Gutted
October 14th, 2009 at 3:46 pm by David FarrarWords 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.
Related posts:
- No Crewe inquiry
- Call for Power to launch inquiry into Peter Ellis case
- Miscarriages of Justice
- Criticism of Ellis decision
October 14th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
What are the Nat’s afraid of now?
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
What bad news. My family and I have been big supporters of Ellis for years.
Vote: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]
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
System capture.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
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.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
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.
Vote: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.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Agreed Rex. Would’ve thought Chris Finlayson might have had some sort of say in this? Far bigger calibre of lawyer.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
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!!!
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
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.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
I just don’t understand this.
Why wouldn’t they allow an inquiry?
Public opinion is obviously in favour of it.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
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.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
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.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
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.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
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:
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.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
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….
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
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.
Vote: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?
October 14th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
They are still scared of the witches.
Vote: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 .
Vote:This poor man has suffered horribly by the admittance of such rubbish
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.
Vote: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.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
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.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
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.
Vote: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.
Vote: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.
Vote: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.
Vote: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.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
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.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
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.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
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.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
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 seperate issues today alone. Bloody annoying also as I really have lots of paid work to do, but there has been so much to criticise]
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Gerry Brownlee, probably.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Perhaps the taxpayer can buy the Nats some cast iron underpants, just right for butt covering.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
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.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
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.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
> 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 http://www.peterellis.org.nz for “Peter Ellis: The Case for a Commission of Inquiry”.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 7:51 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.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
> 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.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
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.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
This deserves some sort concerted push for action. Any ideas?
Vote: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.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
“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!
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
@ 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.
Vote: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.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
If Val Simm was involved in any way with this decision then there would be reason to be concerned.
db..
Vote: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.
Vote: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.
October 14th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
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.
Vote:I believe there was one or two that maintained them, but many came out and said the whole thing was a lie
October 14th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
Gee, I’ve just read several papers by that Ross Francis in the link above.
Vote:(http://www.peterellis.org.nz/)
I reckon he exposes even more possible skulduggery than Hood, certainly in terms of the Ministry and politician types.
October 14th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
> If Val Simm 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. http://www.peterellis.org.nz
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
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.
Vote: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.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
How much does it cost to take this to the privy council?
Does anyone know?
What if it was funded privately?
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
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
Vote: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 ?
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
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!
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
Q: Is there an honourable person in parliament?
Vote:A: Don’t be silly.
October 14th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
F E Smith notes:
and Pete George asks:
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 disincetive to many
)
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
They are Spinless 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.
Peter Ellis can live with himself but the POWERS of this world genuinely cant.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Rex, Nigel Hampton QC has called for a Criminal Cases Review Commission to be set up here, similar to the one operating in the UK. Such a body could easily take the initiative in a matter like Peter Ellis’ case and get it before the Court of Appeal again, with the expectation that full review of the evidence would be carried out.
The UK body has quite a high success rate. In fact, that success rate has been the reason for some officials calling for it to be closed down!
Perhaps it is time to admit that the Courts don’t always get it wrong? After all, witness the outrage when Rickards and then Bain were acquitted! If those acquittals are unsafe then surely there are some convictions that are also unsafe, or does it only go the one way? If we are truly willing to admit that justice is actually more important than mere convictions, then we will trust the system to hold up under scrutiny. By refusing Peter Ellis an inquiry, Simon Power says that the system should not be exposed to that scrutiny. I can understand why, because of many of the ‘unsafe’ cases that occur over the years, this one has the most potential to expose the Police, the Crown Solicitor for Christchurch and Crown Law to embarrassment.
Razork, all of the sums I have heard spoken of have been in excess of $100,00 all up. That is because of the time spent on preparation for each case, plus travel for counsel or else the instruction of UK barristers.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
Rex, NZ has an Innocence Project. It’s first conference was in Dec 2007 and at it Professor H Hayne of Otago University presented the first emperical evidence that the Ellis case interviews were amongst the “worst of the worst” compared to similar overseas witch-hunts (see Ponekes blogg at about that date) . Strangely MoJ advice to Powers ignores this research, which, in essence, amounts to new evidence.
