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.