The Press
June 12 2003
Heed this petition
Editorial
When A
City Possessed, Lynley Hood's book on the Peter Ellis case, was published more than
a year ago the Minister of Justice, Phil Goff, seemed to take a kind of pride
in letting it be known that he had not read it, writes The Press in an
editorial.
At the time he apparently did not think he needed to. He continued instead to
insist, presumably on the advice of his civil servants, that it contained
nothing new to cause him to reconsider the case. Mr Goff has since taken a look
at parts, at least, of the book. So have many others.
A distinguished group of those other readers has been so stirred by what the
book contains that their names have been added to a petition calling for a
royal commission of inquiry into the case. It is an extraordinarily mixed
group. The petitioners whose names have been publicised so far include two
former Labour prime ministers, two former Cabinet ministers, law professors,
eminent QCs, the publisher of the Right-wing National Business Review and the
editor of the Left-wing Listener, the former governor of the Reserve Bank and
now National MP Don Brash and assorted Left and Right-wing writers. Some Labour
Party MPs had been going to sign until warned off by party whips.
Mr Goff, however, remains unmoved, either by his reading of the book or the
prospect of this petition. He will do nothing, he has said, unless the
petitioners present him with new evidence. Mr Goff should change his mind.
One can understand his reluctance to do so. Peter Ellis was tried, found
guilty, has had two appeals plus a ministerial inquiry, and has failed at each
step. He has served his sentence and is now free. Surely it is time to forget
about the whole unsavoury mess. Besides, royal commissions are cumbersome and
expensive devices, the heavy artillery of the governmental investigative
apparatus, to be reserved only for the most serious of cases.
The problem is that the Ellis case will not go away. It is conventional to
suggest that
The appeal process has failed to do that. The Court of Appeal is avowedly
reluctant to interfere with jury verdicts, being concerned mostly with whether
the correct procedure is followed. In this case it read only extracts of the
troublesome witness statements. Except where one child witness recanted her
testimony, it found no grounds to interfere with the verdict. The later
ministerial inquiry was narrowly focused on whether interviews with the
children had been conducted according to best practice or whether anything in
the investigation or the interviews had made their testimony unreliable. That
inquiry found that all it had been asked to examine was sound. But the
narrowness of these processes was inadequate to answer the questions that have
been raised.
A thorough-going inquiry such as a properly established royal commission would
lay these questions to rest. Parties on both sides of the divide deserve to
have them rigorously examined and answered. Doubts about the quality of the
justice seen in this case cannot be airily dismissed. If they are, there is a
real risk they will persist and will corrode confidence in the justice system.
Similar problems in