A spokesman for Mr Power said today the case was a police matter and Government ministers could not get involved.
"Police are the only ones to investigate guilt and innocence," he told NZPA.
A 2009 report into whether Mr Power should have established a commission of inquiry into the Peter Ellis case said it would be unconstitutional for him to do so.
"The constitutional implications of establishing a commission of inquiry... would go beyond the constitutionally recognised function of the executive and encroach directly on the authority and function of the courts."
It said if an inquiry was set up to look at the Ellis case it would be unique and set a precedent for future cases.
Former Christchurch child care worker Peter Ellis was found guilty in June 1993 on 16 counts of sexual offences involving children in his care at a creche and was sentenced to 10 years' jail.
The case was subject to two Court of Appeal hearings and a ministerial inquiry. The convictions have remained despite widespread support for Ellis, who has always maintained his innocence. When Mr Power turned down the call for a commission of inquiry, he said Ellis' outstanding right to seek leave to appeal to the Privy Council meant the request for an inquiry should be declined.
I think from the short piece above Simon Power has got it wrong from the outset and seems to be floundering to grasp even basic policing and constitutional rights. He starts, "Police are the only ones to investigate guilt and innocence," he told NZPA. I may be mistaken but I thought the police investigated and searched for evidence which in turn, if satisfied warrants charges to be laid, they laid informations in the Courts which are accusations of which they believe they have the evidence to prove (on the face of it) an individual to be guilty of a particular crime. That said, the Jury decide guilt and evidence having heard all the admissible evidence - tested in most cases by cross-examination and counter evidence, not the police. By this reasoning from the Minister the role of a Jury has no place in the administration of Justice.
He then goes onto compromise what perhaps may be a pending decision in the Bain case of having a QC re-examine the evidence after a Jury Trial.. "The constitutional implications of establishing a commission of inquiry... would go beyond the constitutionally recognised function of the executive and encroach directly on the authority and function of the courts."He says speaking about the Peter Ellis and case apparently not seeing the significance in the Cabinet 'right' to appoint a QC to investigate guilt on 'the balance of probabilities.' If one is unconstitutional then so is the other.
In another breath he recognises our Highest Court of the time, the Privy Council, pointing out that because Ellis has yet to try (indeed if one could even feel an innocent man, must jump the hurdles of his captor) to take his case before the Privy Council. This while at the same time having presented that the PC isn't (or wasn't at the time our highest court) able to make rulings that might not be subject to executive interference which will be the case if Power does uphold an 'executive' power over a Judicial decision that an 'actual substantial miscarriage of justice has occurred.'
Putting these inconsistencies in context, as well as the Public Interest, Power seems to have made a grave mistake and one at odds with his conflicting statements about judicial independence and the executive power trying to usurp it. I hope Rochelle has the resources and help to consider a Judicial Review of this decision made by the Executive and attended by what appears (at least by news reports) to be conflicting and inconsistent logic.