|
The Press
August 26, 2003
Much more at stake
Editorial
More is at stake in the Peter Ellis case than the
guilt or innocence of one man. Underlying the welter of emotional claims and
counterclaims in this debate are the lingering questions about the integrity
and safety of our justice system which just will not go away.
It would be far preferable that these questions were resolved by the
disciplined approach of a Royal Commission of Inquiry rather than continuing
to fester in an uncontrolled public arena.
It is now more than two months since a petition calling for a Royal
Commission was presented to Parliament. This petition was notable for the
number of distinguished New Zealanders who signed it, including several
former senior politicians, a retired High Court judge, Queen's counsel, and
law professors. This was, in short, not a petition that could or should be
quietly shelved – although Justice Minister Phil Goff gives every impression
that he would like to do just this.
Since then publisher Barry Colman, who was one of the signatories, has
published excerpts from transcripts of several creche children's evidence,
some of which was not used at Ellis' trial. The intent was to cast further
doubt on the evidence and process that had led to Ellis' conviction, after
these had been earlier dissected and damned by Lynley Hood's controversial
book A City Possessed.
In response two former creche children came forward to vigorously reject the
claim that they had either lied or else that their memories had been somehow
manipulated. In addition, Hood's own research and objectivity has been
criticised. Most recently another former creche child has emerged to once
more allege that he was abused by Ellis. All this is perhaps an inevitable
balance to the powerful campaign being waged in Ellis' favour, but the
spectacle of this debate now feeding upon itself brings us not one jot closer
to the truth.
Mr Goff has been unmoved by the recent attempts to prove Ellis innocent or to
seek another inquiry. The Minister's stock line has been that no further
action is required because no fresh evidence has been brought forward. A
reaction of frustration from Mr Goff is not unnatural as, since his
conviction, Ellis has had two appeals, as well as a ministerial inquiry,
which found that he had failed by "a distinct margin" to show his
conviction was unsafe. Others who would not support another inquiry,
especially a high-powered and expensive Royal Commission, would say that
Ellis has had more than his share of days in court, and that it is now time
to move on, not to reopen painful old wounds.
That view is not sustainable. At issue is not so much whether the evidence is
new, but the way in which it was used in Ellis' conviction. Appeals by their
very nature are constrained in their scope, largely to procedural questions,
and the terms of reference for the ministerial inquiry were also criticised
for being too limited. As for reopening past wounds, the fact that the former
creche children have now felt obliged to speak out after parts of their
testimony were published shows this is occurring regardless.
Perhaps, as his critics argue, Mr Goff's reluctance also springs from a fear
that a resort to a full, independent, and public inquiry might somehow
undermine confidence in the justice system. On the contrary, nothing is surer
to impugn the integrity of our courts than the widespread belief that the
process by which a man was convicted was flawed – and that this was not being
comprehensively reviewed.
Evidence of such a widespread belief is not difficult to find. In addition to
the petition, a recent Press community survey found strong support for a
Royal Commission of Inquiry and also strong criticism of the Government for
its handling of the Ellis affair.
The Press is taking part in the debate because it is an important story that
needs to be told. This newspaper's support for an inquiry is based on a
belief that there are unanswered questions about the handling of the case.
That, to us, is the core issue, not Ellis' guilt or innocence as such.
The next step is now likely to be the justice and electoral law select
committee consideration of the petition, as Ellis' lawyer has suggested that
a proposed appeal to the Privy Council will be put on hold. A select
committee can not itself order a Royal Commission of Inquiry, but it would be
unwise for the Government to ignore any recommendation to this effect.
|
