The Dominion Post
August 5, 2003

It's old evidence with a new spin
Editorial

A plan to put on a website all the witness transcripts from the Christchurch Civic Creche court case, whether they were used in evidence or not, is the latest disturbing development in efforts by a growing number of campaigners to overturn the guilty verdict made by a jury in the Christchurch High Court.

Plainly, the invitation is that the public should read the transcripts, decide they are fanciful, contradictory or implausible and conclude, therefore, that the jury got it wrong.

More than just conclude that the verdict was wrong, however, campaigner Barry Colman has been quoted as saying that after the public have read the testimony, "I'm sure there will be fresh calls for a royal commission of inquiry". The campaigners are plainly deliberately aiming to wear down the resolve of Justice Minister Phil Goff, who has said that nothing short of new evidence is sufficient for him to convene a royal commission. Publication of the full transcripts, which will follow selected transcripts run as full-page newspaper advertisements last weekend, are just the latest tactic by campaigners for Peter Ellis.

A high-powered petition, signed by 26 MPs from all parties, historian Michael King, prominent lawyers, former pupils and parents of the creche, and two former prime ministers has already been presented, but Mr Goff has remained resolute. It is not prominent people, including authors, wealthy publishers and politicians who can or should decide the guilt or innocence of people accused of crimes. That role belongs to 12 jurors. In this case, they have been backed by seven Court of Appeal judges and former chief justice Sir Thomas Eichelbaum, who all considered aspects of the evidence and the way it was gathered, and found no reason to doubt the verdict. Sir Thomas, who reported to Mr Goff two years ago, said Ellis had failed "by a distinct margin" to prove his innocence.

The very same "hysteria" that, it is claimed, was operating at the time of Ellis' trial seems now to be being whipped up in favour of his innocence. It is worrying that campaigners should put whole transcripts of evidence in the public domain and say "make up your own mind". Without the benefit of a judge offering legal direction and instruction on whose evidence a jury might feel it can rely, there is a risk that this process will undermine the justice system itself. The court of public opinion is no court at all.

It is true that juries, and judges, do not always get it right. Beyond reasonable doubt is a very high standard of proof because the consequences of convicting an innocent person are devastating. There is no new evidence that points at the Ellis verdict being unsound. There is only old evidence with a new spin.

In any criminal case, the prosecution chooses to call the evidence which most strongly supports the charges against the accused. The defence tries to find the weakest aspect of that case, and thereby undermine and demolish it. Having failed to do that in court, Ellis and his supporters are now trying other tactics.

National MP Katherine Rich, one of the organisers of the petition to Mr Goff, has said the campaign "is not about Peter Ellis, it is about the integrity of the justice system". She is right, and that is why the conviction should stand.