|
|
The Christchurch
Civic Creche Case |
|
|
|
|
For more than two years
Parliament's justice and electoral committee has had before it the petition
urging a Royal Commission into the Christchurch civic creche case, writes The
Press in an editorial. The report of this
committee was released yesterday and it will be a disappointment to the New
Zealanders who threw their weight behind the petition. The committee rejected
the call to set up a Royal Commission. Instead it gave a heavy steer that
Peter Ellis should receive legal aid to take his case to the Privy Council in
London. At various points in
the committee's report, it is recognised that the Ellis case has aroused
serious disquiet in the community. This is an understatement. Since Ellis's
conviction in 1993, his case has been the subject of several appeals and
petitions, culminating in the ministerial inquiry conducted by Sir Thomas
Eichelbaum. Few cases in
Christchurch, it is fair to say, have attracted such controversy and
polarised public opinion as that of Ellis, notably over the issue of the
testimony of child witnesses. This disquiet was reflected in the number of
high profile jurists and politicians who signed the petition. The committee advanced
a number of reasons for not endorsing the call for a Royal Commission,
including the argument that public anxiety over the case could not in itself
justify such a step. In essence the committee decided that Ellis still had
legal avenues open to him, notably an appeal to the Privy Council. A majority
of the committee also did not believe that a Royal Commission conducted in 2005
could reach a better view of the facts than was achieved in 1993. And the
committee remarked that the child complainants and their families were
entitled to expect that, if the formal legal process had found no miscarriage
of justice, that would be the end of the matter. It appears that Ellis,
having earlier expressed a preference for having his case resolved in New
Zealand, is now more amenable to appealing to the Privy Council. The history
of this case, and the rarity of criminal appeals to the Privy Council,
suggests that Ellis will face an uphill battle before the Law Lords in
London. Given that Opposition
leader Don Brash signed the petition, Ellis might well wait to see whether
the election delivers a National-led Government and a Royal Commission –
although Brash is now hinting that what might emerge is an inquiry less than
a full Royal Commission. In one respect the
committee was probably correct to rule against the petitioners. Not only had
a Royal Commission been sought, but the plea was that this be presided over
by an overseas judge or judges. It would seem to be an odd move to import a
foreign judge at the very time that New Zealand has taken responsibility for
its own judicial affairs by setting up the Supreme Court. But it is also apparent
that the committee report has an element of kicking for touch. Its
suggestions of other avenues open to Ellis other than the Privy Council
appeal (such as pursuing an action under the Bill of Rights Act) strike as
unlikely and, rather than offering him any serious alternative, may be little
more than placatory gestures. Despite not considering
that a Royal Commission was warranted, it did make seven recommendations
dealing with key aspects of the Ellis case. These include a law change with
respect to the videotaping of children's evidence in sex cases, the creation
of a new body to handle cases in which a miscarriage of justice is alleged,
and a law change to ensure that those accused by multiple complainants are
not prejudiced by the totality of the charges. The committee also urged that
an accused's preferred counsel be available in legal aid cases and that an
examination be carried out into sexual-abuse-case rules involving child
complainants over the past 15 years. These recommendations
do have the potential to address some of the concerning elements which have
been raised by the Ellis case. As for Ellis himself, however, the sole
recommendation of any direct benefit is the committee's view that
Attorney-General Michael Cullen not oppose, or only oppose in principle, any
proposed application by Ellis to appeal to the Privy Council. Undoubtedly the hope of
those who signed the petition was that the select committee process would
provide, through a Royal Commission, the process required to allow some closure
to the Ellis case. It has failed to do so, leaving Ellis weighing up whether
to mount another appeal, this time in London. For this reason the select
committee report, two years in the making, has only ensured that the Ellis
case will continue to be a divisive controversy in Christchurch. |
