|
Waikato
Times
November 27, 1997
Ellis, Dougherty and the justice system
Editorial
Peter Ellis and David Dougherty are two very different men with two very different
experiences of New Zealand justice. Both, however, represent what happens
when the courts and police get it wrong.
Ellis is the former Christchurch Civic Creche worker who is four years into a
10-year prison sentence for child abuse. He is still in jail despite
questions being raised about the investigation and trial which resulted in
his conviction.
Mr Dougherty, convicted and jailed in 1993 for the abduction and rape of his
11-year-old neighbour, is a free man. He was acquitted in a re-trial this
year after new DNA evidence convinced a jury he wasn't the man who left semen
stains on the victim's clothes. He lives under a shadow of guilt after the
Government insisted his innocence had not been proven and refused him
compensation for his three years behind bars.
Ellis and Dougherty were accused of heinous crimes: abusing their power by
preying on innocent children. It a disturbing irony that they are victims of
the overwhelming power of the criminal justice system.
The case against Ellis was flawed. A single comment from a young boy
triggered a torrent of allegation, rumour and hysteria. Videotaped interviews
with pre-school children -- the cornerstone of the Crown's case -- were
compromised by parental coaching and discredited interviewing techniques.
Some children made bizarre and contradictory claims but their testimony was
toned down for the jury. No one has explained how Ellis was able to carry out
sustained abuse at the creche without anyone noticing and without leaving
marks. The policeman in charge of the investigation has admitted he had
sexual relations, after the trial, with the mothers of two of Ellis' victims.
He also propositioned another alleged victim's mother during the
investigation. Also, the foreman of the jury knew the Crown prosecutor and
another jury member's lesbian partner worked with the mother of an alleged
victim.
Each area of concern by itself does not destroy the case against Ellis. But,
viewed as a whole, the concerns form a powerful argument for a re-trial or a
pardon.
David Dougherty has already had his retrial and was cleared. It seems
reasonable and fair that he be compensated for his time in jail. The
Government disagrees and says Mr Dougherty's acquittal does not prove his
innocence. This is mean-spirited, stingy, legalistic, nitpicking of the first
order and is designed solely to prevent a rash of compensation claims from
other aggrieved defendants. No one is suggesting that criminals who get off
on a technicality should get a pay out. The Dougherty case is different. If a
jury's verdict was enough to convict him, then the overturning of that
verdict by a second jury is surely sufficient to exonerate him. The money is
important and would help him rebuild his life. But it goes deeper than that.
The refusal to pay means he will live forever with the stigma of being a
rapist. This is what passes for justice for David Dougherty, but there is
nothing just about it.
|
