|
|
The
Christchurch Civic Creche Case |
|
|
|
|
Peter Ellis Peter Ellis and I go
way back. Ellis, you might remember, is the fiend who perpetrated horrific abuse
against little children at the Christchurch civic creche - according to the
courts anyway. I first saw Ellis in
person during a preliminary hearing in 1992, part of which I covered for The
Press, and then I saw lots of him in the following year when I reported his
High Court trial, after which a jury convicted him on 16 charges of often
shocking abuse. In the time the creche
case has hung over Christchurch I have only interviewed Ellis once
face-to-face. That was a few days before the jury verdict He appeared strangely
calm and philosophical as we sat talking in his dark flat. He told me he had
always been best with children and animals. People sometimes ask me
to vouch for Ellis's character when they hear that I have no faith in any of
the convictions. I have to say I hardly know him. The question arose
again this month when a parliamentary sub-committee rejected a bid for a royal
commission of inquiry into his case. Before his trial in
1993 he struck me as a pretty loose unit Even before the allegations arose at
the creche, in November 1991, various excesses, including alcohol and sex,
seemed to be getting the better of him. The allegations certainly stopped the
slippery slide and prison probably did Ellis some good too. At the creche he would deliberately
shock his fellow workers with salacious stories and remarks but could also be
thoughtful and kind. Throughout his High
Court trial he conducted himself with dignity, despite holding his glasses
together with a plaster, and gave his lawyer instructions to go easy on the children Ellis's trial was a
life and death affair. My first child was born
somewhere towards the end of the trial and Ellis's lawyer's mother died about
the same time. The jury asked the
trial judge if it was appropriate for them to send flowers to the lawyer, Rob
Harrison. It wasn't. Ellis sent me a note
when I was called away one day, asking me if everything was OK with the baby.
It was. When Ellis was jailed
for 10 years after his conviction, I thought he was probably in for a few
hidings from the other inmates. But as far as I know, the inmates left Ellis
alone and this probably goes back to his prison escort who sat through the
trial. A big, good-natured and
wheezy man, he was entirely unconvinced by the evidence against Ellis. After the jury's
verdict, he took Ellis down to the cells and on the way asked him if he had
done anything to the children. Ellis continued to insist on his innocence, I
heard afterwards. In my time in court I
saw many upright men convicted of terrible sexual abuse against children, so
I am not going to say Ellis, given his character, couldn't have done what he
was accused of between 1986 and 1991. It would have been very
difficult though. The layout of the creche, the constant comings and goings
by parents and the supervision by other staff were not conducive to
persistent abuse of children by one evil perpetrator over many years. But perhaps
not impossible for a cunning and motivated offender. In the end, any
argument about the creche has to go back to the children and what they told social
welfare interviewers collecting evidence for the prosecution. The judgment about the
truth and reliability of the children's accounts was exclusively the job of
the jury. It's a shame they made such a mess of it. I've often wondered how
many doubts a jury would have needed to find Ellis not guilty. Clearly the
time that had elapsed between the alleged events and the evidential
interviews, the parental questioning causing possible contamination, the
multiple interviews of each complainant child, the often bizarre and
fantastic accounts, the inconsistencies and contradictions in the children's
reports, and dubious interviewing techniques were not enough. Of all the interviews
conducted with the children, I gave only one girl any credibility. She was
the complainant who later retracted just before Ellis's appeal was heard in
the Court of Appeal. If Ellis had been
charged with a less emotive offence — like giving the children lollies, for
instance - I don't think the case would have got very far. Sexual abuse,
however, seems to have its own rules. So we have had another
12 years of grinding doubt about the validity of the convictions. I am not a campaigner
by nature and never cease to be amazed at how long the fight for some sort of
extensive inquiry into the case has continued. My stamina for the case was
exhausted a long time ago. Ellis is fortunate to
have people like the formidable Lynley Hood, who wrote a meticulous book on
the case, called A City Possessed, on his side. In a way, Hood's book
was the commission of inquiry so long sought. Unfortunately, it was weakened
by a tone of such outrage that you had to wonder if Hood was being fair. But the creche case
will always excite strong views and it is extremely difficult to remain
objective and impartial. That doesn't help Peter Ellis. I wish I could tell you
what sort of man he is. I just know he is somebody dealt a grave disservice
by a justice system which will, sooner or later, for its own integrity, have
to correct itself. |
