Peter Ellis Org : Seeking Justice for Peter Ellis
The Christchurch Civic Creche Case

Ministry of Justice
June 13, 2000

File Note: Meeting with Sir Thomas Eichelbaum; Ellis Inquiry
by Michael Petherick

LA 04 01 00 03

13 June 2000

File note: Meeting with Sir Thomas Eichelbaum; Ellis Inquiry

Present: Sir Thomas Eichelbaum
Val Sim
Michael Petherick

1. Val and I gave Sir Thomas a research review of the psychologists nominated to provide an opinion as part of the Ellis inquiry (see articles on file). We also provided some information about two others (Dr Louise Sas and Prof. Kim Oates) and generally explained the difference between research psychologists / psychiatrists /practitioner clinicians. Sir Thomas asked questions about the various individuals who had been nominated. We discussed Prof. Thomas Lyon's articles provided to him previously. We also provided Sir Thomas with the amicus brief and New Jersey Superior and Supreme Court decisions relating to the Wee Day Care Kelly Michaels case.

2. Sir Thomas discounted Professors Ceci and Goodman on the basis of their high profile and research direction over the last 15 years.

3. Sir Thomas suggested that the following individuals would be likely candidates for the inquiry, in general order of preference:

             Prof Davies

             Prof Poole

             Prof Saywitz (whom we provided contact details for in our meeting); and

             Dr Sas (whom we will supply contact details if necessary).

4. Val suggested that Sir Thomas may also wish to contact Prof. Lyon and ask for suggestions for impartial experts to provide him with opinions as part of the inquiry. Sir Thomas agreed and will email Prof. Lyon.

5. Val suggested (in previous telephone conversation) that Sir Thomas may wish to contact Mrs Ablett Kerr QC and invite her to provide further nominations, given that her current nominations had involvement in previous proceedings relating to Mr Ellis or had expressed a view on the case in the media. Sir Thomas agreed especially given the fact that he will be contacting Prof Lyon.

6. Sir Thomas indicated that Ms Kirsty Mc Donald QC had requested an extra four weeks to file submissions on the material attached to the schedule for the inquiry. He will grant her the extra time and will allow the other parties to the terms of reference an extra four weeks, including the two parents Ms [blank] who indicated to Jonathon Eaton that they did not wish to be presented by Ms Mc Donald.

7. Sir Thomas Eichelbaum inquired about the minister's views on an extension to the inquiry, and indicated that he would request an extension.

8. Val discussed the correspondence received by the minister from [blank] requesting funding for Mr Hembrow to represent her before the inquiry, along with the minister's reply. Sir Thomas indicated that he had received an "ambiguous" letter from [blank] outlining that she wishes to make submissions if she received funding for Mr Hembrow. He had not replied at this point but would, however, write to her along the lines outlined above.

9. Sir Thomas considered the draft letter to the Registrar of the Christchurch High Court requesting leave from the judge to copy and release parts of the files relating to Mr Ellis's case. Sir Thomas had no amendments apart from requesting that the letter be signed out by the ministry on his behalf.