|
|
The |
|
A ministerial inquiry finds no
grounds to set aside Peter Ellis' child abuse convictions and pardon him. Audreay Young reports. Peter Ellis has lost what is essentially
a de facto third appeal against convictions for mass child abuse. His 1993 convictions for child
abuse at the Christchurch Civic Crèche are thoroughly safe, according to
former chief justice Sir Thomas Eichelbaum, who released the results of his
inquiry into the case yesterday. What did Sir Thomas decide? Sir Thomas said: "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." He is not saying Ellis is guilty
or not guilty. He is saying that the reliability of the evidence on which the
convictions were based was not undermined by so-called contamination by other
people. Why was the inquiry set up? Justice Minister Phil Goff
announced a ministerial inquiry on February 2 last year, the day Ellis was
released from his 10-year prison sentence. It was, in a way, suggested in the
judgment from a second Court of Appeal hearing into the Ellis case. The judges dismissed his appeal,
not finding enough new evidence on the contamination of children's testimony
to set aside the verdict. But the court said its jurisdiction was limited and
that matters relating to the reliability of evidence might be better
addressed by a commission of inquiry. Mr Goff opted for a one-man
inquiry over a commission, arguing that he did not want the whole case relitigated before a commission. He asked Sir Thomas to identify
current best practice for investigating mass allegations in sexual abuse
cases and to determine whether they had been followed. Two international experts were
invited to examine the videotaped evidence of the seven children on which the
convictions were based. Who were the experts Sir Thomas engaged? He declined to take the
recommended experts offered by either Ellis or the crèche parents. He used
Professor Graham Davies, professor of psychology at They independently examined the
evidence and reached the same conclusion. What is the background to the case? Peter Ellis was sentenced to 10
years' imprisonment in 1993 after being convicted on 16 charges of sexually
abusing seven children at the Christchurch Civic Crèche. There had been 11 complainants by
the time the case got to trial. Three of the convictions were later quashed
on appeal when a complainant retracted her allegations. Four women co-workers of Ellis
were arrested during the investigation and faced indecency charges. But they
were discharged before the Ellis case went to trial. The first allegation was made in
November 1991 by a 3-year-old boy who told his father he "hated Peter's
black penis." His evidence was never presented
at trial, but more bizarre allegations emerged, including claims that the
children were made to strip and dance naked and were hung in cages. Other allegations made by the
children included having their private parts cut off, having sticks inserted
into their bottoms, needles inserted into them, being placed in coffins,
taking part in ritual killings and taking part in mock marriages. After the first allegation, a
psychologist from Social Welfare's specialist services unit spoke to a
meeting of parents about symptoms of child abuse. Some children were
interviewed by the unit, but in the initial interviews no allegations were
made of sexual abuse and the police closed the inquiry. The first allegation in an
interview was made in January 1992, and at least 118 children were
interviewed by the end of 1992. What was Ellis' submission to the inquiry? Submissions on his behalf included
criticism of the interviewing of children. That included such things as the
large number of interviews - spread over five months during which the
allegations grew in bizarreness - suggestive questioning, absence of probing,
use of dolls, drawings and other props, and failure to pick up
inconsistencies. It contends that the average time
between last contact with the children and their interview was 18 months,
which would weaken memories and make children more likely to incorporate
adult suggestions. It contended that some mothers
played a vital role in the distribution of information to other parents and
that interviewers from the specialist services unit knew the parents were
discussing abuse allegations with their children but failed to discourage
them. What did the Crown and the parents tell the
inquiry? The Crown contended that risk of
contamination did not equate to actual contamination, and the fact that
parents had information did not mean it was passed on to the children. It said the jury made its
assessment with all the relevant information about "mass hysteria"
and the risk of mass allegations, and there was nothing new in the Ellis
case. The parents contended that they
had to be free to speak to their children and to seek information and support
from friends and agencies. What did the Commissioner for Children say? Roger McClay made submissions to
the inquiry in which he said Ellis and his supporters had captured the media
platform and waged an effective campaign to sway public opinion. The inquiry,
10 years after events, was unjust to the children concerned. His submission said no conclusive
research into mass allegations had been found. If a child made an allegation of
abuse, caring parents would want to talk to the child about it and offer
support. The criminal justice system should not discourage such protective
behaviour. What were some of the conclusions? Louise Sas,
the child psychologist from "Having said that, 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
contamination. "The effect in my view was
that there likely would have been more convictions if the issue of
contamination by parents had not been raised so frequently." Professor Davies, the "If it is accepted that at
least some elements of a child's accusations are unbelievable, where does
this leave the more credible elements? In terms of law such bizarre material
is bound to decrease the credibility of a witness in the eyes of a jury. "However, some pilot research
on young children in abuse cases suggests that such bizarre material can crop
up in their evidence alongside telling and accurate testimony. "The presence of bizarre
elements is not in itself proof that the whole of the child's testimony is
tainted." Sir Thomas Eichelbaum: "The
formal interviewing was of a high standard for its time. Even by present-day
standards, it was of good overall quality. "The interviews did not meet
best practice in every respect, and if that degree of perfection were the
test, few if any interview of this kind would pass. Aspects of the systems
set in place for the investigation could have been improved. "However, that made no
significant difference to the outcome. "Questioning and
investigations by some parents exceeded what was desirable and had the
potential for contaminating children's accounts." |
