|
|
The |
|
|
|
|
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2009/10/gutted.html Kiwiblog Words can’t express how gutted I am that Simon Power has declined a Commission of Inquiry into the Peter Ellis case. I really hoped he would finally be the person to do the right thing. The justification is that Peter Ellis has not exhausted all his appeal rights as he file an application for special leave to appeal to the Privy Council. They also cite advice from Crown Law that such an inquiry may be ultra vires, as Ellis (unlike Arthur Allan Thomas) has not been pardoned. This is a classic argument of form over substance to my eyes. So the Government has to make its mind up that he is innocent and pardon him before they can establish a Royal Commission to investigate if he was innocent! I really hoped Simon Power would not just go along with the recommendations of his officials, because it was always inevitable they would oppose this. big bruv October 14th, 2009 at 3:51 pm What are the Nat’s afraid of now? Ruth October 14th, 2009 at 3:51 pm What bad news. My family and I have been big supporters of Ellis for years. nickb October 14th, 2009 at 3:52 pm Have you read Lynley Hood’s book DPF? Confirmed his innocence in my eyes at least. What a shame [DPF: I have no doubt of his innocence] alex Masterley October
14th, 2009 at 3:54 pm System capture. CraigM The Government is showing itself to be represented by some very weak ministers. I was hoping for people of more character than the last government provided but the safety first “don’t-rock-the-boat” attitude seems to be prevailing. How about doing what is right instead of what is easy? I would happily send every child molester in the country to prison for life, (minus their balls) but I think Ellis’s case is one of the worst convictions ever handed down in NZ. With the back-down from Tolley today also, not one of the governments proudest days. ernesto I agree entirely. Ellis represents the darkest stain on our judicial history and should be erased no matter what the passage of time is. So dark is the stain that the public interest in having a Commission outweighs Ellis personal interest in having a commission. That is, it is more important to show that our system can correct its own mistakes than it is to clearly his falsely maligned reputation. I wonder if Finlayson would have been so short sighted, I suspect perhaps not. power must go after this and the provcation debacle. He is not up to it and is obviously overwhelmed by the advice from his officials. At least Finlayson has indicated he will not be dragged around by the nose by his officials advice. No cheerleading here. The MoJ is clearly being run by self interested mandarins. Power is acting like a eunuch. Rex Widerstrom October 14th, 2009 at 3:57 pm Simon Power is a suburban solicitor from Palmerston North. In that sort of firm the majority of his work would probably have been conveyancing farm sales, divorces and estate planning. He’s out of his depth as Minister of Justice. Of course he’s going to cling to the views of his officials, who are amongst those who have the most to lose if any inquiry occurs. On the most basic level, an inquiry is far more wide-ranging than an appeal, and would adduce evidence on a much wider range of questions, including the behaviour of investigating officers, “expert” witnesses, and Justice officials. Well done DPF for noting that Power waving his scented hanky and trilling “nothing to see here!” does nothing to allay the stench that comes from the Ellis affair. nickb Agreed Rex. Would’ve thought Chris Finlayson might have had some sort of say in this? Far bigger calibre of lawyer. nickb I would certainly recommend Hood’s book to anyone out there, certainly an eye-opener with regards to the loaded questioning, conflicts of interests, bumbling investigations etc. And yet our justice system acquits David Bain!!! Jeff83 What the fuck is wrong with this country. 3 successive governments have all failed to do the right thing here. The case is the most blatent case of a miscarriage of justice and for some reason politicians are to timid to fix it. It appals me. I know it shouldnt be said, but the judge who procided over the case is the very definition of a self conceted, homophobic twat. If you have heard what he has said out of the chambers of his court room. Grrr. Razork I just don’t understand this. Why wouldn’t they allow an inquiry? Public opinion is obviously in favour of it. greg207 Jeff83 you have got no idea what you are talking about. Whatever the merits of the case the judge’s handling of the case has never been questioned. Ignorant dickhead. slightlyrighty
I have always been taught that Justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done. Peter Ellis has been failed by the system and now the system is failing the people it is meant to protect. poneke the judge who procided over the case is the very definition of a self conceted, homophobic twat. Ironically, Justice Williamson was also the judge who presided over the first David Bain trial. There was no miscarriage of justice there. Justice Williamson was regarded as a very good judge but he was indeed homophobic (he was a practising Catholic with many children) and could not conceal his contempt for Ellis at the trial, in which the jury foreman was a homophobic Anglican priest who was the marriage celebrant of the Crown prosecutor, for god’s sake. Williamson issued more than 300 negative decisions against the defence, refusing it permission to conduct a defence, while pushing the Crown case at every chance. After the trial, he told the defence lawyer he was lucky to have had not guilties on some charges, as the judge would have found Ellis guilty on every count. Virtually every judge I have spoken to about this in recent years says this case was a miscarriage of justice. However, the Justice Ministry is determined it will not be rectified and sadly, every minister of justice since has licked the arseholes of the officials. As for going to the Privy Council, Ellis is penniless. Graeme Edgeler October 14th, 2009 at 4:38 pm They
also cite advice from Crown Law that such an inquiry may be ultra vires, as
Ellis (unlike Arthur Allan Thomas) has not been pardoned. This is a classic
argument of form over substance to my eyes. It’s not form over substance. If the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1908 does not enable the Government to set up a Commission of Inquiry into this matter, then I don’t want them deliberately breaking the law to do so. That said, section 2 of the Act seems pretty broad to me: 2
Appointment of Commissions of Inquiry The
Governor-General may, by Order in Council, appoint any person or persons to
be a Commission to inquire into and report upon any question arising out of
or concerning— ·
The
administration of the Government; or ·
The
working of any existing law; or ·
The
necessity or expediency of any legislation; or ·
The
conduct of any officer in the service of the Crown; or ·
Any
disaster or accident (whether due to natural causes or otherwise) in which
members of the public were killed or injured or were or might have been
exposed to risk of death or injury: ·
Any
other matter of public importance. Of course, if they’re right that it would be ultra vires, there is a simple solution – enabling legislation. If the Commissions of Inquiry Act isn’t broad enough to allow one into the Peter Ellis case, then a one-off law could be passed setting one up. Indeed, I’d suggest it might even be possible to advance this as a Private Bill, although I can see some issues there, and it would probably be better as general legislation. nickle Very sad indeed. I’ve always believed in Peter’s innocence, but I only read the Hood book last year, and was completely horrified at exactly how badly this whole thing was handled. The thing that stuck in my mind most, was the attitude of a lot of the parents and the social workers had with respect to the way children think – as a mother of young children, some of the statements and assumptions they made were so completely bizarre. This govt seems completely unwilling to do much at all lately – it’s beginning to look like all the ‘Labour-lite’ comments are bang on. What is there to lose by giving this guy a fair hearing? Too many people in high places ending up with egg on their faces? Is that what we’re protecting? Oh well, at least Key can step in when television rights to a sports event are terribly mishandled – horrific amount of injustice must be going on there…. MikeNZ where is our “in touch with the people” Leader now? So Ellis is penniless like most people. Pity He wasn’t a US billionaire on Holiday or a freemason. From a common sense perspective we couldn’t understand how Ellis could’ve committed the acts over the period of time without being seen at some time. But common sense is in short supply in parliament and now as I read here, the bench was partial and it has never been dealt to. We don’t have a Justice system but a crap game some people tell me and as the America’s cup case showed, has Chris Finlayson got the ear of his Emperor? Swiftman the infidel October 14th, 2009 at 5:15 pm They are still scared of the witches. hylton mars October 14th, 2009 at 5:35 pm This is an absolute travesty of justice. I am a Freemason and some of the evidence concerning what happened in a Lodge room is just so ridiculous . This poor man has suffered horribly by the admittance of such rubbish Jack5 October 14th, 2009 at 5:35 pm Power’s decision is appalling. The Ellis imprisonment was a travesty of justice. The whole prosecution and its allegations were a mass-hysteria sham. The outrageous and growing allegations of underground tunnels and supposed involvement of