Vote:Maybe Michael Laws has the answers here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DkQ5B3e_yo
October 14th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
No govt wants to pay the lousy million or so compensation. Look at how Helen (culpable before Simon Upton came along) dragged out settlement for the hepatitis C scandal waiting for more of the poor buggers to die.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
Richard, while there is an Innocence Project based at Vic uni, I am always amused by the fact that it is based in the School of Psychology and is staffed by, funnily enough, psychologists! Most overseas Innocence Projects seem to limit themselves to cases where DNA is available to assist with any investigation. I don’t think that the NZ Innocence Project has taken a single case yet, but I stand to be corrected on that.
In my opinion a criminal cases review commission would have both a wider ambit and, even more importantly, a budget with which to truly investigate potential miscarriages of justice.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
F E Smith > “In my opinion a criminal cases review commission would have both a wider ambit and, even more importantly, a budget with which to truly investigate potential miscarriages of justice.”
I heartedly concur.
Luc – a good point, lest we forget.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
So far on this thread we’ve seen lawyers defending other lawyers and everyone else saying what is patently obvious.
About time one of those sides woke up and smelt some flowers, I woulda thunk.
Vote:October 15th, 2009 at 12:16 am
You’re gutted, so am I but not because of some nincompoop minister in NZ.
maybe we invaded the wrong country to bring regime change to.
Thank God they don’t speak for all of Islam or do they?
No I forgot it was that other bastion of human rights, Saudi Arabia
http://www.hudsonny.org/2009/10/nasty-side-of-radical-islam.php
Vote:October 15th, 2009 at 2:39 am
I too am terribly disappointed, but I can’t confess to being shocked. I had incredibly low expectations and they have unfortunately been met.
Vote:October 15th, 2009 at 3:38 am
Michael Laws names political connections to Peter Ellis case. Quite revealing.
Vote:http://tinyurl.com/yfdyjg
October 15th, 2009 at 7:11 am
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.”
Poneke: “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.
As the trial judge’s sole defender perhaps Greg207 is Greg Williamson, the late judge’s son, I hazard to guess.
http://www.peterellis.org.nz/2007/2007-0603_sst_on_justice_williamson.htm
Greg, there seems little point in hiding your identity in a vain attempt to give your views a veneer of objectivity. The time for hidden agendas in the Ellis case is well past.
Vote:October 15th, 2009 at 7:30 am
One thing the current government has shown is it can be good at reacting to common sense and correcting poor decisions. This case justifies the same sort of attention.
Vote:October 15th, 2009 at 9:03 am
Thumper, your link does not work.
Vote:October 15th, 2009 at 9:08 am
Perhaps Kiwiblog could lead the charge in setting up a trust to raise money for an appeal to the Privy Council if Ellis so desires but is unable to do so because of impecuniousity (although I would have thought he legal aid would be available).
Vote:October 15th, 2009 at 9:09 am
This was an earlier case of moral panic, or mass hysteria, regarding satanic worship, which is now being repeated with Global warming.
Maybe an enquiry would point up the similarities.
Vote:October 15th, 2009 at 9:35 am
Rather a sad situation and I feel rather sorry for Peter Ellis.
In terms of winning the “Biggest Load of Old Cobblers I Have Ever Heard” award the Crown case at the Ellis trial would have to be number 1.
A lot of people should feel very ashamed of themselves.
http://www.nightcitytrader.blogspot.com
Vote:October 15th, 2009 at 10:03 am
This is a disgrace as I noted yesterday. http://bit.ly/3IIpqu
Poneke had an excellent set of posts on this issue which highlighted elements of why officialdom is acting this way. Just go to
Vote:http://poneke.wordpress.com/ and type in Peter Ellis in the Search box.
October 15th, 2009 at 10:44 am
Chuck Bird Says:
“Thumper, your link does not work.”
try the one in the 11.13 pm post
Vote:October 15th, 2009 at 10:47 am
While I fully support an inquiry into the Peter Ellis miscarriage of justice perhaps it could be widened to include how juries are denied relevant evidence. It is clear that it is clear that it is highly unlikely that Ellis is guilty of anything let alone the ridiculous things he was found guilty of. I have not followed the Scott Watson case before but have an open mind on the case. If I get the chance I will ask both Hide and Locke about the Ellis case.
Why is Scott Watson in prison for two murders he never committed?
Vote:Presented by Keith Hunter
In attendance
Hon Rodney Hide MP
Keith Locke MP
Saturday 17 October 4-6pm
Mecca Cafe, Cnr Nuffield St and Remuera Rd, Newmarket
Free entry
In 2003 Keith made the film Murder On The Blade? Concerning the Marlborough Sounds murders.
