|
http://www.menz.org.nz/Casualties/1997%20newsletters/Dec%2097.htm
COSA Vol 4 No 10
December 1997
Editorial
Peter Ellis and the Christchurch Crèche Case
Felicity
Goodyear-Smith
This
is certainly the hot story for this month. Last year North & South magazine journalist
David McLoughlin published an excellent exposé about the inadequacies and
injustices of the Christchurch Civic Crèche case. Details of this case have
also been outlined regularly in COSA newsletters. On 16 November, TV3's
20/20, screened Melanie Reid’s Special Report on the Christchurch Civic
Crèche fiasco. These two great pieces of journalism have brought this case
again to the public attention. There has always been a general unease about
Ellis’ guilt by the public at large.
A worker in the crèche, Ellis, was found guilty in 1993 of 16 out of 25
charges of abusing children in his care. This was a sensational case,
involving satanic ritual abuse allegations by a number of children, and
accusations made also made against many of the women workers (four were also
arrested but later discharged). Ellis has always maintained his innocence. He
has nearly 4 years out of a 10 year sentence. In 1994 an appeal was rejected
by the Court of Appeal, even though 3 charges were dismissed because one of
the key witnesses had recanted.
New details were revealed in the 20/20 documentary. Firstly two jurors in the
case had relationships with people involved in the case which had not been disclosed
to the court. The jury foreman, a Christchurch clergyman, had been the
marriage celebrant for the Crown prosecutor, Brent Stanaway, and another
juror was the lesbian partner of a woman who shared a small office (at an
adjoining desk) with the mother of one of the key complainants. Secondly the
detective on the case, Colin Eade, admitted that he was mentally unwell
during the investigation and that he later required treatment for depression.
During the case he had made a sexual proposition to one of the mothers, who
had objected and withdrawn her child from the case. He subsequently formed
sexual relationships with the mothers of two of the child complainants. It
was later also revealed that he also had a sexual relationship with one of
the chief child investigators of the case.
It was also admitted that most or all of the children who made allegations
against Ellis had withdrawn their accusations at various times in the past
but that this was treated as a symptom of ‘denial’.
In the past fortnight since the documentary screening, there has been a
flurry of media activity about this case. The public appears to be strongly
on the side of Ellis’s probable innocence. Every day a new story appears
about the case in the newspapers, on radio or television. Very few
commentators suggest that he really is guilty.
A rare exception is that of Robyn Fancourt, previous DSAC President and now
in charge of an advocacy organisation called ‘Children’s Agenda’. Fancourt is
complaining to the Broadcasting Standards Authority about the airing of the
20/20 programme because of ‘the hysteria’ that has resulted. In the past,
Fancourt has been quoted as saying that she has ‘never known a false
allegation get through’. Police Association president Greg O'Connor also is
convinced of Ellis’ guilt, because ‘the conviction of Ellis as a paedophile
was upheld on appeal’, and senior lecturer in clinical psychology at Auckland
University, John Read, berated the TV programme as one-sided and an example
of how people ‘ignore our children when they are brave enough to tell of
their abuse’.
A number of politicians are speaking on Ellis’ behalf. These include Labour
MP and Opposition Justice Spokesperson Phil Goff; NZ First chief whip Ron
Mark, (a list MP from Christchurch); and Alliance list MP Rod Donald. Even
John Banks, who has decried Ellis as a horrendous child abuser in the past,
is now saying that he believes he is innocent.
The solicitor-general is reported to have ordered an investigation into the
jury. Ellis's counsel, Judith Ablett-Kerr, is to petition Governor-General
Sir Michael Hardie Boys for a pardon. Police Commissioner Peter Doone has
agreed to hold an inquiry into investigations that led to the conviction.
New Zealand First MP Rana Waitai, a former police commander of 31 years'
experience, and chairman of Parliament's justice and law reform committee,
backs the inquiry. Mr Waitai said that Ellis could be the victim of "an
almost unbelievably bizarre abortion of justice"… If half of what was on
the (20/20) programme is true, Peter Ellis must immediately be released and
hugely compensated for the devastation that has been done to his life. The
normal rules of evidence appear to have been suspended. The normal rules of
investigation appear to have been suspended.
Had the full claims (regarding ritual abuse), by the children been put to the
jury, they may have had a better insight into the claims. That the jury was
denied this is an outrage to justice. And most damning of all we learned from
the detective-in-charge (that) not only had a witness recanted their claim,
but probably all seven of the final witnesses had also by now recanted their
claim."
Another aspect of the trial that disturbed him was that medical evidence or
corroboration was not sought by the police nor prosecution. At the time of
the Ellis trial, a new "politically correct" attitude had arisen
toward sexual abuse, he said. "This spawned what one could describe as a
sexual abuse industry and that industry had certain tenets that were beyond
examination.
The first was: a child who complains of sexual molestation never lies, never
mistakes the nature of what they're talking about and must be believed
totally.
The second tenet was that all men are rapists and if they had not yet been
caught it was just that they hadn't.
