The Timaru Herald
July 1, 2003

Goff stubbornly blinkered on Ellis case
by Nick Lindo

Ellis Imbroglio

The Peter Ellis saga seems to have reached an impasse. All sorts of distinguished people have now signed a petition, organised by Dr Brash and Ms Rich of the National Party, calling for a Royal Commission to inquire, once again, into the notorious, 1992 Christchurch Civic Creche case which put Peter Ellis, protesting vehemently his innocence, into prison for seven years. Mr Goff, the extraordinarily staunch, if not severely blinkered, Minister of Justice, as he has done in the face of other such recent attempts to clear Mr Ellis’s name, can repeat only, and endlessly, that unless “new evidence” be found he sees no reason why he should re-open the case.

That that evidence could have been his for the past two years via the pages of Lynley Hood’s magisterial and utterly convincing, “A City Possessed”, had he deigned to read them, as have all the high profile signatories on the petition, has apparently not occurred to him. But of course it has and for whatever reason - presumably political - he has pig-headedly refused to look in any detail at the book. Hence his continuing to bleat his call for “new evidence” like some all-encompassing mantra, hope the matter will somehow fade away and allow him to exercise his other portfolio, that of Foreign Minister, and get on with the job of sorting out the mayhem in the Solomon Islands.

It is indeed hard to fathom why Mr Goff should be so obdurate or why there should be any party political involvement. It is not a party political matter. Some Labour MPs have signed the appeal others were advised not to do so. Why would that be, I wonder? The Labour Party was not even in power at the time Ellis was sentenced; Mr Goff himself, then shadow minister of justice, expressed doubts as to the safety of the verdict so appears to have no skeletons to exorcise or hidden agendas to hide. We are, after all, dealing here with the right of a citizen to justice, namely the clearing of his name for the “guilt” of a crime he did not commit.

Several of the People of Importance who have attached their names to this petition have referred to the case as being “a travesty of justice, probably the worst in the history of New Zealand jurisprudence”. Such a claim in itself should be sufficient for Mr Goff to order the Royal Commission for which they are calling if only to correct this perceived besmirching of the New Zealand justice system. In fact, in his role as the minister, it is incumbent upon him to do so. The veracity of both the man and the system is at stake. All the above makes it that much harder to accept Mr Goff’s oft-repeated assertion that - apart from his obsessive insistence on “new evidence” - he has an “open-mind” on the issue. I fear it is open but a crack.

However, in response to this ministerial demand, presumably, for additional facts, figures and incontrovertible testimony, we now - June 25th ‘03 - have the bizarre development of “millionaire newspaper publisher, Barry Colman” putting up a reward of $100,000 designed, he says, “to bring out somebody prepared to tell the truth”. As an Unimportant Person but one who agrees whole-heartedly with the VIPs in their firm belief in this miscarriage of justice, I very much hope such a citizen does, indeed, come forward. I can’t help observing - and repeating - though, that all necessary statistics, transcripts and relevant documentation are there in Ms Hood’s scholarly tour de force to be studied at leisure. What is needed “simply” is that evidence in its entirety - not so presented in any of the inquiries that have gone before - be put before the Commissioners for them to look at both objectively and dispassionately and in an atmosphere far removed from the moral panic that prevailed in Christchurch those eleven years ago.

If two former - Labour - Prime Ministers and a host of impressively qualified legal luminaries still have serious misgivings over the guilty verdict on Peter Ellis, the host of subsequent investigations not withstanding, and the man himself, having served his sentence, but still quietly determined to clear his name, what possible reason can there be for refusing to initiate the Royal Commission as requested? Is there really some subterranean political conspiracy at work here? What would be the point? As I have suggested, Mr Goff has nothing to hide - even if one might be beginning to wonder about that - and in his position, he can always blame his civil servants for providing him with poor advice. After all, Mr Horomia goes down that road almost every day of the week.

Such is the breadth of vision and reserve of tolerance exhibited by most New Zealanders, I’m confident Phil Goff would be forgiven for his tardiness if, even at this late hour, he came to the party after all.

The last word must surely go to Lynley Hood herself: “You don’t need the permission of the judicial system for a royal commission; all you need is moral courage.”