The Press
August 24, 2002
Crèche book dismissed
by Martin Van Beynen
Glittering prizes and academic praise have failed to sway the Ministry
of Justice's top lawyer 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".
Her report, released under the Official Information Act yesterday, finds
nothing in the book to upset an earlier inquiry by Sir Thomas Eichelbaum in
2000 that 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.
All the points raised by Ms Hood in her 640-page book had been considered by
either the jury, the trial judge, the Court of Appeal, or the Eichelbaum
inquiry, she said.
The report flies in the face of flattering academic and legal critiques of
the book, which suggest it raises the most serious doubts about the sex abuse
convictions against Ellis.
The book, widely read in Christchurch, judging
by library waiting lists, 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 yesterday 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 over-all
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."
Ms Hood said last night she had yet to study the report closely but a brief
read confirmed her impression Mr Goff was getting bad advice.
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.
|