|
|
The |
|
The conviction of Ellis was convicted of 13 sexual
abuse charges against children at the Christchurch Civic Creche in 1993 and
jailed for 10 years. His lawyer, Judith Ablett-Kerr,
QC, said in court today there was a "multitude of reasons" for the
miscarriage of justice, but she would focus on six. The appeal concerned the
techniques used to obtain evidence, the risk of contamination, grounds
involving retraction, the trial procedure, the jury and the non-disclosure of
material. Ellis' mother, Lesley, and
supporter Winston Wealleans were both in court. Ellis' conviction was based on
evidence from the children at the creche, but Mrs Ablett-Kerr said cases of
"a mass allegation at a day-care centre" were very risky". "The evidence of children
should have been treated at the least with caution and at the best with total
exclusion," she said. Outlining her case, she said Ellis
failed to gain a fair trial as the jury members had a predisposition to find
him guilty. The jury was also ill-equipped to
understand the significance of contamination of children's evidence. International experts said there
was a huge risk associated with a mass allegation of this type. Mrs Ablett-Kerr said the case was
different from sexual abuse cases involving one or more children. "The retrieval of memories
from children between five and seven years old is highly dangerous because
the developmental levels of children makes them most vulnerable. "We are talking about
genuinely anxious parents hearing about what is going on and questioning
their children. The problem in mass allegations is that so many people become
concerned about their children that it creates hyper-vigilance." The appeal now being heard is the
second by Ellis; the first, after his conviction, was dismissed in 1994. The current appeal was originally
set down for May 31 in If the appeal fails, Ellis is due
to leave prison next February when he has served two-thirds of his sentence. Ellis had his petition for a free
pardon turned down by Justice Minister Tony Ryall earlier this year, but an
alternative request to widen the terms on which his case was referred to the
Court of Appeal was allowed. The appeal is being heard before
Justices Thomas, Gault , Richardson, Henry and Tipping. (Proceeding) |
