|
The Dominion
February 18, 2002
Handling of Ellis case flawed, says law editor
NZPA
The New Zealand Law Journal has attacked the legal system's
handling of the Peter Ellis case, using Dunedin
writer Lynley Hood's book A City
Possessed as a starting point.
In an editorial to be published today, the independent publication says
former chief justice Sir Thomas Eichelbaum's judgment when leading a
ministerial inquiry into the case was either wrongly directed or at fault.
The writer of the article, journal editor Bernard Robertson, calls for the
repeal of part of the Evidence Act, questions if the appeals process can
deliver justice, and says that courts have been "conned" by
psychologists.
The opinion piece criticises the police investigation of the Christchurch
Civic Creche case, in which creche worker Ellis was convicted of child abuse,
saying "it suffered from a clear fault which was that it was driven by a
junior officer with a bee in his bonnet".
Ellis, who maintains he is innocent, was freed from jail in 2000 after
serving seven years of a 10-year sentence. His conviction was twice referred
to the Court of Appeal and was the subject of a ministerial inquiry.
Robertson calls Hood's book "the first attempt at a review of the whole
case from the investigation onwards". He applauds her "astute
criticism of the shortcomings of the various methods available to review
criminal convictions".
In his opinion, the strength of the 600-page book is the full reproduction of
witness statements, in contrast to the Court of Appeal's admission that it
examined extracts of the statements.
The ministerial inquiry had similar limitations, the editorial says.
"Either Sir Thomas did not read those statements because, like everyone
else, he restricted himself to the filleted evidence that the judge allowed
in, or, with respect, his judgment is at fault."
Otago District Law Society president Adrian More said the journal was
"read by many lawyers and has many helpful articles, but its editorial
comment is not intended to represent the views of lawyers generally".
|
