|
The Otago Daily Times
August 24, 2002
Ellis book rejected by officials
NZPA
Christchurch: Public approval, glittering prizes and academic praise
have failed to sway the Ministry of Justice's top lawyers about Lynley Hood's
book on the Christchurch City Crèche case.
The ministry's chief legal counsel, Val Sim, was asked by Justice Minister
Phil Goff to report on whether A City Possessed disclosed any new information
which might point to the need for further inquiry into "the Peter Ellis
case".
Ellis, who has always protested his innocence, was paroled from prison in
February 2000 after serving 6½ years for abusing seven children in his care
at the crèche.
Ms Sim's report, released under the Official Information Act yesterday, finds
nothing in the book to upset an inquiry by Sir Thomas Eichelbaum in 2000
which confirmed the reliability of the evidence against Ellis.
"In its essential respects, the book contains very little new
information, albeit that the facts are presented from a particular
perspective," Ms Sim concluded.
She said all the points raised by Hood in her 640-page book had been
considered by either the jury, the trial judge, the Court of Appeal or the
Eichelbaum inquiry.
The book won this year's Montana Book Award for history and the Montana medal for
non-fiction.
Even Justice Minister Phil Goff, who had until recently not opened the book,
said today he was impressed by it.
He had found it well argued and researched and quite compelling, he said.
However questions of guilt or innocence were not for authors or politicians
to decide.
"Anybody that looked at the case and the circumstances of the case would
not be objective if they did not feel uneasy about the atmosphere that
existed and some aspects of the case. However, those aspects of the case were
not the aspects of evidence that the court finally relied on for its
convictions."
His own officials had different views on the case, he said.
"I had the deputy secretary [Dr Warren Young] and the chief legal
counsel read the book thoroughly," he said.
"They both started from different perspectives on their reading of it.
They possibly still have somewhat different perspectives on the overall case,
but both conclude there is no new evidence that Lynley has brought through
that has not already been decided by the courts or the ministerial
inquiry."
Hood said last night she had yet to study the report closely but a brief read
confirmed her impression that Mr Goff was getting bad advice.
"It looks like it is more about vested interests covering backs than
justice," she said.
Referring to alleged shortcomings mentioned by Ms Sim, she said she had made
herself available to interview everybody with an interest in the case and
although the parents of complainants had not spoken to her, she had taken
their court evidence into account.
She had researched the case for months, if not years before coming to her
conclusion that a miscarriage of justice had occurred.
|