TV1 transmitted it on Friday 3 November – to 547,200 New Zealanders.
The film shows Scott Watson is innocent. A Herald poll some months later indicated it
changed the minds of 15% of the adult population.
Keith wrote Trial By Trickery and published it in March 2007. It focuses on the processes that
put Watson away for life and how those processes were corrupted by the behaviour of the
police and prosecution.
Keith has two websites:
trialbytrickery.com
hunterproductions.co.nz
In the presentation on 17 October Keith will show film demonstrating the actual techniques used in court to obtain the
wrongful conviction.
Keith says: “This time I intend to be absolutely clear in every possible way, my purpose being to make it impossible for
the justice system to ignore its own criminal conduct and that there is no way to avoid a commission of inquiry into that
conduct.”
October 15th, 2009 at 10:55 am
# Chuck Bird (751) October 15th, 2009 at 9:03 am Says:
Thumper, your link does not work.
Sorry, here it is:
Michael Laws names political connections to Peter Ellis case. Quite revealing.
Vote:
October 15th, 2009 at 11:04 am
Thanks Thumper and Richard. It is very interesting but disturbing.
Vote:October 15th, 2009 at 11:09 am
“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.”
I know allot more than I dare to write, however I will say what is already on official record in that there were questions of how he handled the case, of which Poneke has illustrated. I will also go as far to say that his comments to others after the trial describe Ellis in a very negative sexual orientation motivated tone.
I too wonder your motivations.
Vote:October 15th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Jeff83
Vote:realistically will they investigate one of their own?
October 15th, 2009 at 11:53 am
Jeff83: “I too wonder your motivations.”
greg207, the person calling you an ignorant dickhead, would appear to be Greg Williamson… the late judges son.
http://www.peterellis.org.nz/2007/2007-0603_sst_on_justice_williamson.htm
Vote:October 15th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Reid, re your 11.53pm comment: I can’t see any of the lawyers on this thread defending other lawyers, so what do you mean by that? It is a fact that the NZ criminal defence bar have been some of the biggest supporters of Ellis over the years, but that isn’t lawyers defending other lawyers. Power is a lawyer, but the lawyers commenting on this thread have been critical of that so what are you saying? Do you mean that Power is defending the Crown in Christchurch and Crown Law? Hmm?
MikeNZ & Jeff83: The late Williamson J was the former Crown Solicitor for Christchurch so was one of the government’s beloved prosecutors before becoming a judge. While I agree that he didn’t do a good job with Ellis, and the Privy Council found he didn’t do a good job with the first Bain trial, the issue with Ellis is more that the evidence just doesn’t stack up, especially when you see what was not put before the jury, or, in layman’s terms, was ‘suppressed’ on application of the Crown prosecutors. That said, the answer to your question at 11.48am, MikeNZ, is not a chance!
Edit: Ernesto, great link! I suspect you are correct, and I wholeheartedly disagree with his defence of the judge. Interesting also the habit of appointing Crown Solicitors to the bench. I must agree with David Round in his opinion- all prosecutors should have a number of years at the defence bar prior to going to the bench.
Vote:October 15th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
FES: “Interesting also the habit of appointing Crown Solicitors to the bench.”
Slightly off topic, but in my view appointments to the bench for long service to the Law Society are also a concern. I note Potter J’s appointment in this respect and my criticisms of her on the Weatherston threads.
Vote:October 15th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
F E Smith
Vote:It wasn’t David Round but Derek Round.
October 15th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Enersto: Agreed. Appointment to the bench of either District or High Court should be on merit alone as an outstanding lawyer in their field. Doing the yards on the committees shows a good community spirit, but speaks nothing of ability.
Richard C: Oops, my mistake. Oops.
Vote:October 15th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Richard, I meant cheers, rather than a second oops!
Vote:October 15th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
toad [October 14th, 2009 at 7:51 pm],
toad [October 14th, 2009 at 8:03 pm],
I don’t necessarily comment on all topics, Toad – even those I may hold strong opinions on. Especially if others have essentially expressed my views on the topic at hand.
And of course your ad hominen labelling of me (and Fletch) as being “Kiwiblog’s resident homophobes” reveals more about you than it does me/us. Attack the man rather than the issue – typical liberal, left wing, socialist tactics, eh Toad?
