|
Otago Daily Times
April 15, 2004
Reflections on creche case welcome, but analysis flawed
by Lynley Hood
Dunedin author Lynley Hood responds to
Justice and Electoral Select Committee member, Murray Smith, on the petition
the committee is considering in the Peter Ellis case.
United Future MP Murray Smith's reflections on the Christchurch Civic Creche
case (ODT 8.4.2004), and his
comments on the need for law reform in relation to children's evidence, are a
welcome contribution to the debate surrounding this contentious issue.
With regard to A City Possessed ,
Mr Smith has done what I want people to do with the book: he has read it, and
thought about it, and reached his own conclusions. His critique is a fine
starting point for debate. It is therefore disappointing that his arguments
are so easy to demolish. The flaws in Mr Smith's analysis of my book could
not be more fundamental.
He attributes to me motives I did not have, arguments I did not make, and
conclusions I did not reach. Then, by extension (and with even less
evidence), he attributes the same motives, arguments and conclusions to the
thousands of New Zealanders who have petitioned parliament for a commission
of inquiry into the Christchurch Civic Creche case.
Contrary to Mr Smith's claims, in A
City Possessed I neither set out to prove, nor concluded, that Peter
Ellis was innocent "beyond reasonable doubt". Nor did I use the
points he cites (about the layout and functioning of the creche, the lack of
complaints from children during Mr Ellis's six years at the creche, and my
personal impressions of Mr Ellis and his attitude to parole) to argue Mr
Ellis's innocence.
Had Mr Smith read A City Possessed
with a view to trying to understand what I have actually said, rather than
with a view to seeking evidence for a theory of his own devising, he would
have found my motives and conclusions clearly stated in Chapter 1: "I
pursued every lead and tested every hypothesis in the course of my research.
Then I set out to write a book that steered a steady course through the
shoals and tempests of the controversy, illuminating the context along the
way and providing a balanced picture of the apparently conflicting, but
presumably equally valid points of view. . . When I began this project, the
key question underpinning my research was this: to what extent were the staff
of the Christchurch Civic Child Care Centre involved in child sexual
abuse?"
Inevitably, after seven years of intensive research, I formed my own view of
the case, and I thought it would be intellectually dishonest not to say so
from the outset. So, in Chapter 1, I advised readers that in all my research,
"I found no evidence of illegality by anyone accused in the case.
Instead, I found convincing evidence that more than 100 Christchurch children
had been subject to unpleasant and psychologically hazardous procedures for
no good reason, and that a group of capable and caring adults had had their
lives ruined as a result . . . By the time I came to write this book the key
question I faced was this: how on earth did the complainant families, the
child protection services, the police, the justice system and the government
get it so wrong?"
Over the following pages I examined the history and dynamics of moral panics
(which may or may not be factually based), I told the story of the creche
case without fear or favour, and I provided a warts-and-all picture of
everyone involved.
Following the publication of A City
Possessed , I was often asked whether I believed Mr Ellis was innocent.
My answer by then was: "Yes. But I am not demanding that anyone agree
with me. All I am doing is inviting people to read the book and make up their
own minds." It does not seem to have occurred to Mr Smith that, had I
wanted to write a book making the case for Mr Ellis' innocence, I would not
have spent seven years researching and writing a 672-page work of scholarship
covering 400 years of social and legal history.
Instead, I would have cobbled together a partisan potboiler of less than 200
pages, and I would have rushed into print in time for Mr Ellis' appeal. In
such a book I would have highlighted the positive aspects of Mr Ellis'
character and behaviour that Mr Smith has minimised or ignored, and I would
have ignored the negative aspects that Mr Smith has seized on so
enthusiastically.
Mr Smith's comments on the motives of the petitioners are even more
problematic. The petition, which Mr Smith dismisses as "merely"
calling for a royal commission of inquiry into the creche case, was signed by
28 MPs (from every party in the House), two former prime ministers, four
former cabinet ministers, 12 law professors, 10 QCs, a retired High Court
judge, four psychology professors, several psychiatrists, scores of doctors,
lawyers and teachers, academics from every discipline, child protection
workers, mental health workers of every sort, and hundreds of New Zealanders
from every walk of life.
In the history of New
Zealand criminal justice, no petition to
parliament has been signed by so many distinguished, legal, political,
professional and scholarly authorities.
Some petitioners undoubtedly believe Mr Ellis is innocent beyond reasonable
doubt; others are noncommittal. Respected Canterbury law professor and petition
signatory John Burrows told the media: "I don't have a view about the
innocence or otherwise of Ellis, but I think Lynley Hood's book raises real
questions."
As Mr Smith well knows, the petitioners have not asked the select committee
to inquire into the guilt or innocence of Mr Ellis. The petitioners'
submissions, both written and oral, focus on long-standing and well-founded
professional and public concerns about the investigative and legal processes
involved in the creche case. The primary focus of petitioners' submissions is
on the need for a robust, independent and long-overdue inquiry into two key
issues of widespread disquiet: the manner in which sexual abuse allegations
are investigated and prosecuted; and the processes by which miscarriages of
justice are recognised and corrected.
The disquiet about these issues extends far beyond the Christchurch Civic
Creche case, but a royal commission of inquiry into the case would provide a
powerful lens through which these crucial matters (including the legislative
issue raised by Mr Smith) could be properly examined.
~~~~~~~~~~
Dr Hood is the author of A City
Possessed: The Christchurch
Civic Creche Case ; Sylvia! , a
biography of Sylvia Ashton-Warner; Who is Sylvia? The Diary of a Biography
; and Minnie Dean: Her Life and Crimes
.
|
