|
|
The
Christchurch Civic Creche Case |
|
|
|
|
There will never be
universal finality in the Peter Ellis child molestation case. And more likely
than not, the perceived injustice will ultimately rest with Ellis and his
supporters. There cannot reasonably
be a retrial. If Ellis's defence rests most on the "tainted"
evidence of the supposed child victims, the 14 years since the events will
open any testimony now to even more question. And now that a
parliamentary committee has rejected a petition for a commission of inquiry
into the case, it seems Ellis is almost certainly doomed to a life where
records will forever show him guilty. Oh, the committee has
suggested he be given leave to appeal to the Privy Council, but the narrow
legal scope with which the Law Lords look at cases means the chances of
success are small. Remember, the case has been before the High Court, the
Appeal Court twice and, when public disquiet would not go away, a report by
Sir Thomas Eichelbaum in 2001 concluded the verdicts were sound and the case
should "now be laid to rest". But it wasn't. A book
by Lynley Hood and criticism of some expert witnesses the Eichelbaum report
relied on, as well as the continued protestations of innocence by Ellis
himself (even though that meant he stayed in prison longer), saw in 2003 a
petition by high-powered New Zealanders presented to Parliament asking for a
commission of inquiry. One can understand why
the parliamentary committee has turned the commission request down. High
Court judges would head it. It is senior judges who have already looked at
the case three times. There is no new evidence. The child complainants and
their families have to expect things to come to an end sometime. There is a
danger a commission would be swayed by the fact it's now dealing with a man's
reputation but not also his freedom. And, to not close the door completely,
the committee has recommended a Privy Council option funded by legal aid. At the same time though
it has recommended a range of measures which suggest it is unsure of the
soundness of convictions. It wants changes to the Crimes Act to remove the
possible bias of lumping a number of charges together (so was Ellis subject
to bias?); overhauling regulations around the taking of evidential videos
from children (are existing regulations flawed, and if so, what impact did
this have?); and that there be amendments to laws regarding children's
evidence in sexual abuse cases, the appointment of lawyers to accused, and
the role of experts in considering children's evidence (again, was Ellis
compromised?). All of which suggests
the committee is having a dollar each way, and while the playing field may be
improved for others facing child molestation charges, that won't benefit
Peter Ellis. So, the changes are
made and Ellis loses his Privy Council appeal? Case closed? How can it be? |
