Peter Ellis
March 28th, 2008 at 7:32 pm by David FarrarPoneke blogged earlier this week that Rick Barker has turned down the petition for a royal Commission into Christchurch Creche and Peter Ellis.
This is a great shame. You see for me it isn’t even so much about whether Ellis was guilty or not. I think most of New Zealand have decided he wasn’t, and he is out now. Just as important to me is having a proper inquiry into how the whole affair was handled, so we can learn from our mistakes. There were simply dozens of issues with the Ellis case that cause concern.
I had been hopeful that if National becomes Government, we might finally get a royal commission. But both Don Brash and Katherine Rich have or are retiring and won’t be in the next Parliament to advocate for it. So we may never get a satisfactory resolution.
Related posts:
- Do the Right Thing on Ellis case
- Call for Power to launch inquiry into Peter Ellis case
- Peter Ellis wins vs RNZ
- Justice for Ellis?
March 28th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
This is one of the issues that really ought to be “make or break” when it comes to deciding for whom to vote. After all, if a would-be politician isn’t interested in something as fundamental as the integrity of our “justice” system, and the wrongful imprisonment of the innocent, what business do they have standing?
It’s one of those basic things that many countries – including the US – seem to grasp so much better than we do. NZers tend to take the “it’ll never happen to me (or a member of my family)” attitude – till it does.
But it won’t, of course, be a hot button issue at the election. Who has the biggest tax cut and a menu of other hand-outs will be the primary concern for the majority, as always.
And so our freedoms – such as they are – are slowly eroded by apathy.
Vote:March 28th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Just finished reading A City Possesed for the 3rd time. I can’t work out why Barker et al are so determined that there will be no inquiry.
If there was ever an obvious travesty of justice in NZ, the Peter Ellis case is it.
Vote:March 28th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
it donts need anybody in New Zealand who think Ellis done anything except be a good New Zealander,
Vote:and what he done was look after them kids in play school before them witches came .
March 28th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Chicken Little has read the book three times. Good on ya.
Have you had a sniff around the Peter Ellis site? The guys or whoever is behind that site have certainly done their homework.
http://www.peterellis.org.nz should be compulsory reading for every MP, Ministry of Justice wally, every judge, every psychologist, every police officer and every citizen. How the hell could officialdom ignore that site?
Vote:March 28th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
I may be wrong but I seem to remember Stephen Franks joining Brash, Rich and others in calling for this case to be revisited.
Vote:March 28th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Rex, it shouldn’t have to be a “make or break” issue. Politicians should decide to grant a RC simply because it is the right thing to do irrespective of how many votes are in it. Where are these politicians now? You know, the ones that do the right things rather than the popular things?
Vote:March 28th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
This is such a travesty. Why is the government so afraid of a search for the truth?
Vote:March 28th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
It really causes no pain to National to allow a RC. No idea why Labour thought it would cause pain to them. Was there any justification given as to why not? Saving money perhaps?
Vote:March 28th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Peter Ellis’ only “crime” was being a poof in a child-care centre during a disturbing time of child abuse and witchcraft hysteria in Western Countries. I cringe to think that we bought into this medieval garbage. Phill Goff, in particular, should swing but he won’t. Old people and immigrants in Mt Roskill don’t like to think about such things. So they don’t. They will vote Labour because their parents did or because Labour allowed their entry into NZ. If you do not live in Auckland and do not drive through this area , what do you know? Ah.. Wellington. Wankers.
Vote:March 28th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
You are correct, Rex, in saying that our freedoms are being eroded by our apathy. Actually, it is more accurately being eroded by our voting. Whilst it is important that crime is both detected and punished, it is equally important that the process of justice be fair and equitable and adhere to the set of rules we have come to call ‘due process’, which is an important part of human rights. It is the principle of due process that says that we must ensure that justice is not just done, but is seen to be done.
The difficulty is that we have a general societal attitude today that puts ‘getting tough on crime’ ahead of the rights of the the individual. There is a conflict between the two concepts and it is important that society decide which it values more- crime control or human rights. Valuing the former means we must be prepared to accept that innocent people will be punished. The latter means that the guilty may escape punishment. Generally over the centuries it has been the crime control model that has prevailed, often to outrageous ends. It was really only since the latter part of the 19th century that due process became truly important. Sadly, we have now begun to head back the other way. The reason, of course, is that being tough of crime is good for votes, while being seen to be lenient on criminals is not. The concept of innocent until proven guilty is well and truly dead in our Court system, all because the public wish it so.
Until they are charged with something. Then it is suddenly all so unfair!
