|
|
The Christchurch Civic
Creche Case |
|
|
|
|
http://kiwiblog.co.nz/ kiwiblog Poneke (who is becoming a must
read) has a very informative post about how Phil Goff’s promised inquiry into
the Peter Ellis case was nobbled. And
yes the Val Sim he refers to is the same one who said the original Electoral
Finance bill did not breach the Bill of Rights and is now on the Law
Commission. But more interesting for me is the
blog post on The Innocence Project being set up by academics and others at
Vic and Otago Unis. I think the Peter Ellis case is a
stain on our justice system, and am fully supportive of The Innocence
Project. This could even be a good cause for blogs from all sides of
poltics to combine forces on to support. How about a concerted campaign to
set up a Criminal Cases Review Commission as proposed by Sir Thomas Thorp. In
election year blogs could run a campaign to pressure all parliamentary
parties to make it a policy commitment? gd Says: December 17th, 2007 at 11:59 am This Val Sims sounds a like a very
very nasty bit of works Does anyone have the low down on her. I understand
she has been appointed to the law Commission the question is Is this a
suitable person to be sitting on this body? Adam
Smith Says: December
17th, 2007 at 12:10 pm Innocence project is long overdue.
See also Dom Post for article on DNA errors and arrogant statement by NZ
bureaucrat that implies it does not happen her, of it does it would be picked
up. I am sure David Dougherty would agree. Yeah right! On No - strikes me the Scott
Watson DNA evidence on Olivia Hope’s hair maybe the result of
cross-contamination. further, the appeal process in NZ
appears very reluctant to concede any chance of error - see Peter Ellis case
and Poneke had a very good post on that also. vto
Says: December
17th, 2007 at 12:16 pm this is an essential and superb
thing/idea. better 10 guilty men go free than
1 innocent man get pinged. Zippy
Gonzales Says: December
17th, 2007 at 12:17 pm I vividly
remember Dr Maryanne Garry’s lectures in undergrad PSYC back in the 90s,
where she queried the validity of children’s sense of memory. Let us hope
that Ablett-Kerr’s appeal to the Privy Council goes ahead. The status quo is
Sim-ply unacceptable. Brownie
Says: December 17th, 2007 at 12:28 pm Gosh,
this is even worse than I had thought. I had read Lynley Hood’s book but have
tried to stay neutral in my thoughts as I havn’t seen the evidence. However,
with what I’ve just read re: Poneke’s post and Ross Francis independant
report makes me shiver with the thought that so much of the civil service and
especially the MOJ has been subverted by hysteria, conjecture and personal
agendae (i.e Val Sim). With
regard to Val Sims work, if the standard of reporting and analysis to the Law
Commision is the same as some of her work from the Civic case trials and
subsequent nefarious terms to Justice Eichelbaum, the Law Commision is in
serious trouble. How are
these people held to account? Ms Sim’s actions, words and alledged deeds need
to be scrutinised? Is there a process for such scrutiny - especially in light
of the position she now holds? Kevin
Says: December
17th, 2007 at 12:33 pm I wonder
if the innocence project would be interested in persuing the injustices
handed down to Herb Green and Dennis Bonham, being the other great
politically driven witch hunt blighting NZs history. hinamanu
Says: December
17th, 2007 at 12:44 pm Does
anyone know how Peter Ellis is getting on now. I take it
he had no problems with employment issues and is leading close to normal life
now. I was
also shocked to find out that even if you do a full prison term you still
have to go through a probation period. That’s wrong. If you get no remission,
you shouldn’t have to be under the justice system any longer. philu
Says: December
17th, 2007 at 1:02 pm i’ll sign
up for that.. phil(whoar.co.nz) BeShakey
Says: December
17th, 2007 at 1:06 pm I’m sure
there have been some miscarriages of justice in our history, and I think it
is critical we try to avoid these and have systems to ensure that any
miscarriages of justice are rectified as quickly as possible. But I do find
it a little difficult to believe that every (or the majority) of the high
profile cases in NZ have resulted in miscarriages of justice. It makes good
news to report on these kinds of things, but it seems unlikely that so many
cases (almost exclusively high profile) were wrong. Of course this doesn’t
mean we should look at these things, but I think we should be suspicious that
the media suggests so many cases are problematic. poneke
Says: December
17th, 2007 at 1:13 pm How about
a concerted campaign to set up a Criminal Cases Review Commission as proposed
by Sir Thomas Thorp. In election year blogs could run a campaign to pressure
all parliamentary parties to make it a policy commitment? Sounds a
good idea. Incidentally, one MP, Nandor, was at the conference. Adam
Smith Says: December
17th, 2007 at 1:36 pm BeShakey It was
Sir Thomas Thorp who said based on UK stats that there was the potential for
1% of prison population, ie 80 people, to be wrongly convicted, not the media Adam
Smith Says: December
17th, 2007 at 1:45 pm Poneke
has later posts on a review of the children’s evidence in the Ellis case
which appears at first sight to invalidate much of the prosecution and call
into question why Ellis was ever sent down, let alone not exonerated later.
lends credence to the argument that NZ judges will not contemplate that they
might be wrong. Ellis
must be pardoned or at the least given a fair trial unlike his last one which
appears to have been shonky at best and biased or worse on a more jaundiced
view Gooner
Says: December
17th, 2007 at 2:01 pm There is
no need for a Criminal Cases Tribunal or whatever you want to call it. The
numbers don’t justify it. The system works adequately. There will always be
wrongly convicted people but that doesn’t mean we need a Tribunal or Commission
to deal with it. frog
Says: December
17th, 2007 at 2:08 pm Let’s see
how our own home grown Innocence Project does before we go creating a
bureaucracy around all this. I think we should give them our full support and
a chance to make a difference. [DPF: I
sort of agree, except that the Ministry of Justice may ignore the evidence as
it seems to do with the other cases. A body with a constitutional ability to
refer to the Court of Appeal appeals to me, but hey as long as there is some
progress I am happy] BeShakey
Says: December
17th, 2007 at 2:27 pm Adam
Smith - my point was more that there seems to be concern around all the high
profile cases, but not around more mundane ones. I find it hard to believe
that there is an amazing match up between unsafe convictions and cases that
sell papers. I was explicit that I didn’t question the fact that there are
unsafe convictions, or that they should be addressed. baxter
Says: December
17th, 2007 at 3:33 pm There is
a lot wrong with the Justice system, and the treatment of victims is at the
top of my thinking. Every circumstantial case has holes in it which can be
twisted and turned to differing effect. We select Juries to come to just
conclusions and we allow perpetrators repeated and expensive appeals and
retrials. Like Geoffrey Palmers committee to assess sentencing and Parole
Boards this proposition is a perpetrator friendly bureaucratic nonsense which
will probably however come to pass. |
