|
|
The |
|
The possibility of contaminated evidence
from children, non- disclosure by the Crown of evidence, and jury bias are
among the grounds given for the widened scope allowed for the appeal granted
to convicted paedophile Peter Ellis. The New Zealand Gazette has
published details of last week's ruling by Governor-General Sir Michael Hardie Boys, widening the terms under which Ellis's case
to the Court of Appeal this month can be heard. Christchurch Civic Childcare
Centre worker Ellis, sentenced to 10 years' prison in 1993 on 16 charges of
sexual offences, had three charges struck out at an appeal hearing the next
year. Convictions against the other 13
charges, however, were upheld, and have since become the subject of two
applications for the mercy of the Crown by Ellis's counsel, Judith Ablett
Kerr. Mrs Ablett Kerr's grounds, listed in
the Gazette, include that the methods used to interview child complainants
were seriously flawed, that the risks of contamination of the child
complainants' evidence were underestimated and not properly investigated,
that child interview techniques were defective, and that the special hazards
arising out of mass allegations were not recognised. She also submitted that
the significance of child complainants' retractions of their evidence was not
properly understood, that trial rulings relating to the admissibility of
evidence meant Ellis had not received a fair trial, and that documents
relating to the issue of parents contaminating evidence given by children --
and photographs -- were not disclosed to the defence. Juror bias was indicated by one
juror having a connection to a crown witness through the juror's intimate
partner; one juror said to have expressed the view in public that Ellis was
guilty, before the prosecution case was complete; and another juror said to
have told a writer that he was sexually attracted to one of the child
complainants. The gazetted
ruling says that these applications indicate a miscarriage of justice might
have occurred for various reasons. These relate to the techniques
used to obtain the evidence of the child complainants, because the
significance of child complainants' retractions was not properly understood,
and because the risks of contamination (by parents) of the evidence were
underestimated and not properly investigated. Miscarriage might also have
occurred because of jury bias and because material that was relevant to the
defence was not disclosed to it, the gazette says. |