If we believed in due process, then an inquiry would be a given simply because there is so much concern about Peter Ellis’ convictions.
The problem with the Justice Department conducting the review on whether to recommend an inquiry is simply that it is the Justice Department that is the major proponent of the crime control model so in vogue in New Zealand’s courts today (and I know that will get more than a few ironic smirks from some, but it remains true nonetheless). Baroness Kennedy QC, in her book, Just Law, gives a very powerful critique of the UK Ministry of Justice, with much the same reasoning applying here- when you put civil servants in charge of Justice then you get it reduced to figures and financial costs. They need to have some way of measuring what they do (not for any good reason, of course, see the first part of ‘A Skeleton in the Cupboard’ in The Complete Yes Minister) so when you are dealing with justice, it is the number of convictions that you achieve and the number of cases you get through that are more important than the process being in any way fair.
Finally, the other difficulty there is in getting an inquiry in this (as, possibly, DPF alludes in his comment) is that, once elected, Justice Ministers go native with frightening rapidity. They accept the advice of the Justice Department unquestioningly. Just look at the outrageousness of appointing Val Sim a law commissioner in light of her total misfeasance the first Ellis inquiry, followed by her report to the Attorney General that the then EFB was not inconsistent with our right to free speech as supposedly guaranteed by the NZ Bill of Rights! Governments are about obtaining and holding power. While screwing the justice system is a vote winner, people like Peter Ellis will continue to suffer.
Vote:March 29th, 2008 at 2:44 am
The Ellis case represents a systemic flaw in our justice system equally epitomised by Thomas, Bain, Watson and Tamihere. I’m fairly certain there are many others.
We depend upon the objective rules in the system to give us confidence in it. If the system gets it wrong, can it admit it, or would that weaken the system? Even though judges are paid to make these decisions, it’s only the great ones that see beyond the system and seek to change it, most work within it and thus are administrators, not designers.
Vote:March 29th, 2008 at 3:04 am
I would be more in favour of a Royal Commission in the criminal justice system rather than dealing with the problems of one person who may have got a miscarriage of justice. But in my opinion Ellis placed himself in a very vulnerable position and is patently not the sort of person who should have the day to day care of children. He should never have been employed around children and he should know that himslelf The justice system is not perfect. How can it be when the people adjudicating on what happened and then decide on criminal responsibility were not present nor can they look inside a person’s head regarding what they were thinking. Difficult cases such as Ellis relying on the evidence of children and what they told their parents or in Watson’s case rely on circumstantial evidence and difficult homicides do involve circumstantial evidence. Are we going to simply say that where cases rely on evidence in these areas we simply say they are too hard and not bring them to trial at all. That would present a charter for the sex offender to offend against children because the children cannot have their evidence used for being too risky. I think not, so we have a case like Ellis which may have resulted in a miscarriage of justice, but I am not convinced his problem merits a special inquiry into his particular issues.
Vote:March 29th, 2008 at 4:14 am
tim, to me, the point is the justice system is designed and administered by flawed humans. If the Ellis incidents came to light in 2008, we would not bat an eyelid: Not guilty, coached allegations, parental hysteria.
It’s freakin obvious n’est pas?
(And was also obvious at the time, quite frankly – but I digress)
My point is, the system as it stands is evidentally incapable of admitting fault for fear of the repercussions. That, to me, is fucking bollocks. It does not need a Royal Commission to argue this particular case, rather it needs an overhaul of the appellate system so that it allows new evidence that comes to light subsequent to the trial to be admitted and argued.
Vote:March 29th, 2008 at 6:36 am
Radvad, you are right. I remember Brash on Leighton Smith saying that if he got into government he would have a proper inquiry.
Although Muldoon did massive damage to the NZ economy, I have to say this would not have happened in his day. You will remember he had Thomas released, and Inspector Hutton was extremely annoyed that “due process” was not followed. Muldoon simply saw that a travesty had occured, and promptly sorted it out.
Clark said before she was elected that the Berryman case was a travesty and it would be sorted. She’s done nothing with that either.
I guess John Armstrong is right when he says comparing her to Muldoon is absurd.
Vote:March 29th, 2008 at 6:40 am
I guess my attitude is too bad do not put yourself in a vulnerable situation especially where children are involved. Children are extremely impressionable and trusting. That means adults have to be extremely disciplined in their behavior and the language they use and have endless patience. Absolute shit work with shit pay, why would anyone sane bother.
Vote:March 29th, 2008 at 7:08 am
An inquiry? but that would show up the hand-wringing PC leanings in an array of state organisations. best we leave that dog resting aye minister?
