|
The Press
September 3, 2003
Ellis petition goes before committee
by Matt Conway
Today the high-profile petition on the conviction of
Peter Ellis moves on to the parliamentary stage.
First it was a High Court jury; now a new group of 11 will shape the
direction of the Peter Ellis case. Parliament's justice and electoral select
committee today begins its consideration of a petition calling for a Royal
Commission of Inquiry into the Christchurch Civic Creche case.
Just how realistic are the hopes of Ellis supporters pushing for a full
inquiry? What political forces (overt and unseen) might come into play? And,
most intriguingly of all, if the committee backs an inquiry, will the
Government support the call or snuff it out?
Many hurdles -- practical, political, and procedural -- already stand in the
way of such an inquiry.
How, for example, could a reliable picture be gleaned 10 messy and muddied
years after former creche worker Ellis was convicted of sexually abusing
children in his care?
Politically, there is much at stake. To date, Justice Minister Phil Goff has
resisted enormous pressure to green-light a wider inquiry -- most tellingly
from concerned members of the legal fraternity. Petition signatories include
retired High Court judge Laurie Greig and several prominent Queen's Counsel.
Eleven MPs sit on the committee: Tim Barnett (Labour, chairman), Stephen
Franks (deputy chairman, ACT NZ), Russell Fairbrother (L), Darren Hughes (L),
Dail Jones (New Zealand First), Lynne Pillay (L), Mita Ririnui (L), Murray
Smith (United Future), Nandor Tanczos (Green), Lindsay Tisch (National), and
Richard Worth (N).
A majority recommendation by the committee for a Royal Commission is not
binding, and could be bounced by the Government, which has the authority to
set up the inquiry.
It would nonetheless put Mr Goff in a ticklish spot.
Mr Franks said if a select committee decides something "smells and badly
needs looking into", the Government would be foolhardy not to follow
through.
"A government that ignores that will be seen as participating in a
cover-up and won't want to do that, and would therefore go along with the
request," he argued.
Although Labour has only five members on the committee, United Future's Mr
Smith could be expected to tip the balance and back the Government if a vote
in favour of an inquiry recommendation follows party lines.
Mr Barnett rejected the assumption that any deals had been, or might be, done
to squash potential embarrassment for Mr Goff.
"I don't think anyone's taking an approach to this which is based on a
party line or a party position."
However, Mr Franks has already declared his hand, having signed the Ellis
petition. The committee deputy chairman saw no conflict in staying put to
consider its fate.
"It's a political committee. We obviously come to most issues with some
prior values and objectives," he said.
Mr Franks signed the petition because of concerns he has about the rules of
evidence in sexual abuse cases, including interviewing techniques, the lack
of corroboration required for children's testimony, and the parameters of
expert evidence.
"I think these are issues that a Royal Commission should look into. It
doesn't mean that I think we could say Ellis didn't do it. I'm simply saying
that the facts raise the risk that this is an unsafe conviction," Mr
Franks said.
"I adhere to the view that it's better that 10 guilty men go free than
one innocent be convicted. Even if I said the convictions should be
overturned, it doesn't mean that I'm saying he didn't do it. I'm simply
saying that the required standard of certainty may not have been
reached."
Mr Barnett was not particularly concerned about any perceptions of bias.
"Stephen's signed the petition but I don't know anyone on the committee
who has a firm position at the moment. I think there's recognition that we've
been asked a very serious question and we have to handle it very
seriously."
The committee will begin by discussing the scope of its petition brief, aware
of the dangers of running a defacto inquiry itself.
Mr Barnett said the challenge was to establish "a clear process that
people respect" and to arrive at an unequivocal recommendation.
"Then we go on to the next stage, which is how the Government will
respond to it."
It promises to be a long and involved process, quite probably involving
public submissions and scheduled hearings. A recommendation from the
committee is most likely to be months away.
|