At the same time, ritual abuse claims were made about several harmless
organisations merely because they had elements of rituals in the way they
operated. And the same people who made sexual abuse claims with such ferocity
were also connected with ritual abuse claims. The children who claimed sexual
molestation also claimed Peter Ellis had cooked kittens and a whole series of
other bizarre ritual abuse. What was put forward was a sanitised version.
Anyone with a passing familiarity with the law will know that is not good
justice."
It is promising to hear a senior politician making these statements. While
COSA is heartened that the TV3 documentary has roused a public response, it
is important to recognise that the injustice in this case relates to a lot
more important issues that whether the makeup of the jury was less than
objective and that the investigating police offer had intimate relationships
with a number of the key players.
Each of the concerning aspects of the Ellis case should not be evaluated in
isolation. It is the sequence of events, the overall picture that is the key
to understanding what has happened here. There is over-whelming evidence that
justice was not served in this case, and that the investigative and judicial
processes were neither objective nor competently performed.
Of particular concern is that children who did not initially disclose abuse
began to do so in subsequent interviews by investigators who were committed
to the belief that these children had been victims. Considerable
contamination of testimony was likely, given the parents’ active support
group and the questioning of their children over a long period of time, let
alone the ongoing contact between the children excited by all the drama
around them. Much of the interrogation of the children involved suggestive
and leading questioning, and the highly suggestive ‘anatomical dolls’ were
used. The allegations got progressively more bizarre and unlikely and some
were clearly fantasy. This is an expected consequence of non-abused children
undergoing repeated interviews by people in authority who believe the
children have undergone sexual trauma that they are too scared to reveal.
Although some of the investigators seem to have believed everything the
children said, even the most bizarre claims including those involving satanic
ritual abuse and multiple perpetrators, the Crown prosecutor, Brent Stanaway,
must had had some doubts, because he narrowed down the charges and the
complainants to those appearing to be the most credible. The more incredible
and bizarre stories were excluded as evidence, as these would have
discredited the child witnesses immediately. However the bizarre claims came
from the same interviews as the ‘more credible’ ones, a fact that must throw
considerable doubt on the reliability of the latter.
The primary source of the error is the prevailing belief by those working in
the sexual abuse field that first, sexual abuse is the most likely cause of
an child or adult psychological problem; and second, that while women and
children might be reluctant to ‘disclose’, they must always be believed when
they make a sexual allegation. Over the past 13 years I have accumulated
evidence which demonstrates how these beliefs have influenced practices,
policies and legislation to operate on a presumption of guilt (every
complainant is presumed to be genuine) leading to the generation of many
false complaints. COSA now has on record dozens of cases where like Peter
Ellis, men have been convicted on the basis of similar although
less-sensational testimony, often obtained through coercive or suggestive
interviewing and counselling practices. Many languish in prison with no means
to obtain justice.
Evidence is over-whelming that Peter Ellis was not proven guilty beyond
reasonable doubt. He was convicted on the basis of uncorroborated testimony
with the complicity of professionals who believe that women and children
always tell the truth when they say they have been sexually abused. These
professionals do not believe women and children if they say they have not
been abused. To them, anyone who retracts an allegation must be "in
denial".
In their defence, CYPS and the Police have recently said that in the past few
years, they have considerably improved their interviewing practices; that
anatomically correct dolls are no longer used; that care is taken to avoid
leading questions; and that guidelines recommend only one evidential
interview. While I agree that from the cases I have seen, there does appear
to be improvement, I still see many cases where there is clear evidence of
damage caused by the uncritical acceptance of allegations produced in the
course of suggestive interviews or therapy. However the admission by the
police and others that that the interviewing practices used in the Crèche
case were seriously defective is a further indication that a miscarriage of
justice has occurred.
The affair is not a case in isolation. Behind Peter Ellis stand many other
innocent men and women, falsely accused under the same misguided policies and
practices which fuelled the Christchurch Crèche case. If the authorities are
admitting that those earlier practices were flawed, then all who have been
charged and convicted on this basis should also have their cases re-examined.
The rise in false sexual allegations that has occurred over the past one to
two decades is the result of ideological-driven practices which believe that
false allegations rarely if ever happen (all alleged victims should be
uncritically believed) and that all men are potentially rapists.
There is widespread public unease regarding the Crèche case. Justice has not
been seen to be done. Given this plus the facts of the case, a full
Commission of Inquiry is required. Since this would involve assessment of the
part the courts played in this case, such an Inquiry should be presided over
by senior judge from overseas. This Inquiry should not focus solely on the
Peter Ellis case but should examine the underlying processes and polices
which have resulted in this case. COSA submits that this Inquiry should be
conducted for all those convicted of sexual offences on the basis of
uncorroborated testimony. The Inquiry should look into the role of police,
CYPS social workers, ACC-accredited therapists and DSAC (Doctors for Sexual
Abuse Care) doctors who operate from the assumption that false allegations
rarely if ever happen, and hence do not approach cases from a place of
neutrality. It also should examine the distorting effect of ACC providing
large cash pay-outs (now discontinued) and state-funded counselling for
anyone alleging past sexual abuse, with no corroboration required.
|