Just because I regard those that push homosexual ‘rights’ as politically motivated, rather than one of so called human rights, in an attempt to normalise homosexuality, when it is anything but normal, in no way implies (and nor have I stated) that I support false allegations, and the wrongful conviction, of an individual just because they may be homosexual.
On that note; I think there is more than sufficient reason to hold a Commission of Inquiry regarding Ellis. And at the time of the Ellis case it always seemed as though it was more of a ‘fit up’ than a fair trial.
And your accusation that I use my “Christianity as an excuse/reason for [my] homophobia” only shows your ignorance about what the Bible says on the matter. If I’m ‘homophobic’, then I guess that makes the God of the Bible ‘homophobic’ as well by your definition.
Vote:While Christ died for all sinners, including those that practice the sin of homosexuality, if one remains in their sin by not repenting of it, and by not receiving Christ as their Lord and Saviour, then the outcome will be the same for all those without Christ. While all sin is abhored by God, He describes the sin of homosexuality as ‘abomination’; the most grevious of all sins. I happen to share that view.
October 15th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
I ‘fess up and apologise for my intemperate remarks. Mr Justice Williamson was my Dad and I’m very proud of his record on the bench.
It does wind me up when I read comments like:
Jeff83: “judge who procided over the case is the very definition of a self conceted, homophobic twat”
Poneke “he was indeed homophobic (he was a practising Catholic with many children)”
If you actually knew him, knew his record and his beliefs you would know how far off these comments are. They are as unfair as labelling Peter Ellis as prone to paedophilia because he is a homosexual!
Vote:October 15th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Greg207: “If you actually knew him, knew his record and his beliefs you would know how far off these comments are. They are as unfair as labelling Peter Ellis as prone to paedophilia because he is a homosexual!”
I don’t criticise you at all for standing up for your dad, and I am well aware that he has a very good record on the bench. My experience with judges is that, by and large, the take their role very seriously, and set aside most of their personal prejudices when wearing the judicial robes. There is nothing to indicate your dad was any different and I think Jeff83′s comments were intemperate too.
What can happen, however, in very difficult cases like the Ellis trial, is that a judge can lose perspective, particvularly under a barrage of applications such as occurred in the Ellis case. If Poneke’s assertion that there were over 300 rulings against the defence in the course of the trial, then I feel very confident in saying that the Judge did at some point lose sight of the overall interests of justice, which at some points seemed to collide with the interests of the children.
I doubt the outcome was affected by any personal prejudices of your father, if they even existed, but I feel certain that Williamson J did in fact lose perspective and objectivity at some point in the trial. Judges are as you well know, only human. Mistakes were made, and a fair trial was not achieved. The responsibility on achieving a fair trial is the judges most important responsibility and where they fail to reach that high standard they are rightly criticised. It is professional criticism, not personal criticism.
It would very, very interesting to know what, if any, views your dad might have expressed on the case having reflected on the aftermath.
Vote:October 15th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
The trial was unfair, no matter how many proceedural niceties it satisfied.
It seems Judith Abblett Kerr is calling Power’s bluff:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/christchurch/2964888/Minister-criticis
“Ablett-Kerr said: “Will the minister please tell us whether he will hold a commission of inquiry if Peter Ellis gives up his Privy Council appeal? He needs to be upfront.
“If he answers that question, Peter will know exactly where he stands and he will be able to make the appropriate decision.”"
Vote:October 15th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
I have a hard time with the idea of over 300 rulings of any sort in a trial. Even 30 is a lot, but 300 would be extraordinary. However, I think Ernesto hits it on the head by surmising that Williamson J got a bit caught up in the charges themselves to remain completely objective. And I know that anecdotally from colleagues who were at the defence bar in Christchurch at the time of the trial and have discussed it with me.
Greg207, anybody involved in the justice system as counsel or judge must learn to have a pretty thick skin. No disrespect to you for defending your father at all (in fact good on you) but the reputations of judge and counsel rise and fall on their performances in trial and are open to criticism because of it, even if some of it is intemperate.
Vote:October 15th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Two sp in one post, procedural and Ablett, oops
Vote:October 15th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
If anyone out there has any doubts about my call to sack Power and make Finlayson Minister of Justice….
