|
|
The
|
|
COSA Newsletter The other
major event in late July was Peter Ellis' Appeal. This is on the grounds that
there were gross inconsistencies in the evidence and that the bizarre nature
of many of the allegations had not been addressed by the judge. The sole
evidence in the case is based on the interview results of 7 young children
who had not disclosed at the time of the alleged offences and whose
allegations became more and more bizarre and at times impossible as the
interviews continued over the next 10 months. As the lesser allegations on
which Ellis was convicted came from the same children and the same interview
process, Ellis' lawyer Graham Panckhurst, QC, contended that the Social
Welfare disclosure interviews were flawed and that the children's evidence
was not credible. The hearing has been adjourned until 5 August. I believe that
the courts have been guilty of some terrible miscarriages of justice in the
past decade. Belief in the dogma that "children never lie about
abuse" has lead to special rules of prosecution in sexual abuse cases,
and basic principles of justice have been eroded. Children are considered
competent to testify in court; their hearsay evidence is often accepted, and
they may not have to appear in front of the alleged offender in court. The
belief that any allegation must be true, and that sexual offenders usually
deny it, means there is a presumption of guilt in sexual abuse cases. A
falsely accused father may be denied future access to his child unless he
"confesses" and receives "treatment". If he continues to
proclaim his innocence he is likely to get double the sentence. The research
evidence regarding memory and suggestibility clearly demonstrates how easy it
is for children's testimony to be distorted or fabricated by interview
processes. It is time for the courts to recognise that uncorroborated
"disclosures" obtained this way are not credible evidence. The basic
forensic evidence-gathering principles of objectivity and neutrality have
been seriously contaminated by therapeutic practices of validating and
supporting clients. The unreconcilable conflict between evidence-gathering and
therapy has not been understood - it is not possible to serve Hippocrates,
the Healer, at the same time as Hammurabi, the Law-giver. What we have is
advocacy, not justice. Felicity Goodyear-Smith Stop Press: 5 August 1994: The Court of Appeal
in the Peter Ellis case was told today by one of the complainants that in
fact her original testimony was untrue and that Ellis never did anything to
her. The eldest of the children, now aged 9, her allegations arose during 3
days of questioning about events that had supposedly happened to her several
years previously while Ellis was caring for her when she was aged 3. Although
she gave 80 items of information about Ellis and the alleged abuse which was
supposed to have occurred over a 3 day period, she was unable to give any
details about her 3 years at the Creche, nor name any other workers there.
This fact alone should have alerted the investigators that her story was
likely to have been fabricated. Expert witness
for the defence, Australian psychiatrist Keith Le Page, was interviewed by
Bill Ralston on TV3 News. He said that parents were mislead by professional
advisers, including the Crown expert witness Dr Karen Zelas, who attributed
any sign of stress in a child as an indicator of sexual abuse, despite there
being no scientific evidence for this misinformation. Parents who
believed their children had been abused by Ellis were interviewed on the
Holmes Show on TV1. Their spokesperson, Wendy Ball, claimed that the
retraction of one child in no way places the credibility of the other
children's testimony in question. The defence is
asking for an acquittal on the 3 charges based on the retracting girl's
testimony, and a retrial on the other charges. I await with interest the
Appeal court's decision next week. |