Masonic lodges and leading establishment figures – a massive intrigue — mirrored similar overseas outbreaks of hysteria set off by neurotics or mentally unstable people. Victims in America and perhaps other countries also went to prison. As well as Ellis, several creche workers suffered. Their careers and security were destroyed by the astonishing allegations. One died in debt from the persecution. The police behaviour was appalling with a detective having a sexual relationship with one of the accusers. Interestingly I understand our chief of police, Broad, was involved in the inquiry. Shame on you Power. Shame on you National. Labour, too, rejected an inquiry but that was to be expected, most of the accusers were Labour supporters. The only senior politician I am aware of who would have ordered an inquiry was Don Brash. Swiftman the infidel October 14th, 2009 at 5:41 pm Howard Fraud is a disgrace to the force. The Chief Witch put him in charge as her patsy to ’show’ she didn’t have a hormonal problem with males. poneke The police behaviour was appalling with a detective having a sexual relationship with one of the accusers. Um, he had a relationship, or tried to have a relationship, with several of the accusing mothers. He also had a relationship with the only one of the social welfare interviewers (whose videos became the “evidence”-in-chief) who was heterosexual. But that was OK with Commissioner Doone, as the relationships were not in police time. Tell that to poor Clint Rickards. I am a Freemason and some of the evidence concerning what happened in a Lodge room is just so ridiculous . One of the craziest of the accusing mothers did indeed take her son to the local Masonic lodge, then concocted a bizarre tale of what supposedly happened there, but this was kept away from the jury, along with the cages, the boy who was ritually murdered and buried in Barbados St Cemetery, the Japanese guitar players who took the kids in a tunnel from the Civic to the Park Royal and many other off-the-wall things that might have rung alarms with the jury. The jury got a very sanitised version of this madness. The defence wanted to show the jury the totality of what was claimed, but was not allowed to. noodle We are all so conditioned to believe paedophilia is the worst possible “social crime”, that I believe no Govt. wants to be seen as the one that “made nice” to someone convicted of it. Ellis’s guilt or innocence is not important, in the greater scheme of things. Simple as that, to my non-legal but cynical mind. Brian Smaller October 14th, 2009 at 5:58 pm I knew Ellis was innocent the moment they couldn’t actually find any children missing, given that one was supposed to have been murdered. This case is a blot on our landscape. The fact that no-one bashed him in prison tells a lot too. Viking2 October 14th, 2009 at 6:00 pm Another Nat. failure I’m afraid.Getting to be a daily habit isn’t it. DPF must be wondering about his friends in the house and their ability, joined of course by many others. Full marks though DPF for sincerely criticizing what is an appalling lack of judgment. Having talked with one of the ladies in recent times I can tell you the wounds are still very deep. dad4justice October 14th, 2009 at 6:03 pm What a disgrace and a total let down Simon Power and the National Lickspittles are. These filth are weak gutted parasites that can allow a travesty of justice to go unchecked. These timid creeps cannot be rocking the judicial gravy train of corruption.What judge went to LA Peter? Why can’t the justice system and police admit they get it wrong? Are they human or aliens? What planet you from bent pig and lawyer dork? Police prosecution, crown law and judges are rotten to the core. How many fucking examples would you like MAD speaker WIMP? Simon says – Power to the judicial corruption. poneke October 14th, 2009 at 6:05 pm I knew Ellis was innocent the moment they couldn’t actually find the murdered children. It was only one child. His name was Andrew. He was buried in the Barbados St cemetery, and despite the police digging all over for his body, it was never found. Oddly enough, Andrew has never been reported missing. That was explained by the accusers saying children were secretly bred to be sacrifices in the satanic rites which formed the basis of the Civic allegations (but which of course never got described to the jury). Um, he had a relationship, or tried to have a relationship, with several of the accusing mothers. He also had a relationship with the only one of the social welfare interviewers (whose videos became the “evidence”-in-chief) who was heterosexual. I forgot to mention that this detective was not just any police officer, he was the detective in charge of the case. One of the mothers he propositioned late one night was so upset she withdrew her daughter as one of the accusers, but other mothers