“The decision was surprising given that Attorney-General Chris Finlayson and Police Minister Judith Collins had signed a 2003 petition calling for a commission of inquiry, [Ellis] said.”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/christchurch/2964888/Minister-criticis
So if Finlayson was Minister of Justice he would have the courage to tell his mandarins where to go, and would no doubt have the courage of his convictions to be true to the petition he signed in 2003. Ditto Collins.
This is a scandal, the Government is flying in the face of the views of Finlayson, the only member of the government who is undoubtedly better qualified to make the decision than any other lawyer employed by the Crown or MoJ (the S-G and Simon Power included).
FFS SACK SIMON POWER
Perhaps thisa a a case the A-G should choose not to delgate to the S-G and represent the Crown himself at the Privy COuncil where he could acknowledge the huge failings in process.
[DPF: The saga goes back many years. Phil Goff actively campaigned for an inquiry in Opposition, and then refused a proper one as Justice Minister. ]
Vote:October 15th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
A cruise around http://www.peterellis.org.nz reveals that if things right at the begining of the investigations had been properly looked at Ellis would not have been charged. How come the the statements of the first complaint’s mother didn’t trigger alarm bells? The lady was barking mad. How come her son was never called to give evidence? Was the boy not believed?
Then there was the group of parents and supporters who formed the End Ritual Abuse Inc., group, of which one founder was related to Nick Smith MP by marriage.
And then the connections outlined by Michael Laws, if true, raises suspicions that NZ has a severely compromised Parliament on the Ellis issue regardless of what party is in power.
And has Michael Law’s stuff been challenged as to truth?
Vote:October 15th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
In relation to the trial testimony its difficult to understand how the jury could sort the wheat from the chaff in the context of such fantastic claims.
What is most puzzleing is the fact that the seven supposed victims, who would be approx 22 now, have never recanted on any of those bizarre alegations. Would not a series of self-concious examinations over the years have compelled at least one of them to renounce their involvement?
Vote:October 15th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Eisenhower. I have not followed this case as closely as some but I am almost certain at least one of the supposed victims did recant. In any case if inappropriate councilling had convinced them to have false memories it would take a lot to dislodge that.
Remember the David Doughty case. When the DNA did not match David’s the young girl at the time did not believe she got it wrong. It was not until the guilty person was convicted that the police acknowledged they got it wrong.
Vote:October 15th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Chuck Bird October 15th, 2009 at 3:02 pm Said:
Eisenhower. I have not followed this case as closely as some but I am almost certain at least one of the supposed victims did recant. In any case if inappropriate councilling had convinced them to have false memories it would take a lot to dislodge that.
And what about the daughter of the woman who new the case was false, but took $10,000 compo. Mum knew it was wrong. Does the daughter still believe she fiddled with, or does she now know that her mother used her for a fraudulent ACC claim?
See here:
A solo mother — whose child never disclosed any sexual abuse by any crèche worker — recalled her response to the compensation offer:
Confidential audiotaped interview, 15 June 1998 to Lynley Hood. At page 199, “A City Possessed”, 2001.
And at:
http://www.peterellis.org.nz/docs/1992/1998-0615_HeatherAndPage199.pdf
This counsellor said, ‘You know you can claim $10,000 from ACC.’ She didn’t even say ‘up to’, she just said ‘$10,000′. I was on the benefit and that was a lot of money. Everyone was doing it. F didn’t have a problem. Where do I sign? No problem. None whatsoever. The counsellor put in a report saying that my daughter was completely screwed up. I wondered if she’d got the kids muddled up, or maybe she wrote the same report for everyone. Anyway, the money came through really quickly.
Vote:October 16th, 2009 at 6:36 am
> Would not a series of self-concious examinations over the years have compelled at least one of them to renounce their involvement?
No, for one very simple reason: they believe they were abused. That is the nature of false memories. Child sexual abuse experts may believe the accounts by those convinced they have been sexually abused. If experts are convinced, it is little wonder that juries are also convinced. But just because someone gives a compelling and detailed account of abuse does not mean it is true.
Another point: many of the families of the “victims” received large payouts from ACC. A child (or adult) may feel embarassment, shame, etc if they admit that they now have doubts as to whether they were abused. If they say they do have doubts, how are their friends and family – who have supported them throughout – going to react? Possibly not too well. So it may be very difficult for any of the “victims” in the Peter Ellis case to come forward and say “I don’t think anything happened”. But I suspect some will always believe they were abused because that is a memory which has been implanted and reinforced from a young age.
Vote: