|
|
The
Christchurch Civic Creche Case |
|
|
|
|
Tim you interpreted my
"little current effect" incorrectly as if I had expected a result
for Ellis by lunchtime; nothing so stupid, but what I said was obviously
ambiguous, sorry. I meant that the J&E cttee's report by its content and
timing could have little effect on any assessment that this voter can make of
yourself or Labour in terms of how-strongly committed Labour would actually
be over this case and its issues, if elected. You suggest that
"Mr Ellis [would] have been in ... much more extended limbo" if a
Royal Commission had been recommended. In the ordinary course of events I
don't think so: the parameters of Royal Commissions have been traversed
before and so setting up one should have been easier than the recommended new
body, a Criminal Cases Review body (CCRC I think in the UK). As to what 'in
isolation' meant, I'm sorry I was a bit slow on the uptake, but anyway I'd
like to point out that while trying to clarify it (thanks), you came close to
but avoided at that point what appears to have been a frightening subject: a
Royal Commission of Inquiry. Politicians in recent times have created RCIs
quite easily, for everything from rugby to GE to police culture, IIRC. Your
committee could have recommended one if it wanted to, so presumably it didn't
want to. The petition was worded the way it was and asked for this approach
in particular, for strong reasons. The problems unheard
of, waiting to be noticed, the other shadows in the Civic mirror, are many
and great: not just justice, but also health, wellbeing, family cohesion,
ability to feel trust and have a good disposition towards the society in
which we live, ability to lead spirited positive productive lives, etc. But in terms of process
I suppose Ross Francis hit the nail on the head. It would appear that some
officials in the justice dept, a dept which has been highly associated with
matters worked to prevent the resolution of this case so far (including by
omission of the Thorp report from the reference materials for the Eichelbaum
inquiry - it has a different line of approach in psychological terms than the
prevailing orthodoxy does), would be against a Royal Commission. If so, the
reason that the committee came to this conclusion, too, can be assumed. If that line of thought
is right, what does it augur for the future? My own answer would be that I
would doubt whether a new government under Labour would have the stomach or
clout to counter current wrong ideas and/or work being conducted in or for
the fields of sexual abuse assessments, theoretical approaches to evidence,
and justice processes, etc, and so I would doubt if Labour could do any sort
of effective job, even with a CCRC. |