he preyed on thought he was so wonderful, that he was still in their “support group” years afterwards, long after he left the police. Jack5 Paedophilia is one of the worst possible social crimes. I hope Noodle in the 5.52 post is not trying to smudge the Ellis case injustice with some sort of defence of paedophilia. It is because paedophilia is so unacceptable and repugnant to society that the Ellis case is so unjust. Innocent people were persecuted on allegations – just allegations. The accusers were either unhinged or were swept up in the hysteria. It is not society’s repugnance towards paedophilia that is the problem, but naive, incompetent justice agencies allowing themselves to be swept along in the hysteria that in most such similar cases was started by one or two unbalanced people. starboard Disgusting. This case represents a festering scab on the bum of New Zealand…and it aint goin away anytime soon. Take ya blinkers off Power..grow some balls and do the right thing. As Viking says @6pm..another Nat failure. thedavincimode Let not get too carried away folks because irrespective of the fact that Waynes Barnes has modelled his Blind Pugh refeering style on the way that the NZ judiciary has dealt with this matter, the fact remains that you either have a system or you don’t. It makes all the sense in the world that Government should not intervene in a judicial process that has not been exhausted. This is cornerstone to our judicial process to my way of thinking. Would you have wanted Klerk and Kullen to have interferred with the judicial process as the mood took them (and I’m talking judges here, not police)? (Although it must be acknowledged that they did in at least one instance sidestep the judiciary entirely by changing the law.) My question is why counsel for Ellis is still pissing around with the appeal process given that we seem to be quite happy to lob taxpayer funded legal aid in the direction of every lowlife that crawled across the face of the earth. We saw more evidence of this yesterday. We can’t heap condemnation on Power until Ellis has nowhere to go in the judicial process. If Ellis reaches the end of the road and the answer is the same, then Power should indeed have his sensitive bits plugged into the national grid. And it wouldn’t be just a black mark for him; it would represent an irreversible skid mark for the whole bloody lot of them. And yes, the time that this has taken is completely ridiculous but that is a separate issue entirely. LUCY Well DPF? You must be really questioning the National Party by now, its just one thing after another. Ann Tolley Simon Power today. Who will it be tomorrow? [DPF: Yep been a pretty bad week. I think I've attacked the Govt on three separate issues today alone. Bloody annoying also as I really have lots of paid work to do, but there has been so much to criticise] dave Gerry Brownlee, probably. side show bob October 14th, 2009 at 6:58 pm Perhaps the taxpayer can buy the Nats some cast iron underpants, just right for butt covering. bananapants The National Party seem to be having a great day. Increasing taxes, embarrassing themselves re: the world cup bid, and ignoring massive public discontent with the Ellis case. It’s like they’ve taken all the worst bits of Labour, and magnified them by ten. noodle Jack5. I said “the worst” crime not “one of the worst”. But aside from that… There is NO softness in my heart towards paedophilia. I detest it. But I still maintain that some judicial outcomes are politically motivated. History is littered with cases where public opinion for or against pardon/release from prison is paramount. Take Myra Hindley for example. She was guilty but will never be released; the public wouldn’t tolerate it, even though similarly evil people under the radar are quietly released after time served. Peter Ellis was convicted at a time of great hysteria about “satanic child abuse”. The more rational among us realise that he cannot be guilty as charged but the Govt. seems not to exist for you or me, but for the other 3 million or so who depend on horoscopes and clairvoyants who “feel our pain” and will oblige our stupider instincts. ross > I forgot to mention that this detective was not just any police officer, he was the detective in charge of the case. And recently published research by Ross Francis states that Colin Eade, who led the police investgiation into the creche, was suspended as a probation officer in 2005 for punching a client in the head while the client was being held by two others. “Peter Ellis: The Case for a Commission of Inquiry” stands in stark contrast to the advice of the Justice Ministry, which clearly had a big impact on Power. See https://www.peterellis.co.nz for “Peter Ellis: The Case for a Commission of Inquiry”. toad What an extraordinary thread. Almost unanimous support for Peter Ellis, and rightly so. It is great