|
The Press
March 17, 2001
Legal reckoning
by Elinore Wellwood
A
Ministerial Inquiry has written what many hope will be the final chapter in
convicted pedophile Peter Ellis's bid to clear his name. Elinore Wellwood
outlines the decade-long controversy, and why Ellis has not been pardoned.
How did this start?
Ten years ago, in November 1991, a three-year-old boy told his father he
hated "Peter's black penis". A social worker spoke to a meeting of
concerned parents at the Christchurch Civic Creche, where Peter Ellis worked,
outlining the symptoms of child abuse. Some children were interviewed but the
case was closed after no allegations emerged.
In January 1992 the first allegation in an interview was made. As 118
children were interviewed more bizarre allegations emerged, including group
sex involving workers at the creche, children being hung in cages and put in
ovens, having sticks or needles inserted into their bottoms, being put in
coffins, being made to strip and dance naked, taking part in ritual killings
and mock marriages, and having their genitals cut off.
Four female co-workers were also arrested and faced indecency charges, but
were later discharged and awarded compensation. In June 1993 Ellis was
convicted on 16 charges relating to seven children and jailed for 10 years.
Three of the convictions were quashed on appeal when one of the children
retracted.
Peter Ellis was released from prison in February 2000.
Why was the Ministerial Inquiry set
up?
Peter Ellis, who has always maintained his innocence, rejected parole and
repeatedly petitioned the Government for an inquiry. His first inquiry
request was turned down by the Government in June 1995. The Governor-General
declined his bids for a pardon in December 1997 and November 1998, and the
Court of Appeal in 1994 and 1999.
The 1999 Appeal Court
hearing, however, recommended a commission of inquiry into matters relating
to the reliability of the children's testimony and evidence. In March last
year, Justice Minister Phil Goff announced an inquiry, asking Sir Thomas
Eichelbaum to see whether the current best practice for investigating mass
allegations in sex abuse cases had been followed.
Who helped Sir Thomas?
Two independent experts in different countries were chosen to examine the
videotaped evidence of the children whose testimony led to convictions. They
were Professor Graham Davies, professor of psychology at Leicester University
in England,
and psychologist Louise Sas, who spent 23 years at the London Family Court
clinic assessing testimony.
What were some of their
conclusions?
Both experts concluded that contamination of evidence by parents or bad
interviewing techniques were insufficient explanations for the broadly
similar allegations, particularly of events at the creche. Professor Davies:
"The interviews were conducted before the introduction of national
standards for interviewing. However, judged by today's standards, the quality
of interviewing stands up surprisingly well ..."
Professor Davies said the one major weakness of the investigation was the
sheer number of interviews that some children underwent over an extended
period of time."Mistakes were made, but these were insufficient, in my
view, to explain the allegations made by the children, particularly regarding
events at the creche." Later, he wrote: "All but one of the
accounts contain material which could be regarded as bizarre or fanciful ...
If it is accepted that at least some aspects 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 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. "
Dr Sas said: "There is no doubt there was some contamination of the case
by the over-involvement of parents in the investigation and the sharing of
information between the complainant parents ...
"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."
What conclusion did retired chief justice Sir Thomas Eichelbaum reach?
"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 said that during the proceedings, doubtful allegations and charges were
weeded out. Contrary to a common misconception, the jury was fully aware of
the bizarre allegations made by some of the children, particularly in later
interviews. Where the number of interviews was excessive, allegations arising
out of the later interviews did not generally form the subject of charges,
Sir Thomas said.
What were the parents' submissions
to the inquiry?
The submission stressed the parents' desire for continued confidentiality,
and that Ellis' criticisms about interviews, including delays, parental
contamination, and focused questions, were all known in 1992. The realities
of a mass allegation must be recognised, namely that families must be free to
speak to their children, and to seek information and support from friends and
agencies.
What were the submissions on Ellis'
behalf?
The submission said Christchurch
was a smouldering volcano awaiting sufficient pressure to trigger an
explosion on account of publicity regarding sexual abuse and satanic sexual
abuse. The submission said there was a complete failure by police to prevent
parents interviewing their children, that parents were told what behavioural
characteristics were associated with child abuse allegations before parents
were interviewed by police, and that parents were told what the children had
disclosed. Some of the mothers played a vital role in distributing
information. Some children were interviewed up to six times, and children
were allowed to bring materials, such as home-made pictures and booklets,
which parents had helped to create by repeated suggestive questioning. .
What were the submissions of the
Solicitor General, police, and CYFS?
The Crown submission said questioning by parents is natural and cannot be
prevented, that testimony was tested for contamination, and that even though
some parents had information, that did not mean it was passed on to children.
The jury had all the relevant information about mass hysteria and mass
allegation risks and made their assessment. Repeated interviews were done
because children came up with fresh disclosures, and not because of pressure
from authorities.
What else did Sir Thomas look at?
He looked at the Cleveland Inquiry, which arose after a dramatic increase in
the reported cases of sexual abuse in the County of Cleveland, UK, at one
particular hospital, and the Orkney Inquiry, where children made allegations
of ritual abuse involving a minister and the parents and children of other
families. He also looked at the San Diego Grand Jury Report, which looked at
the way child molestation prosecutions were dealt with.
Is this the end of the story?
Probably not. In terms of legal redress Peter Ellis may still seek leave to
take his case to the Privy Council or the Court of Human Rights in New York.
He and his supporters also place great hope in Dunedin author Lynley Hood's book on the
case. This will examine the Civic case in an international context, comparing
it with similar abuse "outbreaks" in Britain,
America, and Australia.
|
