|
Dominion Post
September 1 2003
Who leaked the transcripts?
Letter to the Editor
by S Libeau (Invercargill)
I admire
"Tom" and "Katrina" in the Peter Ellis case. They are
both so brave to come forward after the suffering they have experienced.
I would like them to know that they do have some legal rights in the
situation they are now in. They may like to know that the Evidence
(Videotaping of Child Complainants) Regulations 1990 and its amendments apply
to them as complainants. Under the regulations, police have custody of a
master tape of the complainants' diagnostic/evidential interviews, a working
tape and a transcript of the interviews.
When a criminal conviction is considered, the prosecutor is required to give
the defendant's solicitor a copy of the transcript (of the tapes) at least
seven days before the hearing.
Otherwise, the police hold the tapes and transcripts in safe custody, showing
them only to the defendant, the complainant, their solicitors or the police
for purposes relating to the crime.
The rules are that the tapes can be shown, but not copied or disseminated to
any third party.
There has been a vague hint that a transcript went missing during the case
and I have no doubt that someone leaked these transcripts.
The question is, who did? And why has the Government not fulfilled its duty
to these two victims of crime by ensuring that no one connected to the case
or the court could take copies of the transcripts and then pass them on?
|
