The Dominion
March 22 2001

Strange case of the two Ellis reports
Letter to the Editor
by T R Bayley, Mt Victoria


Like the majority of others, I am in no position to comment on the guilt, or otherwise, of Peter Ellis. On the surface it appears his case has been fairly aired. But I found your columns (March 16) concerning a 1999 secret report by Sir Thomas Thorp, a retired senior High Court judge, disquieting. Prepared for the secretary for justice, his report reaches quite different conclusions from those of Sir Thomas Eichelbaum's report, issued last week.

Sir Thomas Thorp is quoted as saying: "It would in my view be difficult to argue against the existence of a serious doubt about the safety of Ellis's convictions."

On the other hand, Sir Thomas Eichelbaum concluded that Ellis had failed "by a distinct margin" to prove his convictions were unsafe.

To a layman these two views are diametrically opposed. And yet they emanate from the cream of our judiciary, past and present.

So where does that leave us? It seems strange that the Thorp report never saw the light of day and that two legal parties came to such opposing views when they both reviewed the same evidence. Odd.