The Marlborough Express
June 26 2003
Reasonable doubt
Editorial
Pressure
is mounting for Justice Minister Phil Goff to order a formal inquiry into the Peter
Ellis creche child abuse case, helped along by an 800-strong petition presented
to Parliament this week.
The petition was triggered by author Lynley Hood's book A City Possessed in
which she raises serious questions about the case, its evidence and doubts
about Ellis' conviction. Supported by 140 high profile New Zealanders in
politics, the judiciary, media and the arts, the petition's signatories - who
include two former prime ministers, nine Queen's Counsel, three professors of
law, a former judge of the High Court and 26 MPs - call for Parliament to
institute a royal commission of inquiry into the case.
Mr Goff argues that new evidence is needed to order such an inquiry, however
Mrs Hood and others disagree. They say that the minister has the constitutional
authority to instruct the Governor-General to establish a royal commission and
could do so tomorrow without either new evidence or the permission of the
judiciary.
Peter Ellis was convicted and sentenced in 1993 to 10 years in prison for
abusing children under his care at the Christchurch Civic Creche. He spent
six-and-a-half years inside and was freed in 2000. Ellis and several women
creche workers, who faced similar charges but were acquitted, have always
strenuously maintained their innocence.
As well as his original trial, where all members of the jury unanimously
determined that he was guilty, Ellis has twice taken his case to the Court of
Appeal, where seven separate Court of Appeal judges have said there had been no
miscarriage of justice. Additionally aspects of the case were investigated by a
ministerial inquiry headed by former chief justice Sir Thomas Eichelbaum.
None of these altered the original judicial decision, however during the second
appeal to the Court of Appeal, that court indicated that the case was most
suited to a Commission of Inquiry.
That has not happened yet but it is what the petition signatories, Ellis and
many of his supporters fervently believe should happen next in the ongoing
battle to clear his name.
Mr Goff disagrees, having changed his mind since1995 when as a member of the Opposition, he wrote to one family and said he believed a
full inquiry should be held. Now he says that the original judicial decisions
were made by people with the skill and the experience to do so and unless there
is new evidence there is no need for a commission of inquiry.
He forgets that the judicial system, juries and individuals have been proven
wrong before as in the cases of Arthur Allan Tho mas
and David Dougherty. If they had not continued to protest their innocence and
fight their convictions, the truth of those matters would never have come out.
Now a number of well respected New Zealanders, unquestionably sincere in their
concerns that a miscarriage of justice may have happened, have added their voices
to the call for an inquiry into the Ellis case. The question of reasonable
doubt is present in the minds of many and it is time for Mr Goff to acknowledge
that and ask the Governor-General to institute a royal commission of inquiry.
He has nothing to lose except the respect - and votes - of a wide section of
the community. Peter Ellis and the women staff involved have a lot to gain.
After years of declaring their innocence, it might be proven that they are
right and the justice system was yet again wrong.