|
|
The Christchurch Civic Creche Case |
|
|
|
|
http://homepage.mac.com/j.monro/MiscarriageOfJustice/MiscarriageOfJustice.html Report on the
Parliamentary Justice Committee on (Added 18/8/05) A Parliamentary review of the Peter Ellis
case has just reported. (The full report can be found here.) The petition for a
Royal Commission of Inquiry was declined. While this is very disappointing,
the committee have admitted that there are many aspects of the Peter Ellis
trial with which they are uncomfortable, and have made quite a number of
recommendations because of these concerns. It is a shame that the logical
conclusion of these concerns, the setting up of a Royal Commission of
Inquiry, was not then forthcoming. ·
For instance they admit the public disquiet about the
declining of legal aid for Peter Ellis's council. They make recommendations
about this. ·
Concerns raised by the petitioners in regard to a)
interviews with the children b) the "protected" status of expert
witness testimony c) issues around the credibility of the childrens's
evidence not presented to the jury were all acknowledged. Recommendations
were to examine the operation of amendments to the Evidence Act of 1990 and
1999 in regard to children's evidence, and consider a more inquisitorial
approach to criminal cases involving the alleged sexual abuse of children, as
in the Family Court. ·
There seems to have been a lot of correspondence to Judith
Ablett-Kerr QC which the committee have not received a reply from. For
instance the Ministry of Justice suggested that if Peter Ellis was unhappy
with the videotaped evidence he could have challenged this under section 231
of the Evidence Amendment Act 1989. ·
Issues related to the police investigation were examined,
but the Committee seems to have been happy to accept Ministry assurances and
thought this was a secondary issue and remote. ·
Issues related to criticisms of the Eichelbaum Inquiry
were examined, I am not sure that I follow the logic of the Committees
conclusion that the concerns related to the enquiry were because of the
failure of the Inquiry to overturn the convictions, rather than the nature of
the Inquiry itself. This is self-evidently not true. ·
In regard to future legal remedies, these are examined
fully. A letter from Judith Ablett-Kerr QC was received later by the
committee. In this she stated that she thought it would be correct to pursue
leave to appeal to the Privy Council. There is a useful summary of the
committee's main concerns in regard to this case, which are important. There
is a recommendation that the Attorney-General not oppose an application to
appeal to the Privy Council, and that legal aid should be available. ·
At last, there is acknowledgement the New Zealand justice
system is not presently capable of examining issues in regard to public
concerns about miscarriages of justice through its present formal and
restrictive legal framework. The Committee make the recommendation that a
Criminal Cases Review Authority be established, along the lines, I imagine,
of the similarly named organisation in the UK. Thank goodness. I hope that
this recommendation is quickly taken aboard by all the political parties in
New Zealand, and is supported wholly by the legal fraternity in New Zealand
(perhaps nowadays in New Zealand I should say legal sorority). As such, this
body would be able to examine historical cases, then this might allow people
like Peter, and my other mentioned victims on this web site, to seek thorough
review of their cases. There can never be such a thing as foolproof or
absolute justice, but a Criminal Cases Review Authority will go a long way to
improving justice in New Zealand and mitigating the closed shop justice
system that presently exists here. However I would add that it would be
better to get proper justice from the very start, and an independent Courts
Office or prosecution service should also be considered along with any review
of the appeals system or Criminal Case Review Authority. ·
There is a single minority opinion which disagrees with
the findings of the Committee. He feels the Committees recommendations are
inappropriate. He also points out with the passage of time, that two of the
petitioners' main concerns have been partly addressed, with the introduction
of a new Evidence bill, relating to statements of opinion by expert witnesses
and children's evidence, and with the introduction of the Legal Service's
amendment bill, in regard to legal aid. |
