|
|
The
Christchurch Civic Creche Case |
|
|
|
|
The cop at the
centre of the Despite
admitting a relationship with one victim's mother, and propositioning another
while drunk, former Christchurch Detective Colin Eade had done nothing wrong,
the report said. The report,
called for by Police Commissioner Peter Doone, said Eade was not suffering
psychological problems during the 1992 investigation into abuse allegations
at the Christchurch Civic Crèche. Peter Ellis
was convicted and sentenced to 10 years' jail for abusing children between
1986 and 1992. His case was
referred back to the Court of Appeal by the Governor-General. Peter Ellis's
mother, Lesley, last night described the findings as "a whitewash".
She said: "It's like the rest of the case. I talked to Peter today and
we are not getting justice." Last year a 20/20
documentary on TV3 cast doubt on Eade's mental fitness during the
investigation. Doone directed
the review to explore: * Eade's role
throughout the investigation. * His
relationship with people directly associated with the investigation, that
could raise issues of impropriety. *
Circumstances surrounding a phone call made to the mother of one of the
children involved in the investigation. * The
relationship he formed with the mothers of two children attending the crèche.
* Any matters
which could have affected his ability to impartially fulfil his role during
the investigation, including his psychological condition. * Any other
aspects of Eade's actions that could affect the reliability of the evidence
he obtained or could have contributed to an injustice. The report was
carried out by Christchurch-based Detective Superintendent Jim Millar - the
officer who reviewed the ill-fated Wicked Willies inquiry. Millar writes:
"Undoubtedly Eade suffered from stress as a consequence of his
involvement in this protracted, difficult and controversial
investigation." But Millar
says his judgment "was not impaired in any significant way". "It is
possible that the stress he was suffering manifested itself in a number of
ways, including his inopportune comments to "A" - a mother of one
of the victims - his adverse comments to Detective Senior Sergeant Ell when
he first became involved and his response to Detective Inspector Carson when
he directed Eade to interview Ellis towards the end of March 1992." Millar says
Eade was under the watchful eye of senior officers at all times "with
the possible exception of January 1992". "In
respect of his personal association with B, C and D, these were social
contacts he made long after the investigation . . . each strongly denies that
there was impropriety on the part of the detective. "Eade's
comments to A in the phone call in July were inappropriate." But Millar
says the comment was made when Eade was "off duty" and had been
drinking. Eade is
understood to have asked the woman out, when the investigation was completed.
Millar says
the woman saw Eade's unwanted invitation as an illustration of how the police
officer was not functioning properly. "I feel
the nature of the indiscretion was minor and does not amount to any incidence
of psychological incompetence . . . I believe Eade was not psychologically
incompetent enough to consider that he should be removed from that inquiry or
would have been liable to make errors of judgment." * Rana Waitai, P11. |