to see people from all sides of the political spectrum sticking up for justice. Strange that I agree with commenters like starboard and even d4j (FFS – that must be a first). But where are Kiwiblog’s resident homophobes on this one? Fletch, Kris K and your fellow Kristians? Nowhere to be seen on this thread. ross > We can’t heap condemnation on Power until Ellis has nowhere to go in the judicial process. That is a poor excuse. Don’t you remember the inquiry that was set up in 2000 by then-Justice Minister Phil Goff? Clearly the government of the day felt that there were matters beyond the ability of the courts that required investigation. So much for Power’s excuse (provided to him by officials) that the executive has to be independent of the judiciary. And let’s not kid ourselves: if Ellis does appeal to the Privy Council and loses, the government will undoutbedly use that against Ellis and say he doesn’t deserve an inquiry because he’s had ample opportunities to clear his name. And of course if the Privy Council quashes his conviction, the government will undoubtedly say that there is no need for any inquiry. The government can’t lose. Unless of course, Ellis’s lawyer throws the ball back into Power’s court by telling him that she will not appeal to the Privy Council because she cannot afford such an appeal. Brian Smaller October 14th, 2009 at 7:55 pm What
an extraordinary thread. Almost unanimous support for Peter Ellis, and
rightly so. It is great to see people from all sides of the political
spectrum sticking up for justice. Strange that I agree with commenters like
starboard and even d4j (FFS – that must be a first). But
where are Kiwiblog’s resident homophobes on this one? Fletch, Kris K and your
fellow Kristians? Nowhere
to be seen on this thread. And trust you to bring it down toad. Plenty of Christians have no truck with the Ellis verdict. I know lots who think it was a travesty – just the same way I do and I am an athiest. Pete George October 14th, 2009 at 7:58 pm This deserves some sort concerted push for action. Any ideas? Chuck Bird October 14th, 2009 at 7:59 pm Toad. do you support NAMBLA? Well everyone who does not agree with all the demands of the militant homosexual lobby does not have an abnormal fear of homosexuals just a concern about their agenda. There were heterosexuals also harassed in Christchurch around that time. dad4justice “I agree with commenters like starboard and even d4j ” Don’t make a habit of it toady nitwit. You could NEVER be on my side! toad @ Brian Smaller 7:55 pm I think you’ve got me wrong there , Brian. I was not criticising Christians. I was criticising homophobes. Kris K uses his Christianity as an excuse/reason for his homophobia. That’s what I’m getting at. There are heaps of Christians who are not homophobic, but that should not allow those who are to get away with claiming their religion as the excuse for their homophobia without being challenged. Richard C October 14th, 2009 at 8:12 pm Rumour has it the Ministry of Justice and mates are quietly giving Ellis’s counsel a right run around about funding for a Privy Council appeal. Someone ought to ask some pointed questions of the right people. db..
If Val Sim was involved in any way with this decision then there would be reason to be concerned. Tauhei Notts October 14th, 2009 at 8:25 pm This case took place a long time ago. Since then the children that were supposedly offended against have grown into adults. I have never ever heard of any of those supposed affected people comment on this case. I would love to hear what they have to say now that they are mature adults. Sometimes I wonder if the Christchurch suburb where these supposed attacks took place should be renamed Salem. There seems to be some mob hysteria here but I do not know enough to comment with authority. It would be neat to hear from somebody who does know enough to comment with some authority. nickb Tauhei IIRC reading the Hood book, many of the children took back their allegations as they grew older and began to appreciate the nature of the furore that had erupted. I believe there was one or two that maintained them, but many came out and said the whole thing was a lie Richard C October 14th, 2009 at 8:31 pm Gee, I’ve just read several papers by that Ross Francis in the link above. (https://www.peterellis.co.nz/) ross > If Val Sim was involved in any way with this decision then there would be reason to be concerned. Well, Sim now works for Crown Law and Crown Law are strongly opposed to a Commission of Inquiry into the case. Sim herself has had plenty of involvement in the Ellis case, and advised Goff when he was Justice Minister that there should not be a Commission of Inquiry into the case. Sim’s involvement in the Ellis case is detailed in “Peter Ellis: The Case for a Commission of Inquiry” which can be found here. https://www.peterellis.co.nz