Peter Ellis wins vs RNZ
Peter Ellis had won with a complaint to the BSA in regards to allegations RNZ aired.
The BSA ruled that RNZ seriously breached standards of fairness and balance in broadcasting anonymous allegations of very serious criminal but unspecified offending in such a way they would have been impossible to defend. The allegations were not substantiated nor critically examined.
The Ellis case will, in years to come, be regarded as an injjustice on the same scale as Arthu Allan Thomas. Phill Goff has refused to have a full royal commission into this case. One of the unintended but beneficial side effects of a National victory next year, is that it is likely there will finally be a full investigation into the Ellis case, and associated issues.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
No tag for this post.
September 7th, 2004 at 2:31 pm
Yes, an investigation that uncovered the truth would be good, although justice delayed.
Are you in a position to explain in a public forum, why Labour has been so so cagey and defensive about this case?
There have been lots of hints at some linkage with some people, but I have not read anything anywhere in the media that really explains this.
Given Labour’s usual position on these sorts of things it simply does not make any sense whatsoever.
September 7th, 2004 at 3:24 pm
And Bain? And Tamihere? And Watson?
September 7th, 2004 at 4:21 pm
The cynic in me would say that the Dougherty and Thomas cases prove that miscarriages of justice can be righted in NZ only if we get
(1) “proof beyond a peradventure” thatthe defendant is innocent; OR
(2) clear evidence of police misconduct by an officer who has subsequently deceased.
The primary problem is not police/prosecution misconduct, biased judges or a stubbornly conservative appeal system, although these are all factors. The real problem is the inability of juries to enforce the reasonable doubt standard.
September 7th, 2004 at 4:23 pm
ooh ooh I know but I think the problem is the name suppression for any publication likely to identify a child or children involved.
The fact that adsjfaweuyr of the complainant children are erwqerafagj to a high ranking sdfulsfusda asdfugaeufg from rdyutcvasyudf, whose adsfuyatfdshv and hvsuiew are crazed feminists, is problematic for members of the press looking for the real reasons behind the labour government’s intransigence, while not running afoul of the suppression order.
September 7th, 2004 at 5:08 pm
Bain 100% guilty (IMO)
Tamihere 95% guilty
Watson 85% guilty
September 7th, 2004 at 5:54 pm
OJ “100% not guilty”?
September 7th, 2004 at 7:13 pm
I wonder why our justice system can’t admit that certain easily identifiable cases require further open and seen-to-be-objective investigation extending beyond that provided by the standard judicial processes. Such cases are very limited, including IMO all the abovementioned names and maybe a few others, but not more than that.
Surely if the judiciary + AG’s + GG’s offices set their collective minds to addressing the problem they could develop a method that sat well with common law precedent but also avoided opening the frivolous petition floodgates (or, maybe it’s beyond them and they need the Privy Council
Meanwhile widely suspected innocents sit around racking up eventual taxpayer funded settlements approaching millions. Is this a government operation?
Is it as simple as professional egos getting in the way? Unlikely, but why is this significant issue that’s obvious to everybody neither seriously addressed nor even discussed, ever?
September 8th, 2004 at 9:13 am
Silas, without naming any names, my understanding is that key people among the orginal complainants have strong ties with the local Labour party. And in my mind that’s the only thing that can explain it.
September 8th, 2004 at 10:45 am
but wasn’t Ellis convicted during the period of a National Government – and didn’t Labour in fact have an independent investigation once it came to power under a retired Chief Justice which found against Ellis?
When people call for “independent inquiries” in these cases, what they really seem to mean is “an inquiry which agrees with my point of view”….
September 8th, 2004 at 12:15 pm
The independent investigation was seriously limited by its terms of reference. It wasn’t able to look at whether the system itself was broken.
I will accept the findings of a full and independent royal commission.
Yes, the original conviction was when National was in Government, but there are different people involved now. Both the Leader and the No 4 in National have strongly backed the call for a full Royal Commission. That suggests it will happen, if there is a change of Government.
September 8th, 2004 at 4:12 pm
What David said. Also, if I recall correctly (I’ll have to dig out Hood’s book tonight and refresh my memory), Eichelbaum had been instrumental in the moves to change the rules of evidence wrt to children and video testimony, the weakening of which contributed so much to Ellis’ conviction. So he was always likely to approve the verdict. As David says, the system was broken. The problem is not that the law was wrongly applied, the problem is that the law allowed a hugely selective presentation of the evidence to the jury.