Waikato Times
June 11 2003

Ellis case still smoulders
Editorial

It has been 10 years since Peter Ellis was convicted on 16 counts of sexual abuse of pre-schoolers at the Christchurch Civic Creche. He spent seven years in jail and even though he was released in 2000, Ellis' case continues to be controversial, writes the Waikato Times in an editorial.

Despite a trial, two appeals and a ministerial inquiry, many people still feel uneasy about the verdict and believe there has been a gross miscarriage of justice. This newspaper has been one of several to voice its concern and it continues to do so. That is why news of a petition, organised by National MPs Don Brash and Katherine Rich, in a bid to force a royal commission of inquiry, is welcome and timely.

The petition calls for overseas judges to preside over the royal commission "to inquire into all aspects of the investigation and legal processes relating to the Christchurch Civic Creche case". It has gained the signatures of many well-known and well-respected New Zealanders, including lawyers, Queen's Counsels, politicians, media commentators, publishers, editors, authors, artists and academia. "The numbers of concerned people are growing on a daily basis. It is not going away," Ms Rich says.

The impetus for a fresh inquiry was provided by Dunedin author Lynley Hood's award-winning book A City Possessed, which examines the case and the crux of the controversy: the reliability of evidence presented at Ellis' trial. To her must go much of the credit for keeping the case in the public arena. Ellis' lawyer, Judith Ablett-Kerr, has also been tireless in her efforts to gain justice for Ellis and is preparing an appeal to the Privy Council before New Zealand's link with the court is severed.

Sadly the Brash-Rich petition is unlikely to succeed. The go-ahead for a royal commission would need to come from Justice Minister Phil Goff and he has little inclination to reopen the case. Mr Goff stands by the findings of a ministerial inquiry, conducted by former chief justice Sir Thomas Eichelbaum, that contamination of evidence had not been sufficient to put Ellis' convictions into question. He refuses to concede that the Eichelbaum inquiry was hampered by its terms of reference which were widely criticised for being too narrow and restrictive.

The level of disquiet surrounding the Ellis case should cause Mr Goff to rethink. The issue has become far bigger than one man's possible wrongful conviction. It involves the safety of legal processes and the adequacy of current legislation. It is also about the rights of a citizen to a fair trial –- a fundamental principle in a democracy. Those aspects alone justify the time and expense of a royal commission. For Mr Goff to claim he would need fresh evidence before being convinced of the need to re-examine the case is a cop-out. There are many genuinely concerned New Zealanders who have refused to let the issue die with the passage of time. It is time their fears were recognised. A royal commission of inquiry would be in everyone's interest.