Vote:March 29th, 2008 at 7:51 am
> I may be wrong but I seem to remember Stephen Franks joining Brash, Rich and others in calling for this case to be revisited.
You are wrong…sort of. Stephen Franks (I believe) signed the petition to hold a commission of inquiry. But he was also on the Justice and Electoral Select Committee which recommended that such an inquiry not be held. He seems to be confused on this issue.
Vote:March 29th, 2008 at 7:53 am
Chicken Little – I can’t work out why Barker et al are so determined that there will be no inquiry.
PaulL – No idea why Labour thought it would cause pain to them.
Of the three urban myth trials – Bain, Watson and Peter Ellis, it is the Peter Ellis trial that is the most ‘unsafe’ and most appropriate to retry.
But it also the Peter Ellis issue that has the greatest baggage at stake.
• possible re-imbursment of Peter Ellis for wrongful imprisonment and years of pain
• the ACC payouts, counselling and other benefits for supposed victims and parents
• the discrediting of the methods to obtain the evidence from the children and the implications for the whole psychiatric/ counselling profession and the whole ACC/sexual remembered abuse claims without evidence policies.
• police conduct and justice system considerations
• the feminist agenda involvement
• media hysteria and Salem witches syndrome
to start with
Vote:March 29th, 2008 at 8:23 am
Yvette,
You touch on a number of key points. Insofar as the ACC payouts are concerned, I actually feel that the kids (now adults) were probably entitled to the payouts, given the emotional abuse they suffered. However, they suffered this abuse at the hands of their parents, police, social workers, therapists and the evidential interviewers. I don’t think that, whatever happens in regards to this case in the future, the payouts should be an area of debate. Sure, the payouts may have clouded the main issues and may have affected parents’ motivations, but I am comfortable with the kids having received the monies.
Vote:March 29th, 2008 at 8:51 am
Yvette bangs the nail on the head.
Vote:March 29th, 2008 at 9:24 am
A most powerful paragraph from F.E.Smith. Where is Geoffrey Palmer now.
“Finally, the other difficulty there is in getting an inquiry in this (as, possibly, DPF alludes in his comment) is that, once elected, Justice Ministers go native with frightening rapidity. They accept the advice of the Justice Department unquestioningly. Just look at the outrageousness of appointing Val Sim a law commissioner in light of her total misfeasance the first Ellis inquiry, followed by her report to the Attorney General that the then EFB was not inconsistent with our right to free speech as supposedly guaranteed by the NZ Bill of Rights! Governments are about obtaining and holding power. While screwing the justice system is a vote winner, people like Peter Ellis will continue to suffer.”
Vote:March 29th, 2008 at 9:49 am
the Peter Ellis case was NZs version of the Witches of Saleem A bunch of hytserical parents who conned a bunch of dubious cops who conned a judicary and various governemnt departments Its the situation where the main parties stick together like the shit to a blanket that they are each covering up the wrongs of the other.
The incompetence from start to finish was so extensive that we now have an arse covering excercise to ebsure the guiilty are protected instead of being exposed for the fools they were
Alas we have a very low level of competence from our Parliament through our civil service our judicary and our legal profession.
All more interested in their own agendas than in truth and justice
Vote:March 29th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Our justice system is totally unfair and not accountable to anybody. It’s a diabolical gravy train of well paid lies .Rick Barker is just another idiot Minister that is far to frightened to take on the corruption and manipulation dished out by bent cops,doctors, psychologists, crown lawyers and dishonest judges. Justice Thorpe and Hansen have both called for a totally independant authority to deal with cases of injustice. Nobody in government has the balls to address the widespread treachery dished out by bent employees of the Ministry of Injustice. I can sympathize with Peter Ellis. Dam the rotten system. Dam the lies.
Vote:March 29th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Tim: Take your point, but let’s look squarely at the big, pink elephant in the room. Does anyone else think there might have been a little more scepticism shown towards the prosecution case if Ellis wasn’t such a flaming nelly, and more like Bull Allen? I’ve put this question before, and its interesting watching even people who consider themselves ‘tolerant’ to a fault get attacks of the mumbles and start examining the tips of their shoes.
Vote:March 29th, 2008 at 10:22 am
I would respectfully suggest that the Ross Francis’s articles in the New Zealand Law Journal, November 2007, which I have just re-read be reviewed more widely, for as contained in these two articles there is something seriously unhealthy in this case at the time the Eichelbaum enquiry took place.
There is a senior lady public servant, now with the Law Commission, who appears to have had more than a leading role in Eichlebaum’s conclusions.
