|
The Dominion
February 5, 2000
Leave the children alone - psychologist
NZPA
A
suggestion by Lesley Ellis, mother of convicted child abuser Peter Ellis,
that the children at the centre of the case be included in an inquiry has
been criticised by an Auckland University psychologist.
John Read, senior lecturer in psychology, said Ellis's continued
protestations of innocence were further trauma for the families and children
involved in the case.
Ellis, 42, was freed this week after serving seven years of a 10-year
sentence imposed for 16 charges of sexually abusing children at the
Christchurch Civic Creche. In 1994 three counts of abuse were quashed at
appeal.
"Most child abusers are never convicted or charged and even after
conviction, the media and government authorities continue to cast doubt on
the truthfulness of those children (in the Ellis case)," Dr Read said.
"It's understandable that people tend not to believe that this sort of
stuff happens . . . but how many child abusers actually confess and say,
`Fair cop, I did it'?"
|
North Shore
Times Advertiser,
February 8 2000,
I don't believe it - do you ? That:
by Mr Pat Booth, Editor-in-Chief
* Japanese tourists used
a secret tunnel from the nearby Park Royal Hotel to go to the Christchurch
creche and abuse tiny children there, (Investigating police searched sewers
and, not surprisingly, failed to find the mysterious entrance.)
* Christ
attended a wedding the children described.
* Japanese tourists (again) this time
dressed as cowboys, sat around playing guitars at a house where children were
forced to dance naked.
Creche staff stood around them in a circle and Peter Ellis' mother took
photographs. (Abuse charges against
other women staff were withdrawn before trial.)
* Children at the creche were hung in
cages from the rafters while a (non-existent) child called Andrew was
sacrificed below them.
* Children
were taken into the roof and the eaves to be abused and then climbed down
rope ladders to the kitchen. (Police
searched the roof area looking for evidence and found none - but one did put
his foot through the ceiling in the process.)
Unbelievable? Well, key child
witnesses who claimed Peter Ellis abused them also described these happenings
as part of the process.
Phil Goff [our Minister of Justice] is right. The serious risk of another major
miscarriage of justice must be cleared up.
An inquiry must examine why jurors did not hear these significant fictions
from key child witnesses.
But the new Minister of Justice will have real problems moving his department
and the whole justice system to take action.
Having withheld vital evidence from the jury, they have consistently failed
to accept the significance of their actions for the whole eight years of the
strange and worrying affair.
The Ellis trial was a terrible example of the adversary system in action.
The whole basis of jury trial is the credibility of witnesses – in this case
a group of children.
The Crown depended on that credibility in their testimony against the man the
children - and their convinced parents - said had abused them.
The jury was misled about that credibility because the Crown and the trial
judge deliberately withheld significant statements the children had also
made.
Bizarre and unbelievable claims like the ones above which prosecutors new
would be rejected by the jury.
Instead, jurors heard and obviously accepted the children's carefully edited
responses to specialist abuse investigators' questions.
But they did not hear the totally fictional an
censored sections which could/would have put the whole testimony in serious
doubt.
One child told interviewers he had been abused - by an uncle. He
was adamant about that.
It took interviewers three more question sessions before he accepted their
version that his abuser was not his uncle but Ellis.
Evidence like this was withheld from the jury either as a tactical decision
by prosecutors or at the direction of the judge.
He consistently stopped the defence introducing tapes of these significant
interviews. He ruled, for instance,
that since the uncle was not charged but Ellis was, the other evidence was
inadmissible.
One girl later said her evidence of abuse by Ellis had been false. Convictions based on it were
quashed. But others were sustained.
One nationally quoted law lecturer [Wendy Ball from Waikato University]
says a royal commission would be a waste of time - "two court of Appeal
hearing have found there was no miscarriage of justice - justice has been
done."
She, like at least one Auckland University commentator [Dr "John
Read"] conveniently forget the lessons of the
Thomas case.
The guilt or innocence of Peter Ellis is one issue. So is the credibility of the justice
system.
Of course the community has the greatest sympathy for the children and
parents, recognising the impact the various ordeals involved have had on
their lives.
They are victims in this sad affair.
But, the key question is whether they are victims of the judicial system
rather than of Peter Ellis. And
whether he is a victim too.
.
|