|
|
The |
|
Crèche worker Peter Ellis's hopes
of a pardon were ended by the findings of a government-ordered inquiry
yesterday. Alan Samson reports.
In initial interviews, none of the
children concerned made any allegations of sexual offending and, at one
stage, police told the crèche management the inquiry was over. However, a further interview at
the end of January 1992 brought a first allegation. Many more were to follow.
There were 36 charges laid against
Ellis alone, four laid jointly with other crèche
workers Gaye Davidson, Jan Buckingham and Marie Keys; two charges were laid
jointly against Ellis and another crèche employee, Debbie Gillespie. As some of the evidence faltered,
all charges were dropped against the women, as were some against Ellis. In
1993 he was convicted and sentenced to 10 years in prison on 16 counts of
indecencies -- reduced to 13 counts in a court process involving two
unsuccessful hearings before the Court of Appeal. Ellis, freed in February last year
on automatic parole after serving almost seven years, has always maintained
his innocence, even to the extent of declining early parole opportunities. The granting of an inquiry, led by
former chief justice Sir Thomas Eichelbaum, was seen by most people as a last
chance for Ellis to clear his name. Yesterday, a devastated Ellis said
he was tired. His fiercest campaigner, his
mother Lesley Ellis, said he was "out on his feet". But neither was prepared to
concede defeat. At a press conference yesterday,
however, Justice Minister Phil Goff said he believed Ellis was guilty and he
doubted that Ellis's counsel, Judith Ablett Kerr, QC, would go to the Privy
Council -- to do so would require seeking leave from a so-far unsympathetic
Court of Appeal. Kristy McDonald, QC, who
represented the children, said they and their families felt vindicated. The fever pitch reached over the
case had many aspects, not the least because it came at a time of what social
scientists called an international "social hysteria" related
specifically to organised, ritual or
"satanic" abuse. There were several high-profile
cases in What had this to do with Ellis?
Before the charges of abuse went ahead against him, numerous other bizarre
allegations were made, including of satanic killing of babies, putting
children in a tunnel beneath a trapdoor, and forcing them to stand naked in a
circle of adults. Ellis was also accused of
defecating and urinating on the children, sticking sharp objects into them,
and hanging them in a cage from the crèche ceiling. Subsequently, a maelstrom of
counter-claims surfaced, including networking among parents; that the
detective in charge of the inquiry had sexual relations with two of the
mothers; that parents were told what behavioural
characteristics were associated with abuse allegations before the police
interviews. Yesterday's report, which
carefully examines two or three of the overseas abuse cases, and specifically
tackles the bizarre claims, remains unimpressed. Sir Thomas's report and findings
do place store, however, on the two expert witnesses it canvassed: The two experts make thorough and
detailed appraisals of the evidence before them, both concluding that, given
the state of sexual abuse knowledge at the time, a "safe" or valid
investigation was carried out. Professor Davies: "There is a
degree of detail in some of these accusations which is not in itself proof of
the charges, but does mean, in my view, that such accusations deserve to be
taken seriously." Dr Sas:
"There is no doubt that there was some contamination of the case by the
over-involvement of parents . . . in respect of the convictions that were
based on the evidence of the six child complainants that I was asked to
comment on, I did not feel that their evidence was seriously affected and
unreliable as a result." Of the bizarre allegations,
Professor Davies says: "All but one of the accounts contain material
which could be regarded as bizarre or fanciful . . . however, some research
on young children in abuse cases suggests that such bizarre material can crop
up in their evidence alongside telling and accurate testimony." Sir Thomas concludes: "The
case advanced on behalf of Mr Ellis fails to meet the test identified
earlier, to satisfy the inquiry that the convictions were unsafe, or that a
particular conviction was unsafe. It fails by a distinct margin; I have not
found this anything like a borderline judgment." And so the matter would rest,
except for a persistent concern by Ellis supporters, mainly centred on Sir Thomas's own description of his review. "This inquiry is not a
general review of the Ellis case," he says. "I was to assess
whether the investigations . . . and interviews of the children were
conducted in accordance with best practice." He was to report "whether
there were any matters which gave rise to doubts about the assessment of the
children's evidence to an extent which would render the convictions
unsafe". Supporters said yesterday that
this narrowed approach, determined by Mr Goff, doomed their petition to
failure. They referred to a comment by Professor Davies that a "wider
investigation" was necessary, notably to test the privacy or lack
thereof of the crèche toilet area where the offences were supposed to have
happened. "These are issues which are
beyond my remit," he says. "But which the wider inquiry will wish
to consider." Ellis: "I know it is
convenient for others for my case to be closed, but I am an innocent man . .
. I will not walk away to make it easier for other people." |
