|
The
Evening Post
November 21, 1997
Doubts over Ellis won't go away
Editorial
The mounting wave of public concern over the conviction and imprisonment of
alleged Christchurch creche child abuser Peter Ellis is one which the
Government can no longer ignore. Last Sunday night's 20/20 television
documentary, which has triggered the current bout of unease, is the latest in
a series of media investigations which have raised profound doubts over the
way the case was conducted.
These doubts will not go away. As in the Arthur Allan Thomas case, they will
continue to gnaw away at the public conscience, undermining confidence in
both the police and the judicial system.
It was claimed in the TV3 documentary that the jury foreman in the Ellis
trial had been the celebrant at the prosecutor's wedding, that a jury member
was in a lesbian relationship with a colleague of one of the creche mothers
and that police detective Colin Eade, who played a crucial role in the
investigation, had suffered from psychological difficulties and had an
"obsessional personality". None of these allegations have been
denied, though Mr Eade has since clarified disturbing claims about his
intimate relationships with two mothers whose children attended the creche by
pointing out these occurred after he had left the police.
These irregularities, coming on top of well-founded concerns about other aspects
of the case - that it took place in an atmosphere of hysteria over sexual
abuse, and that seriously flawed methods were used to coax evidence from
children at the creche - tilt the balance overwhelmingly in favour of a
review.
A clear sign that the push for a reopening of the Ellis case is gaining
political traction is the number of parliamentarians now lining up behind it.
These include former police commander Rana Waitai of New Zealand First, who
chairs the parliamentary justice and law reform select committee; Alliance MP
Rod Donald, who had a daughter at the Christchurch creche and describes the
Ellis trial as a witchhunt; Labour Party justice spokesman Phil Goff, who
took up the 20/20 claims in Parliament this week; and National MP John Banks,
who as Police Minister was convinced of Ellis's guilt but now says he was
wrong. All this points to a swelling tide of public opinion in favour of
Ellis, who is four years into a 10-year prison sentence.
The only way to lay to rest these misgivings is through a full, independent
judicial review. A police inquiry, as proposed by Police Commissioner Peter
Doone, is no solution. Given the central role of the police in the case, it
would not command public confidence. Moreover, its focus would be too narrow.
The conduct of the police investigation was only one of many unsatisfactory
aspects of the case: the performance of the trial judge, who disallowed the
presentation of what might have been critical evidence, and the role of the
counsellors and social workers who interviewed the creche children also
demand reappraisal.
Ellis's lawyer, the redoubtable Judith Ablett-Kerr QC, intends to seek a
pardon from the Governor-General. That, too, would be a less than
satisfactory outcome. While it might placate Ellis's supporters, it would
simply transfer the sense of injustice to those who remain convinced of his
guilt. It would also sidestep too many of the festering issues arising out of
the case and leave the public with a sense of unfinished business.
The only way to exorcise the widespread apprehension that Peter Ellis has
been the victim of a miscarriage of justice is by a thorough and public
re-evaluation of the case, taking into account all relevant evidence.
|
