The Christchurch Civic Crèche Case |
|
|
|
A City Possessed: 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. |