freedom101 The Nats are a timid bunch, following not leading. Weak ministers, headed by a weak PM. Just think about it – the Ellis case, ruling out flat tax, denying that the superannuation age of entitlement will have to rise. Maintaining Labour’s ruinous spending path. Keeping taxes up. Increasing ACC levies instead of looking at Labour’s increased entitlements. The Nats are proving to be gutless and weak. No leadership. Catching up with Australia is never going to happen with this lot. F E Smith October 14th, 2009 at 9:50 pm Ross, Val Sim worked for Crown Law at the time of the previous enquiry and as you make the point she made damn sure that credible experts were not consulted. She is now one of our Law Commissioners, and about the only one who isn’t a bit of a heavyweight in some way, although I view Warren Young as a danger to the continuation of effective criminal defence in this country. Sim was also the responsible Crown Law officer who advised that the EFA was did not breach the rights contained in the NZBORA. Crown Law and the MoJ are dead set against the idea of any person gaining an inquiry because, like most prosecution agencies, they have never seen an innocent person charged with a crime. I am sure they still think A A Thomas is guilty as well. I cannot understand the Minister taking advice from the Crown Law Office when it was that same office that opposed his appeal as the prosecuting agency in the appellate jurisdiction. The answer is never going to be ‘oh, well we may have got it wrong’. I have been given a hard time previously for saying that Power is out of his depth, but he really shouldn’t be Minister of Justice. He is more and more appearing to be a populist when it comes to bagging the defence bar and appearing to be ‘tough on crime’, but when it comes to actually standing up and doing something that is right he wimps out. Ironically, the defence bar in NZ have long been supporters of Peter Ellis but this is often overlooked by the media and the public. This was a chance for Power to show that justice really is at the heart of the criminal justice system, rather than simply getting convictions, and he blew it. Razork How much does it cost to take this to the privy council? Does anyone know? What if it was funded privately? peterquixote Farrar tells what a weakling drivel nanny NZ NAT party he belongs to and he says pathetically, “Words can’t express how gutted I am that Simon Power has declined a Commission of Inquiry into the Peter Ellis case. I really hoped he would finally be the person to do the right thing. The justification is that Peter Ellis has not exhausted all his appeal rights as he file an application for special leave to appeal to the Privy Council. They also cite advice from Crown Law that such an inquiry may be ultra vires, as Ellis (unlike Arthur Allan Thomas) has not been pardoned. This is a classic argument of form over substance to my eyes. So the Government has to make its mind up that he is innocent and pardon him before they can establish a Royal Commission to investigate if he was innocent! I really hoped Simon Power would not just go along with the recommendations of his officials, because it was always inevitable they would oppose this.” not good enough Farrar, be brave leave the weakling NZ Nat party Falafulu Fisi October 14th, 2009 at 10:15 pm I don’t know why the government doesn’t intervene in this case, because it seems like that it has been going on forever? Is the case so complex which is akin to a Manhattan Project, that the government finds it so hard or impossible to intervene ? Which is the correct answer? Manhattan Project type complexity or simply an unwillingness to act ? Manolo Q: “where is our “in touch with the people” Leader now?” A: Too busy pandering to Pita Sharples. C’mon Simon Power, do the honourable thing! dad4justice Q: Is there an honourable person in parliament? A: Don’t be silly. Rex Widerstrom October 14th, 2009 at 10:30 pm F E Smith notes: Crown
Law and the MoJ are dead set against the idea of any person gaining an
inquiry because, like most prosecution agencies, they have never seen an
innocent person charged with a crime. and Pete George asks: This
deserves some sort concerted push for action. Any ideas? I have one, and not just for Ellis. Since governments of every stripe are captured by officials, we need a philanthropist with an interest in justice to establish and fund a proper, professional Innocence Project. Anyone know of one? Lord Ashcroft seems to have an interest in NZ justice issues… I’d be back home in a second to work for such an organisation (though that may be a disincentive to many) happy-jacko They are Spineless people with too much Power. With a name like POWER – well I ask you? There have been many injustices in recent years – no Justice in this life it seems and lets hope none for some of us in the next.
|
