The Christchurch Civic Creche Case
	News Reports Index
	1999 July-Dec
	New Zealand Herald October 8, 1999 'Listener' cleared on sex-case gripe Wellington - The Press Council says a complaint against the New Zealand Listener over an article on convicted sex offender Peter Ellis is without merit. Colin Eade of Christchurch made serious allegations about an article in the April 3 issue, headed A Mother's Son. The council found his complaints could not be sustained. The article dealt with Ellis' appeal to the Court of Appeal and partly with the background to the case; six years ago Ellis was convicted of child abuse and imprisoned. It was the second time the magazine had questioned Ellis' conviction, the previous occasion being July 1993. Mr Eade, a police investigator in the case, accused the Listener of lying, deliberately distorting the truth, of changing facts to fit theories and of being captured by Ellis' supporters. He complained of two sentences in the article, the council said. The first referred to the mother whose small son's comments, the article stated, led to the creche inquiry. The second sentence referred to the role of Mr Eade in the investigation. Mr Eade said those two sentences distorted the facts as he knew them. The Listener editor defended the article, the council said, saying the article's author had also written the 1993 article, had covered much of the court hearing, and had interviewed most of those involved. The editor said Mr Eade seemed motivated more by resentment at the way other media had treated the civic crèche case, a point Mr Eade later denied. The editor also defended the article as fair and accurate within its context of questioning Ellis' guilt, and rejected the allegations of lies and distortion. While apologising for getting one point wrong, Mr Eade maintained his view that the article portrayed him in the worst public light, as well as the mother whose son the article said sparked the case. The editor said Mr Eade, as a key officer in the case, had a vested interest in ensuring the jury found Ellis guilty. The council said: "Newspapers and magazines are at liberty to opt for a questioning, even a campaigning role, positions that the Listener had clearly adopted in this case. In so doing they had a responsibility to present facts fairly - something the editor accepted. "But they were also free to present facts in such a way as to make a case for the questions they were posing, or the campaign they were mounting."