"The Press"
Christchurch, New Zealand.
Friday, October 15, 1999
Page 3
Ellis supporters vow to fight on
by Martin van Beynen
Supporters of convicted sex abuser Peter Ellis say they will fight on despite a
second rejection by the Court of Appeal.
Five Appeal Court judges yesterday turned down Ellis's appeal, saying nothing
they heard had persuaded them a miscarriage of justice had occurred in Ellis's
first trial in 1993.
Ellis was appealing against his conviction on 13 charges of abusing children in
his care at the Christchurch Civic Childcare Centre. His first appeal failed in
1994.
Ellis's counsel, Judith Ablett-Kerr, QC, said the battle to clear her client's
name would carry on despite the dismissal of the appeal.
A new application for a free pardon and a Royal Commission of Inquiry would be
lodged with the Governor-General on Monday, she said. She had spoken to Ellis
and he had been "pretty furious", she said.
"I'm disappointed but not surprised. I had argued in both petitions to the
Governor-General that the only way to resolve this case was through a
commission of inquiry, which the New Zealand appellate structure is not
designed to provide," she said.
Ellis's mother, Lesley Ellis, who has made her own request to the Minister of
Justice, Tony Ryall, for a commission of inquiry, said the Appeal Court
decision had been expected so she had been prepared for disappointment.
"We don't intend to give it away. We shall battle on and can only hope
that if the judiciary cannot sort it out, then public pressure might," she
said.
She hoped her request for a commission of inquiry would get support from the
public, which would encourage the Government to act.
Ellis is due to be released from prison in February after serving six years
nine months of a 10-year sentence.
The latest appeal followed an application to the Governor-General, who referred
the case to the Court of Appeal on five broad grounds.
Mr Ryall did not want to comment yesterday, saying he would need to read the judgment
first.
In yesterday's decision the Court of Appeal said:
Matters of concern in the case such as repetition of interviews, contamination
between child complainants, delays, mass allegations, and fantasy evidence were
all identified in 1992 and covered at trial.
While it could be said there was a degree of sanitising (complainants whittled
down and serious allegations not being the subject of charges) by the Crown, no
suppression of relevant evidence had occurred.
The evidence disclosed nothing that showed a juror whose partner worked with a
mother of a child complainant was unable to or did not fulfil her duties
faithfully.
Evidence of an allegation that another juror had, during the trial, been
overheard to agree with a comment from another person that Ellis was guilty was
quite insufficient to establish bias or pre-judgment.
The non-disclosure by the Crown to the defence of photographs and documents did
not raise concerns about the safety of the verdicts or about a miscarriage of justice.
It was not the function of the court "as distinct from the more
wide-ranging function of a commission of inquiry" to determine whether the
evidence of experts supporting Ellis should be accepted.
Advances in knowledge and understanding of evaluating videotaped interviews
with children had been made since Ellis's trial but they could not be proved.