I wonder if he were still alive he would have cause to rethink, following the numerous contradictions arising from serious investigation “his” report.
Vote:March 29th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Paulus wondered:
>I wonder if he were still alive he would have cause to rethink, following the numerous contradictions arising from serious investigation “his” report.
Eichlebaum is still alive.
Vote:March 29th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Agree, David Baigent, that was a powerful paragraph from F. E. Smith.
“Our freedoms are being eroded by our voting”. Spot on.
I keep putting it in these terms: (And will continue to do so)
Archtypical Liarbour Voter: “Wot’s due process?”
Vote:March 29th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Paulus respectfully suggested:
>I would respectfully suggest that the Ross Francis’s articles in the New Zealand Law Journal, November 2007, which I have >just re-read be reviewed more widely, for as contained in these two articles there is something seriously unhealthy in this >case at the time the Eichelbaum enquiry took place.
Here’s the link to both articles:
http://www.peterellis.org.nz/2007/2007_francis_new_evidence.pdf
Vote:or
http://tinyurl.com/ytdcsa
March 29th, 2008 at 11:11 am
DPF,
Do you know where the National Party in general, and John Key and Bill English in particular, stand on this issue? Are they intending to set up a commission of inquiry if elected?
[DPF: A journalist tells me that he has asked them, and they said that there has been no Caucus discussion on the issue at this stage, and no policy will beset without Caucus consideration. I am going to make some inquiries about seeing if such a consideration could be arranged. I would caution that there are likely to be some divergent views on the issue]
Vote:March 29th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
The evidence presented in the Peter Ellis case should of been laughed out of court.
It’s time for a commission of inquiry to be held. The sooner the better.
I hope National will ask for one once elected into power after Nov 08.
Expecting a Labour Minister to show courage and leadership should not be expected, only corruption and incomptence.
Vote:March 29th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Paulus said “I wonder if he were still alive he would have cause to rethink, following the numerous contradictions arising from serious investigation “his” report.”
If you are referring to Sir Thomas, I assure you he is still very much alive. However, for reasons best known to himself, he refuses to comment on any of the issues raised in the recent NZ Law Journal articles. Nor, since the completion of the inquiry, is he subject to the Official Information Act. So, unless he changes his mind, the questions raised in regard to his inquiry will remain, an unpleasant and enduring stain on its credibility.
Vote:March 29th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Sincerest apologies to all, particularly Sir Thomas – I was of the wrongful belief had passed on. Sorry.
Vote:March 29th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Excellent commentary, particularly from F. E. Smith. But I can’t let tim barclay’s comments go without rebuttal because they illustrate precisely the thinking the brings about not just the major injustices recited here (Ellis, Bain, Watson, Thomas et al) but thousands of lesser injustices.
On that much at least we agree.
Why? Because Ellis’s homosexuality is somewhat obvious? Or simply because he’s homosexual? Would you prefer a robust heterosexual male who espoused the type of slightly misogynist world view which many typically possess, because that’s the only viewpoint that has any validity? Or perhaps you believe that somehow he’d “infect” a portion of the children with his homo germs? What about lesbians, are they okay? And how do we ensure would-be childcare workers are acceptable? By taking them down to the pub, buying them a few drinks, and seeing which sex they hit on? Yes, I’m being ludicrous because that’s the only response – short of gratuitous insult – I can muster in response to such breathtaking prejudice.
Charging people with what amounts to “impure thoughts” is becoming more and more prevalent. Again, it’s the thin end of the wedge that worries me. One of the charges faced by an accused in Australia at present is possession of a fictional story dealing with underage sex. Not writing it, not disseminating it, just reading it. As offensive as that material may be to some, it’s as much fiction as the TV series about which I’ve just received an update: “…viewers will be shocked by her return as, when last seen, her head had been severed and her body left in a box…”
What goes on in people’s heads is entirely their own business. The only proper business of the courts is judging their actions. Obviously motive etc is relevant and intent can be an issue when deciding whether, say, the offence was manslaughter or murder. But where evidence of criminal action is uncertain, admitting evidence suggesting impure thought (and thus, by implication, greater likelihood of the offence having taken place) is akin, as others have pointed out, to a witch hunt.
No, but hopefully we’re going to demand that at least a modicum of supporting evidence be adduced to support the otherwise unsubstantiated allegations before a person is arrested and their life effectively destroyed regardless of the eventual outcome of the trial. And we will – as I’ve advocated here before – offer them name suppression until a guilty verdict so that they have some chance of rebuilding their life if a terrible injustice has been committed against them.
