|
|
The
Christchurch Civic Creche Case |
|
Peter Ellis will today walk from Paparua Prison a free man. The
former creche worker and convicted pedophile may have done his time, but, as Martin
Van Beynen reports, the controversy over his case may not yet be over. Convicted pedophile Peter Ellis, 41, has done his time but the
Christchurch Civic Childcare Centre case which made him a household name has
none of the finality of a completed prison sentence – neither for him, nor
for the families of those children he was convicted of abusing. His release from Paparua Prison today will no doubt rekindle the
passionate and rancorous debate that has raged sporadically since the case
erupted more than eight years ago. It began with a remark made in November, 1991, by the son of a
crèche mother while he was in the bath. The woman, a community consultant
specialising in sexual abuse, alerted both the creche and the police, and
within weeks rumours and speculation about Ellis's alleged misdemeanours had
sent anxiety among creche parents rocketing. A parents' meeting and reports of other disclosures started a
process in which about 120 creche children were interviewed by social welfare
specialists. Ellis was first arrested in March, 1992, and at a preliminary
hearing in November that year he faced 48 indecency charges involving 21
children. At his High Court trial starting in April, 1993, the charges had
been reduced to 28 involving 13 complainants. Six weeks later the jury found
him guilty on 16 charges relating to seven children. The verdicts showed the jury accepted he had abused seven
children by urinating on them, putting his penis in their mouths and against
their private parts, and by touching them indecently. Ellis was jailed for 10
years on the charges and in the normal course of things the case would have
dropped from the spotlight with participants getting on with their lives. A year later, however, one of the complainant children said she
had made up the allegations. Ellis's convictions dropped to 13, and in the
subsequent years of his prison sentence the case has been to the Court of
Appeal twice and an application for a Commission of Inquiry has been lodged
by Ellis's lawyers. In the 6 years Ellis has been behind bars at various
Christchurch jails much has changed in Christchurch society but the arguments
about the Christchurch Civic Creche case remain much the same. Believers in his guilt have not budged an inch from their
conviction he was a cunning monster who preyed on the innocent for his own
perverse gratification. Many believe Ellis was assisted by other creche
workers in a satanic conspiracy which embroiled the crèche children. Parents who remain convinced their children were abused by
Ellis, and possibly others, feel deeply aggrieved they need to defend
themselves to the skeptics. "You can't live your life. Every few weeks something comes
along and the doubting continues ... We feel belittled at every point,"
one parent said. Parents whose children gave evidence against Ellis at his High
Court trial in April-May 1993 feel their children's testimony has survived
rigorous scrutiny in two Court of Appeal hearings and should now be accepted
as reliable and damning of the man being released today. The children received a ringing endorsement from the Court of
Appeal at Ellis's first appeal in 1994 when the jury verdicts were challenged
on the basis the evidence of the complainant children was not credible. Justice Maurice Casey said the court had concluded the jury was
fully justified in its verdicts. "There were some particularly telling pieces of
evidence," he said. "Such as the references by children to 'white
sticky' or 'yucky' stuff and 'Peter calls it secret touching'; and the
evidence of the accused's unusual interest in 'golden showers'. Great risks
of detection may have been run but that is not uncommon in cases of
indulgence in perversion," he said. Ellis's case for innocence has also changed little over the
years. Although new doubts have been raised about the impartiality of the
jury - and rejected by the Court of Appeal - Ellis's supporters have
consistently argued he was the victim of a witch-hunt. Supporters, who include creche parents, continue to ask how
Ellis could have conducted his reign of terror for five years in a busy
creche subject to frequent and unannounced visits from parents without
anybody noticing or a single child disclosing. They liken his case to suspect mass allegation cases overseas
involving day-care centres and creches. Supporters explain the Civic creche
childrens' allegations as rumours and fantasies resulting from the young
childrens' suggestibility, parental questioning, parents and children
swapping stories, and flawed interviewing. The Court of Appeal again reviewed the arguments last year when
the case was referred to it by the Governor-General. Ellis's lawyers argued
enough new material had emerged since Ellis's conviction to show a
miscarriage of justice had occurred. After reviewing recent research on the reliability of evidence
given by young children disclosing sexual abuse and after considering new
expert evidence the court concluded none of it was sufficiently new to
justify setting aside the verdicts. The court however found that: Interviewers had used
prompts more than best-practice techniques would recommend. It was doubtful whether standards of neutrality and preparedness
to accept a denial or a failure to disclose were achieved in all respects
during the interview process. Expert interviewers now believed young children should undergo a
maximum of three interviews whereas in the Civic creche case some children
underwent up to six interviews. Recent research conflicted with expert evidence at Ellis's trial
that behaviours exhibited by complainants were consistent with children who
had been abused. Many behaviours once considered consistent with child abuse
were now shown to be characteristic of non-abused children as well. The court said that although there were undoubtedly advances in
evaluating videotaped evidence of children alleging sexual abuse "so
long as the evidence is assessed with awareness of the relevant risks, it is
for the jury to decide whether it can be relied upon". The various factors argued as contaminating the children's
evidence had all been canvassed at Ellis's trial and were before the jury,
the court said. It was not the function of the court as distinct from a
commission of inquiry to say whether new evidence should be accepted or
evaluate its weight and effect, it said. Neither could the court undertake an
analysis of more general material contained in articles, reports, and
commentaries. "Such an exercise is more the function of a formal
commission empowered to enquire into and report on defined matters ... there
may be matters which are worthy of and could properly be addressed by a
commission of inquiry but the Court cannot undertake that kind of function
under the guise of an appeal." Perhaps encouraged by the latter remarks Ellis's lawyers almost
immediately filed an application for a Commission of Inquiry with the
Governor-General. Given the number of inquiries the new Government has
launched in its first few months in business, a quick decision on Ellis is
unlikely. Believers in his guilt see such an inquiry as pandering to a
vocal but misguided group of agitators. His supporters, however, say a
Commission of Inquiry will clear the air and be as good for the now grown-up
creche children as it is for Ellis. |
