|
|
The
Christchurch Civic Creche Case |
|
|
|
|
Protestations of
innocence come freely from behind bars so it's not surprising that many
claims that there have been miscarriages of justice fall on cynical ears.
Self-interest is often the motive for attempts to undermine confidence in the
justice system. However, it takes just
one cause célèbre, like that of the Peter Ellis Christchurch crèche sex abuse
case (in which there are inconsistencies that cry out to be examined) to
raise public doubts about the fairness of a conviction. Such persistent doubts are
inimical to the reputation of a sound, authoritative system of justice, which
is why High Court Judge Sir Thomas Thorp has advocated an independent
authority to identify miscarriages of justice. At the end of a
two-year study of the nature and incidence of miscarriages of justice, and
the way New Zealand and comparable countries deal with such claims, the
retired High Court judge, who looked into the Peter Ellis case for the
Government, said as many as 20 New Zealanders may be wrongly imprisoned. Sir Thomas analysed 53
applications to the Justice Ministry claiming miscarriages of justice. He
found 26 percent of the applications "raised issues that clearly
required careful investigation". Though he said there
were proportionally fewer complaints of miscarriages in New Zealand than in
Britain, the figure is alarming, nonetheless. The authority of the
justice system rests on its willingness to subject itself to scrutiny. The
appeals process is part of that necessary reassurance. However, a separate
organisation, not confined to examining errors of law as grounds for appeal,
is necessary. And in all such
investigating agencies, independence is the essential ingredient. The Police
Complaints Authority, for example, suffers from debilitating public prejudice
because of the perception, rightly or wrongly, that it is the police sitting
in judgment on themselves. If Sir Thomas is
correct, an independent authority to investigate miscarriages of justice is
needed. Even if he isn't, it will be required because of new legislation
intended to speed up the judicial process which will leave more potential
room for error. And it is important for public confidence such a guarantee is
available. It is not a sop to
routine protestations of innocence but an additional form of security that
ensures convictions are safe and that justice is dispensed. Any justice system has
its imperfections. Its strength lies in recognising and providing for them. |
