http://acij.uts.edu.au/pr2k/hood.html

PR2K Public Right to Know Conference 2001

26-28 October 2001

AUSTRALIAN CENTRE FOR INDEPENDENT JOURNALISM

UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, SYDNEY

Lynley Hood

New Zealand Author and Researcher

THE DAY I ALMOST WENT TO JAIL & OTHER STORIES

In 1991, one of the most extensive and expensive police investigations in New Zealand history began when the parent of a child attending the Christchurch Civic Creche laid a complaint against the creche’s only male teacher, Peter Ellis. One year later, Ellis and four of his female colleagues faced 60 charges of sexual offending against 20 children. The women were discharged pretrial. In 1993, Ellis was convicted of 16 offences against seven children (sexual violation, indecent assault and performing, or inducing a child to perform, indecent acts). The offences were said to have occurred at unknown times and dates, sometimes at unknown places, over a six year period. There were no eye-witnesses. There was no physical evidence. The verdicts were based on the testimony of seven young children.

When the creche case arose, I was researching issues of moral panics and urban myths. These qualities in the debate surrounding the case drew my interest. Whether the accused were guilty or innocent was another, equally interesting, question. I decided to make the what, how and why of the creche case the subject of my next book.

During the seven years I spent researching and writing the book, the creche case featured in successive legal proceedings, and became the focus of a raging debate over the investigation and prosecution of child sexual abuse allegations nationwide. Though I took no part in the debate, it left me in no doubt that my book would be controversial. That attempts were made to dissuade me from writing the book, and obstacles were thrown in my path, came as no surprise. But I expected the real controversy to erupt when the book was published, and the main challenges to come from people who wanted no questions asked about the outcome of the case. In my darkest imaginings I never expected to become embroiled in disputes with Ellis’s counsel or my own publisher prior to the bookís publication. At the time, and in retrospect, neither dispute made much sense, but both highlighted vital aspects of the public’s right to know.

One dispute concerned Ellisís counsel’s allegation that I possessed a potentially explosive audiotaped interview with a member of the Ellis jury. The existence of the tape was hearsay. The information it allegedly contained could never have amounted to grounds for appeal. Nonetheless, the Court of Appeal ordered me to produce the tape. This dispute raised important questions of journalistic privilege and media independence.

The other dispute concerned my ex-publisher’s proposal to drastically cut and restructure my manuscript. I argued that he had rejected the work, and should therefore terminate the contract. He insisted that the contract gave him carte blanche to alter the manuscript as he saw fit. This dispute raised important questions of contract law, freedom of speech and the author’s moral right to the integrity of the work.

By choice, I avoided piecemeal publicity of these disputes in the mass media. In my view, the relevant issues require careful consideration in a more dispassionate forum.