Peter Ellis Org
: Seeking Justice for Peter Ellis
The
Ministry of Justice
June 13, 2000
File Note: Meeting with Sir Thomas
Eichelbaum; Ellis Inquiry
by Michael Petherick
LA 04 01 00 03
MP:CJ:RP
13
June 2000
File note: Meeting with Sir Thomas Eichelbaum; Ellis Inquiry
Present: Sir Thomas Eichelbaum
Val Sim
Michael Petherick
1. Val
and I gave Sir Thomas a research review of the psychologists nominated to
provide an opinion as part of the Ellis inquiry (see articles on file). We also
provided some information about two others (Dr Louise Sas and Prof. Kim Oates)
and generally explained the difference between research psychologists /
psychiatrists /practitioner clinicians. Sir Thomas asked questions about the various
individuals who had been nominated. We discussed Prof. Thomas Lyon's articles
provided to him previously. We also provided Sir Thomas with the amicus brief
and New Jersey Superior and Supreme Court decisions relating to the Wee Day
Care Kelly Michaels case.
2. Sir
Thomas discounted Professors Ceci and Goodman on the basis of their high
profile and research direction over the last 15 years.
3. Sir
Thomas suggested that the following individuals would be likely candidates for
the inquiry, in general order of preference:
¨
Prof Davies
¨
Prof Poole
¨
Prof Saywitz (whom we provided contact details for in our meeting);
and
¨
Dr Sas (whom we
will supply contact details if necessary).
4. Val
suggested that Sir Thomas may also wish to contact Prof. Lyon and ask for
suggestions for impartial experts to provide him with opinions as part of the
inquiry. Sir Thomas agreed and will email Prof. Lyon.
5. Val
suggested (in previous telephone conversation) that Sir Thomas may wish to
contact Mrs Ablett Kerr QC and invite her to provide further nominations, given
that her current nominations had involvement in previous proceedings relating
to Mr Ellis or had expressed a view on the case in the media. Sir Thomas agreed
especially given the fact that he will be contacting Prof Lyon.
6. Sir
Thomas indicated that Ms Kirsty Mc Donald QC had
requested an extra four weeks to file submissions on the material attached to
the schedule for the inquiry. He will grant her the extra time and will allow
the other parties to the terms of reference an extra four weeks, including the
two parents Ms [blank] who indicated to Jonathon Eaton that they did not wish
to be presented by Ms Mc Donald.
7. Sir
Thomas Eichelbaum inquired about the minister's views on an extension to the
inquiry, and indicated that he would request an extension.
8. Val
discussed the correspondence received by the minister from [blank] requesting
funding for Mr Hembrow to represent her before the
inquiry, along with the minister's reply. Sir Thomas indicated that he had
received an "ambiguous" letter from [blank] outlining that she wishes
to make submissions if she received funding for Mr Hembrow.
He had not replied at this point but would, however, write to her along the
lines outlined above.
9. Sir
Thomas considered the draft letter to the Registrar of the Christchurch High
Court requesting leave from the judge to copy and release parts of the files
relating to Mr Ellis's case. Sir Thomas had no amendments apart from requesting
that the letter be signed out by the ministry on his behalf.