|
The Dominion
January 19, 2002
Job threat stopped expert's Ellis evidence
by David McLoughlin
A senior Christchurch psychologist says he was
"frightened" out of giving expert evidence at the 1993 Peter Ellis
trial by a Justice Department official who suggested he would miss out on further
state-funded referrals if he did.
The psychologist, who asked not to be named because
he still feared for his livelihood, said he agreed in 1992 to give expert
evidence on behalf of Ellis, who was charged with abusing children at the
Christchurch Civic Creche.
But before he could, an official in the then
Justice Department, who had responsibility for deciding which psychologists
got state-funded work, phoned him. She told him he would contaminate his
professional reputation by being seen as allied with Ellis, who she said was
as guilty as hell.
After the conversation, he pulled out of the case,
something he said he was now thoroughly ashamed of.
Ellis, who has always maintained his innocence, was
convicted of 16 counts of abuse and sentenced to 10 years' jail in 1993. He
was freed on automatic parole in February 2000.
Dunedin author Lynley Hood's recent book on the case, A City
Possessed, has a section based on an interview with the psychologist, whom
she calls "M".
When contacted by The Dominion, he was happy to
speak but asked not to be named because much of his work was now state-funded
referrals and people involved in the civic prosecution were still in control
of allocating it.
"I rub shoulders every day with people who
contributed to one of the most amazing stuff-ups in New Zealand's history and if I
spoke out with my name becoming public, my career would be finished. It is
too dangerous to be a whistle-blower."
He said there was a wall of silence among
professionals about the case. Many psychologists and others believed there
was a miscarriage of justice, but they refused to discuss it even among
themselves, possibly out of shame.
The psychologist said he would have approached the
case with an open mind, not as a hired gun supporting Ellis. But as the
evidence unfolded, he became increasingly convinced that the case against
Ellis was a farce. It was most unlikely that Ellis could have committed the
claimed despicable acts on so many small children without any of them
complaining or appearing upset.
|
