The Star (Dunedin)
January 31 2002.
The Rich Report - A City Possessed
by Katherine Rich, M.P.
When I picked up Lynley Hood's 600-page book A City Possessed: The Christchurch Civic Creche Case, I worried
that I wouldn’t have the time or the inclination to finish it. I shouldn’t
have. The book is unputdownable (if there is such a word).
During the 1990s I had not followed the Peter Ellis case, but in the back of
my mind, I suppose I had faith that the legal system would a) give him a fair
trial and b) justice would be done. Having read the book, I am left with
unsettling doubt and a gnawing feeling that neither was achieved.
There is not space in this column to list the evidence but it's my personal
opinion that if the jury had seen and heard all the evidence (despite the
mood of Christchurch
at the time) Peter Ellis could not have been found guilty beyond reasonable
doubt.
If some people think it is a crime to use flamboyant speech, have long
fingernails or be a gay man working in early childcare, then Peter Ellis is
guilty. But based on the evidence that's about all he is guilty of.
The case (the full case) needs to be reviewed and Phil Goff must acquaint
himself with the book. I can understand that a Minister may not have time to
read 600 pages but that is no excuse for not having an official read it or at
least making oneself acquainted with the key points.
In 1973 after two trials, three appeal dismissals and a declination by the
Privy Council, Rob Muldoon instructed Mr Adams-Smith QC to review the Arthur
Alan Thomas case.
Based on the report Muldoon noted in his book My Way that "it was, very
clear to the Cabinet that the statements seen in the report seen by the
ordinary citizen, would cause him to say that Thomas had not been proved
guilty `beyond reasonable doubt'.
Phil Goff is faced with a similar situation 29 years later.
Your comments and letters are appreciated.
<mailto:[email protected]>
PO Box 807, Dunedin.
|