the children, after a
decade, would be futile. A
year ago Mr Goff rejected the option of a broader and more high-powered Royal
Commission into the case. Such an inquiry would have been more public and
more likely to compound the distress of the families. Ellis might still seek
to appeal to the Privy Council but it has been extremely rare for this body
to hear While
the judicial avenues might be closed, the case will not die quickly in the
public mind. One of the inquiry's international experts noted that evidence
contamination had occurred, due to the over-involvement of parents in the
investigation and their information sharing. Certainly, he did add that the
evidence which actually convicted Ellis was not rendered unreliable due to
contamination. Even
so, public unease will remain over the investigation and the bizarre claims
and counterclaims involving ritual abuse. This is likely to be further
fuelled by a forthcoming book on the crèche case. No doubt Ellis supporters
are hoping this book does for him, what David Yallop's account of the No
justice system is infallible. Yet there comes a point where all reasonable
measures to prove one's innocence have been tried and failed. Unless some
dramatic new evidence can be found, Peter Ellis has reached that point. For
supporters this might seem harsh and unfair, but Mr Ellis cannot complain
that he has been denied any opportunity offered by the justice system to
prove his case. |