And lastly – and most importantly – when a person is subjected to this ordeal and found to be innocent, the decisions and motives of those who inflicted this horror upon them are subject to the same searching examination to which the accused was subjected.
After all, tim, if I came round and dragged you from your home, publicly accused you of an offence which would cause most people to despise and shun you, caused you to lose your job, become bankrupt, be shunned by your friends and possibly your family, kept you held against your will for months or possibly years, and then kicked you onto the street – maybe, if you were lucky, with an apology; if you were particularly lucky, with some money – you’d rightly want me brought to justice on the same terms as was someone accused of the crimes which Ellis was alleged to have committed.
Vote:March 29th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Ross and DPF said:
“Do you know where the National Party in general, and John Key and Bill English in particular, stand on this issue? Are they intending to set up a commission of inquiry if elected?
[DPF: A journalist tells me that he has asked them, and they said that there has been no Caucus discussion on the issue at this stage, and no policy will beset without Caucus consideration. I am going to make some inquiries about seeing if such a consideration could be arranged. I would caution that there are likely to be some divergent views on the issue]”
Would there be any insurance that those who might have vested interest in upholding the convictions be excluded from the Caucus discussion?
[DPF: Having made some further inquiries I gather than a party position on the issue is unlikely, as the decision to have an inquiry will rest with the relevant Minister once in office. So the best bet is to lobby potential future Justice Ministers]
Vote:March 29th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
the worst person to blame on this issue is Phil Goff,
Vote:he refused all avenues of proper justice for Ellis,
but then soon he’s gone isn’t he thank God,
all of them Helengrand gone,
we expect NAT Government NZ to deliver Ellis justice
March 31st, 2008 at 9:51 am
It’s disappointing that the National Party are unlikely to have a party position on such an important justice issue. If a party cannot have concern for justice for an individual, what is the basis for their justice policies?
If there is some perception that having a policy on forming a royal commission on this case may hurt the National Party at the ballot box, or that it may harm the “womens vote”, I think they are wrong. My own perception is that concern about the Peter Ellis case is relatively gender neutral.
Is John Key showing his true colours as a person with no substance? The political equivalent of a smiling “celebrity” television newsreader? For all his real and perceived faults, Don Brash was at least willing to make a stand on an important principle.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 11:05 am
New Zealand has such a diverse society, however discussion about this diversity can often be shut down. Kiwiblog obviously provides an outlet for views to be shared and debated.
As one of New Zealand’s leading documentary makers we are currently researching a potential TV documentary to take this discussion further. The documentary would give a small number of people the opportunity to freely share their views and potentially help other New Zealanders understand the basis for their thinking.
We’d value the opportunity to make contact with any Kiwiblog members with firm views on race and immigration, gender roles or sexuality. Don’t be shy! Anyone interested can make contact with via our email address research@gspictures.co.nz to talk further about the documentary. Thanks and we look forward to hearing from you!
Vote:August 26th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
I guess, like the rest of New Zealand, that your opinions on the Christchurch Civic Case fully originate from what you have seen in the media, and on ‘trustworthy’ internet sites.
It was a jury who determined whether Ellis was guilty or not, and they were the ones who viewed the actual videotaped interviews of all the children who he was accused of molesting.
It was not you, nor any media organization who saw these tapes. They are the real evidence, the real evidence comes straight from the people who were hurt. I am sure in the near years to come, that some of the victims will speak out publicly, and finally tell their story; a story that has never been told as when everything was happening they were primary school aged. They are now in their twenties and are adults searching for closure. They have grown up, seeing themselves, labelled as liers on TV, whos parents fabricated and conspired.
It angers and upsets me to see people, who do not know anything they are talking about base their opinions and judgements on media coverage. The media are after one thing, profit. The Civic case has always been a ‘juicy media story’ and they have manipulated it in a way to produce more revenue for themselves, and in doing so have created a national hype towards the self-promclaimed ‘innocence’ of a man that was charged on several accounts and has been denied re-trial and aquital many times.
The politicians use the Peter Ellis as a way to get silly people who don’t know about politics to vote for them, as it is an issue that has been portrayed on one side in the media, and New Zealand is either on one side of the fence, or the other. They know that bringing up his case will get the peoples attention, so they do.
Vote:August 26th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
also if you do all get your way and the case is reopened and brought to court, the kids, all grownup, will be there! Prehaps then this will all finally be layed to rest.
I don’t think they, now as adults, would be given so quickly the label as dillusional fantasy story tellers, like they were when they were 5. Maybe then would the media show the other side of the fence.
And to point out that the ACC payouts to the victims was only $10,000. That is nothing to compensate wrecking a childs life.
Vote: