|
|
The Christchurch Civic
Creche Case |
|
|
|
|
PUBLICATION
OF NAMES OF COMPLAINANTS
THE QUEEN v.PETER HUGH MCGREGOR ELLIS Coram: Cooke P Hearing: 14 February 1994, 25 to 28 July and 5 August 1994 Counsel: For Crown - B M
Stanaway and C J Lange Judgment: 8 September 1994 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY CASEY J ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 26 April 1993 Peter Hugh
McGregor Ellis faced a jury trial in the High Court on 28 counts alleging
indecency with young children who attended a crèche at which he was employed
between September 1986 and November 1991. The trial lasted six weeks. In
respect of three of the counts he was discharged under s347 of the Crimes Act
during its course. The jury acquitted him on 9 and found him guilty on 16,
and on 22 June 1993 he was sentenced to a total of 10 years' imprisonment.
His appeal against conviction and sentence commenced in this Court on 14
February last, but was adjourned shortly afterwards because of the illness of
his then senior counsel. It was resumed on 25 July 1994 with present counsel
advancing revised grounds of appeal, but there was a further adjournment
during the course of argument on 29 July to enable enquiry following advice
that one of the child complainants had retracted her allegations against the
appellant After receipt of reports to the Court from an agreed independent
barrister, the hearing was concluded on 5 August. To preserve confidentiality the
complainants are referred to in this judgment by a letter of the alphabet
bearing no relation to their names, in accordance with a list annexed to the
original judgment, which is not to be circulated. Background The Christchurch Civic Childcare
Centre, the subject of these allegations, was established in the Arts Centre
at Montreal Street some time before September 1986 when the appellant
commenced employment there as a reliever. He was given a permanent position
in February 1987 and commenced a 3-year course towards a "Childcare
Certificate" which he completed and passed in 1990. In January 1989 the
crèche moved from the Arts Centre to the former Christchurch Girls High
School building in Armagh Street There were an estimated 70-75 families using
it weekly over the years from 1989 with a daily average of about 40 children,
of whom 12 would be in the nursery part of the building with ages ranging
from about 12 months through to 2 1/2 years, and 28 in the larger pre-school
room. The staff numbers were aimed to maintain a ratio of 1:4 for the nursery
and 1:8 for the others and included a supervisor and an assistant. With the
exception of the appellant, all of them were female. He is now 36 (born on 30 March
1958) and is single with no dependents. The descriptions of him given by
fellow workers and parents in their evidence would seem to support the
following assessment in his pre-sentence report: "The overall picture gained of Peter Ellis is that of
an outgoing, uninhibited, unconventional person given to putting plenty of
enthusiasm and energy into his work and social activities, sometimes to the
point of being risque" and outrageous." He was also described as a
colourful and ebullient student by his tutor who saw him frequently at the
crèche where he was noisy and very visible; she said he was regarded as the
"darling" of the Centre by parents and colleagues alike. He
certainly engaged in boisterous games with the children and played tricks on
them, not all of which were appreciated, according to their interview
statements. The supervisor and other workers gave evidence that they saw
nothing in his behaviour suggesting sexual abuse of the children. In November 1991 a mother reported
something her son bad said about the appellant, following which he was
suspended: a complaint was made to the police and the Specialist Services
Unit of the Department of Social Welfare commenced interviewing crèche
children. The management committee called a meeting of parents at the crèche
on 2 December 1991 which was attended by police and Social Welfare
representatives. There had been some media publicity and the object of the
meeting was to advise parents that there were concerns, but no specific
allegations. They were asked to look for any noticeable changes in their
children's behaviour and any events which might explain them. Ms Sidey, a psychologist with the
Specialist Services Unit, talked to them about the interviewing process and
what was involved with it and said that if parents did have concerns about
their children they could be discussed with her and a decision made on
whether to interview them. Ms Sidey then began a video-recorded interview
process and by 30 January 1992 (when the first allegation of sexual abuse was
disclosed) she had seen about six children. Interviews continued with those
children whose parents had concerns and Ms Sidey had the assistance of two
other specialists. They were conducted in accordance with the Evidence
(Videotaping of Child Complainants) Regulations 1990. Generally before an
interview commenced there would be a short discussion between the interviewer
and the parents covering any disclosure the child had made and their
responses to it, and any behaviour they had noted, with possible explanations
for it, and the child's background and friends and contacts with other
crèche children. Appellant's counsel
criticised this preliminary discussion, but we can see nothing wrong in a
trained interviewer briefing herself in this way beforehand. Indeed, it is
difficult to see how the interview could be competently done without it. These interviews were conducted
under the overall supervision of Dr Karen Zelas, a specialist child
psychiatrist with international experience in the field of child abuse. It
was a massive exercise and overall there were interviews of 118 children,
most of them disclosing no abuse and serving to reassure parents. In some
cases there was mention of abuse but the parents did not wish to put the
child through the Court process. The interviews continued throughout 1992
with most of the present complainants being interviewed a number of times. The appellant was arrested on 30
March 1992. He had been interviewed by Detective Eade of the Christchurch
Child Abuse Unit and consistently denied any misconduct. On 31 March there
was a meeting of crèche parents at
Knox Hall, Christchurch, addressed by Ms Sidey, Dr Zelas and police
representatives. It appears they spoke again in general terms about what had
been happening and warned parents about questioning the children or other
conduct which might interfere with the interview disclosure process. There
had been a support group of parents set up in respect of the mother who had
made the first complaint, with circulation of a document she prepared setting
out complaints about the appellant made by various children. It assumed some
importance at the trial as a possible source of contamination of the children's
evidence. On 2 November 1992 the deposition
hearing commenced, concluding on 4 February 1993, when the appellant and five
other crèche workers were committed
for trial on a total of 42 charges involving 20 children. The Crown elected
to bring only the 28 charges relating to 13 children on which the appellant
stood trial, and before it started the other crèche workers were discharged
under s347 for various reasons. |
