Tikanga curveball in Ellis case
A legal curveball has delayed a Supreme Court decision on whether Peter Ellis’ appeal against his 1993 convictions can continue after his death.
Ellis, 61, died in September after battling advanced bladder cancer. He had been fighting to clear his name some 26 years after he was convicted of sex offences against seven children at the Christchurch Civic Creche.
The Supreme Court is now considering whether there are special circumstances that would allow the appeal to continue.
It would be the first time an appeal has continued after death in New Zealand.
Ellis’ lawyer, Robert Harrison, pointed to a Supreme Court decision in Canada, where the court ruled on two circumstances where an appeal could continue after death.
The first circumstance was if there was a significant legal issue that needed to be resolved.
Harrison argued there were multiple issues with the way the very young children involved had been questioned, which could have led to exaggeration, madeup stories, and potentially false memories.
He wanted the case to proceed so the court could set a precedent on the proper way for courts to accept evidence from young children.
Crown lawyer Una Jagose said this was unnecessary, as the scientific understanding and law around memory and young children had already moved on since the first trial in 1993.
The second circumstance was if there were other people affected.
Ellis’ mother and some of his Civic Creche co-workers were named by children in the case. Though they were not convicted, an appeal would help to clear any doubt surrounding them.
The Crown argued that Ellis’ mother’s and co-workers’ interests in the appeal did not outweigh the interests of the victims.
Courts in Commonwealth countries have traditionally considered that someone’s interest in an appeal ends when they die, as it will not affect them either way.
But Justice Joe Williams threw a curveball when he suggested New Zealand did not need to follow decisions set in any other country, and could establish an entirely new rule based on tikanga Ma¯ ori.
‘‘There is nothing to say that the appellant’s case dies when they do . . . This is a very Western idea that on demise you have nothing to protect . . .
‘‘In a tikanga context ... an ancestor has even more reputation to protect.’’
The case was adjourned for five weeks to allow both sides to bring submissions addressing the issue of tikanga.