The Press,
A Truly Political Issue
by Nigel Hampton, QC
The
Peter Ellis case has passed through, and is now well past, the judicial system.
It is in the political arena.
The Minister of Justice, Phil Goff, in taking the stance he has to the petition
seeking a Royal Inquiry, abdicates his authority. He attempts to hide behind
the judicial processes which have taken place, flawed as those processes are
said to be in the petition, in Lynley Hood’s book, and as briefly argued below.
The matter is no longer one for the judicial system. It is, properly, in the
political arena. Historically, instances of injustice have been solved
politically, the prime example being the Arthur Allan Thomas affair.
The Minister Hides, as well, behind his call, which he repeats as a mantra, for
fresh information, for new evidence.
With respect, this is a ridiculous call. It means that the Minister has failed
to understand the whole basis of the Ellis complaints, the petition, and Lynley
Hood’s book. There never was evidence of any crimes being committed. There
never could be. No crimes were committed.
That is a point worth making. It is not like, for example, the Bain case or the
Thomas case where the issue was not whether any crime had been committed, but
who was responsible for the crimes undoubtedly done.
In the Ellis case there can never be new evidence, unless further children
retract their allegations. That seems highly unlikely, given what has occurred
with those children – the allegations have been made within those young people
almost as their raisons d’etre. And
so made by their parents and the interviewing authorities. In addition,
I note that the Minister says that little would be achieved by re-questioning
those who gave evidence as children more than 10 years ago. So,
no opportunity for retraction there, anyway.
In any event, where would it take the matter, given that the Crown’s most
credible child witness retracted its allegations, but, overall, that made no difference.
The essential difficulty in the Ellis matter has always been the fact that the
Crown, and then the courts, narrowed down the ambit of the evidence, right from
the start and on throughout the judicial processes, to such an extent that it
could be said that Peter Ellis was doomed as soon as he was charged.
Not one court, through the processes, has ever chosen to examine the matter in
its full context and with its full background. The courts, and in particular
the courts on appeal, have turned down any attempt by any lawyer for Mr Ellis
to have that done, and that is why I argue the processes are flawed.
The material has always been available. There have been numerous unsuccessful
attempts to place it properly before the courts and have it argued and
adjudged. But the courts have refused to consider it. It is that material that
is now set out by Lynley Hood in her book, and it is that material which has
been deliberately ignored.
There is no need for new evidence. It is all there. No one in the judicial
system has looked at it properly and it needs to be done now, politically. As
the Court of Appeal has itself indicated, the full extent of
the matters covered by Lynley Hood’s book are matters that are best
placed before a Commission of Inquiry.
The Appeal courts have always been circumscribed in their view of the matter by
first the Crown’s editing of the evidence and the trial court’s endorsement of the restricted material placed before it; and
secondly by their reluctance to go outside those early imposed boundaries and
view the matter in its entirety, in its true context.
That is why the matter must be dealt with as a political issue, for there to be
a viewing of all material. The answer is there. There is no fresh information
to put before the Minister. There is no need for any new evidence. Look
objectively, rationally, at what is already there, and always has been. That
will suffice.