“OTAGO DAILY TIMES”

Dunedin, New Zealand.

Saturday, December 8, 2001.

Page A22.

OPINION

Letters to the Editor

PETER ELLIS

IN YOUR EDITORIAL of December 5 you argue that the justice system failed Peter Ellis. That is your right, though you do not explain why. You then descend into abuse; arguing that my disagreement with your conclusion makes me guilty of "moral cowardice" and having my, "head firmly' buried in the sand".

The facts are as follows: Mr Ellis was convicted after a judge and jury, by unanimous agreement, found him guilty of certain charges, though not guilty of others. His case twice went to the Court of Appeal. The three judges in the first appeal and the five, judges in the second upheld his convictions. I then established a ministerial inquiry. It was conducted by former chief justice, Sir Thomas Eichelbaum, a judge with 16 years experience on the bench, 10 as chief justice.

He spent over 400 hours examining the tapes, trial transcripts and Court of Appeal decisions. He had access to all evidence, including transcripts of the interviews with the children and representations from Mr Ellis' counsel. Unlike Ms Hood, he therefore had the opportunity to examine the issues from both sides. He received advice from two internationally, renowned experts in child evidence. All three independently reached the same conclusion that the evidence on which the convictions were based was sound. Sir Thomas found that Mr Ellis' arguments failed "by a distinct margin" to satisfy him that the convictions were unsafe.

You may believe I should put Ms Hood's advocacy ahead of the independent and unbiased judicial scrutiny that this case has clearly gone through. I do not. Ms Hood should indicate what new evidence she has that has not already been considered by three courts, three prerogative of mercy petitions and an independent ministerial inquiry, all of which reached the opposite conclusion to her.

Phil Goff

Minister of Justice,

Parliament, Wellington

[Ms Hood does not advocate Mr Ellis' guilt or innocence. We are surprised and perturbed the minister is not sufficiently interested to read a book that many eminent members of the legal profession have stated outlines a possible miscarriage of justice. - Ed.]