"THE PRESS"
Christchurch, New Zealand
Saturday, 03 November 2001.
ESCAPE Section
Saturday & Sunday, November 3-4,
2001.
Page 20.
BOOKS
A CITY POSSESSED
by Lynley Hood.
Longacre, 672pp, $59.95.
Reviewed by Cynthia Hawes.
EXPOSING THE FLAWS
In November 1991, while sitting in
his bath, a three-year-old Christchurch boy made the now famous remark to his
mother: "I don't like Peter's black penis." That statement was the
beginning of the downfall of Peter Hugh McGregor Ellis, who was sentenced in
1993 to 10 years in prison for a number of sexual offences against children who
had attended the Christchurch Civic Creche, where he had worked for more than
five years.
A decade later, the public controversy
excited at the time by the case of Peter Ellis has not abated, and disquiet
over the correctness of his conviction persists.
Lynley Hood's entry into the fray
with her well written and closely researched book is a brave stand for the
application of objectivity and rationality, qualities which she considers to
have been seriously lacking during the investigation and trial of Peter Ellis.
She approaches her analysis from two points of view, the first being the broad
social and historical background to the case, and the second being the close
scrutiny of the course of events and procedures relating to the case itself.
The social and political atmosphere
at the time made it inevitable, the author argues, that sooner or later someone
would suffer the fate of Peter Ellis. A moral panic concerning sexual abuse of
children, possibly with associated satanic rituals, had been well established
in New Zealand during the two decades preceding the Peter Ellis case. A number
of factors contributed to the widely held belief that such practices were
widespread.
Significant among these was the
extreme "all men are rapists" fringe of the feminist movement, which
saw women and children as victims of the patriarchy and in consequence
demonised men. The rise of the sexual abuse industry was a strong contributing
factor. A wave of counsellors, social workers, and therapists with varying
degrees of expertise promulgated specious statistics about sexual abuse.
Although there were no recorded cases of satanic or ritual abuse, they
encouraged the view, until it became axiomatic, that such practices existed
throughout all sectors of society.
Fuel was added by literature and
seminars provided by "experts", both from within New Zealand and
overseas. As a result, parents and other agencies developed disproportionate
and unrealistic concerns about child sexual abuse. The liberal provision of
lump-sum payments by ACC to alleged sexual abuse victims also played a part.
All these ingredients found their
way into the crucible that was Christchurch in 1991, and, inevitably and
inexorably, the potent brew produced a result. Many of the parents were themselves
involved in the sexual abuse industry and had discussed sexual abuse with their
children and provided them with books on the subject. In this context, the
likelihood of a complaint was, as the author describes it, "poised, like
the hands on the Doomsday Clock, at a few minutes before midnight".
The Crown case was based upon
information, or "disclosures", made by creche children. No child ever
complained of sexual molestation of any kind by Peter Ellis while at the creche
and no signs of injuries were observed by parents. It was only after the
"black penis" comment had been made, and alarmed parents had
discussed the matter among themselves and with their children, that formal
interviews were undertaken.
Many of the children were subjected
to repeated interviews despite their initially denying any wrongdoing by Peter
Ellis. The description of interviewing techniques includes examples of the
persistent and leading questioning which was employed. Disclosures took place
amid widespread speculation and rumour which had established in the minds of
the children that Peter Ellis was a bad man.
Four of his women colleagues were
also charged as a result of this questioning process. By the time a preliminary
hearing had determined that there was insufficient evidence to try them, they
had suffered profoundly.
The author examines in detail the
depositions and trial of Peter Ellis, including the judge's pre-trial rulings
and the presentation of the evidence, both of which she considers unfairly
prejudiced Peter Ellis. The videotaped interviews of the children had contained
allegations which were inherently incredible or demonstrably false, involving
such lurid features as fire, ovens, cages, axes, and killings. The charges laid
excluded this improbable material and the jury saw little of it. Had these
fantastic allegations been presented as a whole, the jury would have received a
broader picture of the contaminated circumstances of the disclosures, and the
evidence which was in fact presented would have been weakened.
It was not asserted at the trial
that the children were liars, and Lynley Hood makes no such suggestion. Rather,
her thesis is that the children, all of whom had been pre-schoolers while at
the creche, had been interrogated months or years later by questioners intent
on finding evil-doing by Peter Ellis; and they were thereby drawn into the area
where fact and fiction became indistinguishable in their minds.
Lynley Hood looks behind the mantra
of "believe the child" and accepts that the children may well have
attempted to be truthful. However, the background of panic and the
indoctrination of the children were such that it was inevitable that they would
ultimately say what the questioner wanted to hear.
Lynley Hood's book is detailed,
scholarly, and well researched. For those readers who have harboured doubts
about the Ellis case, the book will provide further cogent support for their
opinions; for others it may well induce revision of previously held views.
The book will perhaps provide impetus
for the undertaking of political action to right the apparent wrong done to
Peter Ellis. In matters involving human judgment, perfection is unattainable
and mistakes are inevitable.
However, it is an embarrassment for
the legal profession that it has taken the efforts of a person who is not one
of them to examine and expose the flaws of the Peter Ellis case in such a book.
Lynley Hood is to be congratulated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Cynthia Hawes is a senior lecturer
in law at the University of Canterbury.