|
|
The
Christchurch Civic Creche Case |
|
|
|
|
The responses to this
blog are, to say the least, interesting. Many come from people who have puts
skills and energy into the fight around this case, yet few understand the
constraints which Select Committees are under, nor the careful way in which
we designed the recommendations. In response to the
specifics: the report was agreed
unanimously. Richard Worth of National put in a minority report which went
further than the Committee in some respects, and contradicted the points he
had agreed to in other places. Clem and Lianne took no part in any of the
discussions. the Privy Council route
was proposed by Mr Ellis' lawyer, a proposal to which the Select Committee
responded positively. She is a more eminent lawyer than any of the
respondents; all their comments should be seen in that light; the proposed Criminal Cases
Review (miscarriage of justice) process has integrity. Since this general
proposal arose from a response on this specific Civic Creche case, the belief
that this case would have likely met any criteria for such a body was pretty
self-evident, I would have thought. It is not a for a Select Committee to
decide which cases such a body should take; it will have its own criteria; the timing of the
report - allowing an incoming government to respond to it - reflects both the
Committee's workload leading up to it, and the need to complete the work
before a new committee took over. "Craven"? To whom? The Committee
ran its own timetable and overloaded programme. some feel that the
report leaves Peter Ellis in limbo or has "little current effect".
This shows how inflated some peoples idea of the role of the Committee was.
We were asked to produce a recommendation in response to the proposal that a
Royal Commission be held into the case. If we had recommended that (instead
of specific progress in Mr Ellis case, and more effective miscarriage of
justice structures) in what way would Mr Ellis have been in anything but much
more extended limbo? Our response gives him much more hope than an Inquiry
recommendation could have done. some attack the
Committee for not reviewing the evidence in the case. Not the role of a
Select Committee. Probably the role of a Criminal Cases Review body. there are certainly
various views of what a Royal Commission could have done. If it avoided some
re-running of the trial, my view is that it could only have ended up with
recommendations akin tomour Committees, at the most. If it decided on an
effective re-run, I believe that would have been unable to deliver anything
useful, since people and pain would re-emerge to have their say again. To suggest
that complainants would not wish to appear in that scenario is naive. The
Commission of Inquiry proposal was not a major topic in the evidence provided
by the Ministry of Justice (which is publicly available), and they had no
involvement in the work of the Committee beyond the hearing of their oral
evidence and receipt of their supplementary written evidence. the phrase "in
isolation" means that amny topics are the subject of public discussion
and dispute, but that alone would not be sufficient criteria for
establishment of a Commission. If a legal case generates concern, the legal
system allows appeals (seemingly still not exhausted in this case)and the law
can be reviewed (currently before the Select Committee). Thank you for your
interest, Tim
Barnett |
