For sixteen years those who labour to overturn the conviction of Peter Ellis and who question the processes surrounding the prosecution of Ellis and his female co-workers have laboured under a severe handicap. This handicap is a direct result of the suppression rulings that surround the case.

The onus of proof for overturning a conviction falls upon the convicted party. In the Ellis case much of evidence for a miscarriage of justice involves the behaviour of persons during and post the investigation, often the very people who have subsequently had their identity suppressed by court order. In the general case suppression orders of this kind are to be applauded as they protect victims of heinous crime.

However suppression orders in the Ellis case have served to cloud the course of justice. People directly involved in the case are said to hold high position and have the ear of the very institutions charged with administering justice.

The convictions are so obviously unsound and the judicial system’s failure to acknowledge such has been so frequently raised, that one really has to ask why. And many have.

Has it simply been a systemic failure?

After many years of personal research into the case I am of the opinion that the system has allowed for the possibility that individuals involved in the case have subsequently influenced the administration of justice. Unfortunately this premise cannot be publicly proved or disproved under current court orders. And whose fault is that?

We do need to restore confidence in the administration of justice, but require a fresh palette.

Ms Sim does not fit the bill.

Crony Watch notes that Sim “was appointed as a law commissioner mere weeks after rubberstamping the government’s draconian Electoral Finance Bill as not breaching the right to freedom of expression.”

Crony Watch also notes, under a heading “A Committee Possessed” that Sim “is experienced in criminal law matters, having previously been a chief legal counsel for the Ministry of Justice. In this role, she helped build public confidence in the criminal justice system by standing firm in her opinion (to the minister of justice) that the widely mistrusted conviction of Peter Ellis on child molestation charges should not be reviewed by an inquiry, nor a pardon granted.”

But you only want to question her performance on your pet case?

Sorry just found what I was looking for, Stephen Franks comment on Ms Sims prowess.

“I understand that Ms Sim was the author (or at least in charge of the author) of the Crown Law opinion on the Electoral Finance Bill. It is a pitiful piece of legal work, an advocacy opinion, written to help a client defending the indefensible to claim an arguable case.”

Good on you maintaining standards, Poneke.

After all, Journalist Karl du Fresne provides a “Warning” today that “blogs are dangerous”. Thankfully he tells us that “Poneke’s is a relatively gentle blog”, but warns us that others may be less so:

“Some of these are quite rough and hostile. They are extremely remote and attract a lot of undesirables.” Apparently, according to du Fresne, the blogosphere may even give exposure to “infantile abuse and personal invective”

Long may Poneke’s be gentle.

[Poneke says: Knowing Karl, I am sure his tongue was hard in his cheek.]

Val Sim demonstrably has the qualifications and experience for her very senior positions, and I am sure she performs her work to a high standard.

Please confine any criticisms to clearly defined professional issues such as her work on the Ellis case.

Her actions in the Peter Ellis case have been well documented in the research findings of Ross Francis in the NZ Law Journal. The Ellis website shows Sim’s role in a graphic:
http://www.peterellis.org.nz/docs/2008/val_sim.htm

Also recently published are letters by Ross Francis – a letter to Val Sim in November 2007, and a recent letter to the Ministry of Justice CEO Belinda Clark
http://www.peterellis.org.nz/docs/2008/index.htm

The Ministry of Justice staff, including Val Sim, are personally blamed for delays in achieving justice by Rex Haig, who had remarkably consistent experiences as Peter Ellis from those same officials. He told me at the Miscarriages of Justice Conference in Auckland that he was “blocked at every turn” by justice department backroom bureaucrats.