|
|
The |
||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
This page last updated May 21 2009 Continuing correspondence between Eichelbaum and Justice
Minister Goff's staff, dealing with the final appointment of the
"experts".
·
Submission by Judith Ablett
Kerr on behalf of Peter Ellis ·
Submission by the Commissioner
for Children ·
Submission on behalf of the Parents ·
Submission by Crown Law
March-July
- Eichelbaum Inquiry Correspondence Correspondence primarily between Eichelbaum and Justice
Minister Goff's staff, Val Sim and Michael Petherick. The correspondence
highlights the selection process of the so called experts, and how the trio
justified excluding experts suggested by the defence.
Phil Goff - Minister of Justice -
Letter to: "The
report of Sir Thomas Thorp …is withheld under the following sections of the
Official Information Act 1982:…………"
March 7 - Cabinet Policy Committee Options for Further Inquiry into
the Ellis case
Margaret Wilson: Inquiries have proved useful in
other jurisdictions where it is clear interviewing practices have failed, for
example where because of the way in which children were interviewed the"
Court decided it would be unsafe to allow them to give evidence. But the
Court of Appeal is satisfied that is not the case here. The processes for
addressing convictions in cases of public doubt has operated and has affirmed
them. There is a public interest in victims and jurors not having their
truthfulness or views further looked into by official processes. In those
circumstances the government should consider the neutral stance of support
for the adequacy of our criminal justice process Colin Keating: There are two possible approaches
to this application for a pardon and a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the
Ellis case. The first is to consider Mr Ellis's application for a
pardon at the outset. Established principles would suggest that in these
circumstances the application should be declined. This would not preclude the
Government establishing an inquiry into the need for reform of the law and
administrative practice surrounding the investigation and prosecution of mass
allegation child sex abuse cases once the application for pardon is dealt
with. An inquiry into these topics might go some way to allaying the public
concerns about the way these cases are currently dealt with which have arisen
in context of the Ellis case. The second option is to inquire further into the
reliability of the children's' evidence. The Court of Appeal was unable to look
at this issue comprehensively because of the form in which the evidence was
presented and the constraints of its appellate role. Essentially, such an
inquiry would involve an investigating into the problems associated with
obtaining children's' evidence and assessing in light of that investigation
whether there are doubts about the reliability of the evidence of the
children involved in Mr Ellis's trial which would impact on the safety of the
convictions. An inquiry of this kind could be undertaken either by a
Commission of Inquiry or by Ministerial appointment. On balance the latter
may be preferable primarily because it is less formal and public and
therefore will cause less distress and trauma for the creche children and
their families. Phil Goff: On balance, a Ministerial inquiry
would be the best method for investigating the matters outlined above. Such
an inquiry would be less public and would result in a minimum of adverse
impact on the creche children and their families. The main limitation of a Ministerial inquiry is that,
unlike a Commission of Inquiry, the inquiry would lack the power to compel
evidence. This is, however, unlikely to impose a problem in the context of
this kind of inquiry, which will depend upon the assessment of expert opinion
rather than the resolution of disputed facts. |
