|
|
The
Christchurch Civic Creche Case |
|
|
|
|
"To
suggest that complainants would not wish to appear in that scenario is
naive". Is it? They have kept remarkably quiet for more than a decade.
It is not unreasonable to think that some of them would not wish to
participate. What would they be able to add to their original testimony? You say it was not the
role of a Select Committee to review evidence in the case. So why did
Ministry officials and others send you evidence relating to the case? How
were you able to conclude that a wide-ranging inquiry was not appropriate if
you did not review the evidence? Undoubtedly you did review much of the
evidence, which is presumably why you have concerns about the safety of
Ellis' conviction. "Our response
gives him much more hope than an Inquiry recommendation could have
done". I note that you don't say exactly where that hope lies. In a
Privy Council appeal? Now who's being naive? When was the last time the Privy
Council overturned a conviction for sexual abuse, or any conviction for that
matter? And how much will that appeal cost? How much has the case cost so
far? Justice, it seems, is not only inefficient but expensive. How long will
it be before the Criminal Cases Review Commission is set up? Three years? Four?
Are you saying a commission of inquiry could not be set up before then?
Interestingly, the Court of Appeal said there were issues better suited to a
commission of inquiry. Maybe you would like to explain what those issues are
and why you disagree with the appellate judges. You
ignore the role of Ministry officials in the ill-fated Eichelbaum Inquiry,
their attempt to silence the Thorp report, and their continuing role in
denying Ellis justice. These are the same officials who advised you against
recommending a commission of inquiry. The Justice Ministry has said that a
commission will probably not get to the truth and is unlikely to satisfy
public doubts. Nonsense. A commission of inquiry could hear expert testimony
from the likes of Bruck, Ceci, Loftus, Poole, etc. If such experts testified
that the children's testimony was contaminated to the point of unreliability,
that the interviewing techniques did not employ scientific principles and
were not forensic, that the case had similarities with many other mass
allegation creche cases of the 80s, would that not be significant? Something
else that such an inquiry could do is recommend a pardon for Ellis. On the
basis of new expert testimony, the improper and unscientific testimony of a
prosecution expert witness, and on the basis of new research about child
suggestibility and the child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome, such a
recommendation would seem most likely. I suggest that that would satisfy the
vast majority of public doubts. Why do officials continue to mislead you and
why do you continue to accept their bad advice? |
