|
The Evening Post
March 14, 2001
Door closes on Ellis
by Tracy Watkins
He may be out of prison, but freedom still eludes
convicted paedophile Peter Ellis. By Tracy Watkins.
When convicted paedophile Peter Ellis walked out of prison a year ago, it was
supposedly as a free man.
But Ellis and supporters maintain his sentence for sexually abusing children
at Christchurch
civic creche won't be over until his name has been cleared.
This week the final door appeared to shut on those hopes.
It was announced on Monday that Governor-General Sir Michael Hardie Boys had
declined Ellis' appeal for a pardon.
After an inquiry by former Chief Justice, Sir Thomas Eichelbaum, Justice Minister
Phil Goff said he had advised the Governor-General against a pardon.
"Sir Thomas spent over 400 hours studying the tapes, trial transcripts,
Court of Appeal decisions and other material relevant to Mr Ellis'
conviction," Mr Goff said.
Sir Thomas was also advised by two international experts on child abuse and
child testimony. Both experts considered the evidence of the children
involved was reliable.
The conclusion of the former Chief Justice had been "clear cut",
according to Mr Goff.
In his report, Sir Thomas said: "The case advanced on behalf of Mr Ellis
fails 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."
Ellis now appears to have run out of avenues for proving the innocence he
claimed throughout his trial and from prison.
But while the report is a blow for Ellis and his supporters, it is a victory
for those who are adamant he was guilty.
Ellis was convicted in 1993 of abusing seven children in his care at the
creche between 1986 and 1991.
He was freed last February after serving two-thirds of a 10-year sentence,
having previously refused early parole because that would have required him
to acknowledge guilt.
Police launched their investigation into allegations of sexual abuse at the
creche in 1991. After a four-month inquiry, Ellis and four of his female
co-workers were arrested and charged on March 30, 1992. The arrests fell on
Ellis' 33rd birthday.
The police investigation was apparently sparked by a
3<<1/2>>-year-old from the creche telling his father he
"hated Peter's black penis". And while that boy's evidence was
never presented at trial, it prompted other parents to start questioning
their children about whether they had been molested.
At a depositions hearing, it was revealed bizarre accusations had been
levelled at Ellis and his co-workers, including that the children were made
to strip and dance naked and were hung from cages.
Other allegations made by the children to investigators included having their
private parts cut off, needles inserted in them, being placed in coffins,
under trapdoors and in mazes and taking part in mock marriages.
One child alleged 21 different abusers, including men in white suits and
"groups of Asians at the Park Royal".
Ultimately, Ellis' co-workers were cleared of any involvement. But a jury
found there was enough evidence to convict Ellis of the allegations against
him.
The conviction sparked a debate over mass allegations of sexual abuse and of
the techniques involved in questioning very young children about such crimes.
It also signalled the start of a lengthy fight by Ellis and his supporters to
clear his name.
So far, they have failed to do so through a trial, two petitions for a pardon
and a rare second hearing before the Court of Appeal.
Those who have worked closely with the children involved in the trial say the
matter should be laid to rest.
Children's Commissioner Roger McClay said people had forgotten during the
prolonged debate that it was the children who were the victims.
When the Eichelbaum inquiry was announced last March, Mr McClay was adamant
the question of Ellis' guilt had been dealt with.
"It is of grave concern to me that over the past 6<<1/2>>
years since Ellis' conviction for sexually abusing children, public attention
has been focused almost exclusively on the campaign to clear Ellis'
name," he said then.
"In the midst of all this, the evidence of the child victims and their
families has been largely ignored. The media and the public seem ready to
discredit the evidence of those seven children and the many others who have
since spoken out about their abuse at the hands of this man."
But Ellis' supporters disagreed.
At the Court of Appeal hearing in 1999, Ellis' lawyer Judith Ablett Kerr QC
spoke of increasingly bizarre allegations and a growing frenzy among creche
parents about whether their children had been involved in some form of ritual
abuse.
Mrs Ablett Kerr questioned the techniques used to gain evidence, the
retraction of children's evidence, issues of trial procedure, issues to do
with the jury and the non-disclosure of material to the defence.
She argued there had been a failure of the system to recognise where child
evidence should be treated with caution.
She placed the allegations in the context of growing paranoia among some of
the creche parents - some of whom were involved in counselling work or sex
abuse therapy - about ritual abuse.
Almost all of the allegations could be identified in a list of
"signs" of ritual abuse set down in a book by ritual abuse author
Pamela Hudson, she told the Court of Appeal.
"With great respect, even allowing that paedophile rings exist, they
leave evidence behind them.
"There was no tangible evidence to support what these children were
saying . . .
"It may be that I'm being too suspicious, but it's an extraordinary
coincidence that mothers of four out of the six (whose evidence resulted in
the convictions) were engaged in counselling work or sex therapy."
But lawyers for the Crown said the jury that tried Ellis was aware of
research about the dangers associated with gathering evidence from children
in mass abuse allegations.
Simon France from the Crown Law Office said there had been no new evidence
which put the jury's verdict in doubt.
The Court of Appeal agreed there had been no miscarriage of justice. In a
unanimous decision, the court ruled that Ellis' 1993 trial had been
"appropriately and competently conducted by the defence according to the
then knowledge (about interviewing children, and the risk of mass allegation
cases)".
When Ellis was still in prison, his mother, Lesley, said she never believed
anything bad ever happened at the creche while her son worked there.
"It wasn't difficult to figure out it hadn't happened. I told the
police: `If you can show me he did it I will be the first to get him some
help'."
The police told her that her son was in denial, Mrs Ellis said.
"Peter told me: `If they are right and I am in denial, then please get
me help'." The experience cost Ellis' mother her faith in the justice
system and the police.
"You have so much faith in the police that you don't dream it won't come
right. You do as you're told, you don't complain . . . well, not to start
with."
She maintained that clearing her son's name was as important for the creche
children as for Peter Ellis.
"It means the children will be able to believe it didn't happen. Their
happy memories have been besmirched. At the end of the day, they're the ones
that something must be done about. How do you ever, ever convince them it
never happened." - NZPA
--------------------
Captions :
Clear cut: - Peter Ellis and his
lawyer, Judith Ablett Kerr QC. The case advanced on behalf of Peter Ellis
failed "by a distinct margin".
Free - Peter Ellis leaves a press
conference when he was freed from jail last year.
|
