|
The Dominion
July 29 1998
Authority rejects complaint about Ellis programme
A complaint of bias and unfairness in a TV3 20/20 programme last
November about convicted child-molester Peter Ellis has been rejected by the
Broadcasting Standards Authority.
The complaint by the Auckland-based Child Advocacy Trust failed despite its assertions
of further "corroborative and physical evidence" of Ellis's guilt,
beyond the children's statements. It was unable to satisfactorily provide
such evidence.
The 20/20 programme reviewed the investigations into alleged molestations at
the Christchurch Civic Creche leading to Ellis's conviction. In that context
it also reviewed the credibility of child witnesses.
The trust said the programme was made with a preconceived bias. It advanced
arguments suggesting unfairness and lack of balance.
The authority ruled on the following issues:
1. That the programme created a
climate in which it would be harder for children to disclose sexual abuse for
fear of not being believed.
The authority ruled :
that nothing in the broadcast
indicated an effect of making disclosure more difficult for children.
2. That the programme undermined the
children as credible witnesses by giving a persistent impression that
professionals had driven the children to fabricate stories.
The authority says :
the focus of the programme was
not so much the credibility of the children as the means by which the
professionals gathered their statements.
3. That the programme was unfair to
police in its treatment of their investigation and, in particular, in its
treatment of the main subject interviewed, Detective Colin Eade.
The authority ruled :
it was reasonable to put
wide-ranging questions to Mr Eade, including about his relationships with
women involved in the case, because he was publicly accountable. Reporting Mr
Eade's willing admission of stress was fair, because it illustrated a state
of mind many considered relevant to the investigation.
4. That the programme lacked balance
because it failed to deal appropriately with the dynamics of the disclosure
process.
The authority says :
subjecting
professionals' methodology to scrutiny was legitimate. The programme might
have given an impression that professionals had acted in a way that might
have led children to give unreliable testimony, but a clear statement had
been made about the trial's having been held in a climate where children's
testimony was paramount, unquestioned and not required to be corroborated,
and where children were seen as needing active encouragement for full
disclosure.
5. That the programme was biased
because anecdotal evidence wrongly invited a conclusion about connections
between the prosecutor and the jury foreman, and between a jury member and a
person with a direct interest in the prosecution case.
The authority ruled :
that these
legitimately illustrated the means by which a possibly unsafe verdict had
been arrived at.
Dismissing all elements of the complaint, the authority said the Ellis case
was "unique" in the amount of interest and publicity accorded to it
in the past eight years. The Crown's case had been compelling enough to
prevail to date through every legal avenue available to the defence and this
context was likely to be known to viewers.
|
