|
|
The
Christchurch Civic Creche Case |
|
|
|
|
Two days ago I fronted
the report from my Justice and Electoral Select Committee in response to a
petition which came to us 2 years ago, requesting that we recommend to
Government the establishment of a Royal Commission into aspects of the
Christchurch Civic Creche case. The bald facts are in our report, which is
available via this link. I really just wanted to make a few
comments of context and explanation. A Select Committee is
limited by time, resources and the degree to which its members can cooperate.
I freely claim that only the Justice Committee could have produced a
(virtually all unanimous) report of this significance, on such a tricky
topic. The report does not recommend a Royal Commission of Inquiry,
essentially because Commissions are not usually set up to (in effect)
relitigate a court case, but also because there were better ways of dealing
with what the Committee felt a Royal Commission would have ended up looking
at. Peter Ellis' guilt? We pressured
for a new appeal route to be opened up to him. The use of childrens
evidence? Amend the Evidence Bill (in front of the Select Committee) and
examine how the 1989 law reforms (passed in an atmosphere of some hysteria
about child abuse, and now regarded with less than respect by courts) worked
for the past 15 years. Access to a trial
lawyer of choice? Look at availability of legal aid (another Bill before the
Committee). Concern at the outdated
methods of examining alleged miscarriages of justice? Set up an equivalent to
the UKs Criminal Cases Review Authority. I am proud of this
report. It was criticised from all sides. I am sure that I sound like a
dumbarse politician when I say that suggests we may just have got it right?
|
