Open main menu

Peter Hugh McGregor Ellis (30 March 1958 – 4 September 2019) was a New Zealand child care worker who was convicted of child sexual abuse. He was at the centre of one of the country's most enduring judicial controversies, after being found guilty in June 1993 in the High Court of New Zealand on 16 counts of sexual offences involving children in his care at the Christchurch Civic Creche and sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment. His conviction has been criticised, with concerns centred on how the children's testimony was obtained and presented to the jury. He maintained his innocence and many New Zealanders supported his calls to overturn the conviction.

Peter Ellis
Image of Peter Ellis on the cover of North & South magazine in November 2015.jpg
Ellis on the cover of North&South magazine in November 2015
Born
Peter Hugh McGregor Ellis

(1958-03-30)30 March 1958
Christchurch, New Zealand
Died4 September 2019(2019-09-04) (aged 61)
OccupationChild care worker

In 1994, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand quashed convictions on three of the charges but upheld the sentence. Ellis' conviction and sentence were upheld again in the Court of Appeal in October 1999. He refused to attend parole board hearings while in prison because he would have to confess to the crimes in order to argue for early release.[1] He was released in February 2000 after serving seven years in prison.

In March 2000, former Chief Justice Sir Thomas Eichelbaum was appointed to conduct a ministerial inquiry reviewing the children's evidence. His report upheld the guilty verdicts. The same month Governor-General Sir Michael Hardie Boys rejected Ellis' third bid for pardon on the advice of Justice Minister Phil Goff, who was satisfied with Eichelbaum's finding that Ellis had failed to prove his convictions were unsafe. Two books and numerous articles[2] have been written about the case. Ellis continued to campaign to clear his name. In 2019, nineteen years after he was released from prison, he appealed to the Supreme Court to have his conviction overturned, but died of cancer before the appeal could be heard.

The Ellis case was one of several similar high profile child abuse cases around the world in the 1980s and early 1990s. It has been mentioned as a cause in the decline in the number of male teachers in New Zealand schools.[3]

Contents

Personal lifeEdit

Ellis was the eldest of four children. His parents were teachers who separated when he was nine. He left school in 1975 to take up tobacco picking in Motueka. After two years overseas, he returned to New Zealand. He then had a part-time job in a bakery in the 1980s which eventually became full-time. When he left this job and applied for unemployment benefits, authorities discovered he had received dole payments to which he was not entitled. He was prosecuted and convicted in 1986 of "misleading a social welfare officer" and sentenced to 80 hours community service.

Ellis carried out his community service at the Christchurch Civic Creche. His supervisor, Dora Reinfeld, later reported that "Peter ... provided some hilarious puppetry shows – one of which we had to abandon as staff and children 'got out of hand'". Ellis became a relieving worker, and Reinfeld's next monthly report said: "Peter Ellis has fitted in extremely well and puts lots of energy into programme planning. Fantastic team spirit."[4] Ellis's pre-sentencing report said, "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 risqué and outrageous."[5]

Before his imprisonment, Ellis had sexual relationships lasting for periods of two to five years with both men and women. He told Lynley Hood, "In a relationship with a woman I was, for want of a better word, bisexual, and with a man I was monogamous." When working for the Civic Creche, Ellis was described by Hood as "blatantly homosexual".[4]

In July 2019, Ellis was diagnosed with terminal cancer.[6] He died on 4 September 2019 while appealing his conviction at the age of 61.[7]

InvestigationsEdit

 
The creche building in January 2006. The door to the toilet lobby, clearly visible, has not been changed since 1991. It features a large glass window and was kept open during the daily operation of the creche. The premises continued to operate as a day care centre until February 2011.

BackgroundEdit

Ellis loved animals and kept rabbits, cats and dogs as pets.[8] His difficulties began when a mother, who was a social worker and a self-claimed victim of sexual abuse, bought a black puppy from him. Ellis showed her four year old son who attended the Creche how to distinguish the puppy's gender.[9]

A few months later, in November 1991, the mother alleged that her son said he "didn't like Peter's black penis". His mother, who had written a handbook on sexual abuse,[10] concluded her son had been sexually interfered with.[11] She made a complaint to the creche in November 1991. After a brief investigation, the police decided there was no case to answer,[12] but Ellis was suspended from work. The mother then withdrew her son from the creche and enrolled him into a different Christchurch day care centre. Shortly thereafter, she alleged a male worker at this second creche had also abused her son. The police investigated and again found no evidence to support the allegation.[13]

ERO reportEdit

Ellis was extremely popular with children and parents at the creche.[13] In the week following his suspension, inspectors from the New Zealand Education Review Office spent a full week at the Civic Creche observing its daily operation. The office subsequently issued a highly favourable report, stating that "The staff ensure personal needs are met with warmth, care and consideration. The children appear happy, inquisitive and sociable" and that "they [the children] have high self-esteem".[14][15]

Second police investigationEdit

Even though police concluded no abuse had occurred, some parents started asking their children about what went on at the creche and then shared these stories with other parents. The Department of Social Welfare was called in to conduct formal interviews with many of these children. A social welfare psychologist, Sue Sidey, initially revealed that there were six children for whom she felt there were grounds for concern, although the children made no disclosures of any indecent touching by a creche staff member. More parents became concerned that something must have happened. As the social welfare interviews continued, claims about bizarre sexual abuse incidents began to surface.[9] A meeting was held at the creche attended by staff members, a group of concerned parents and representatives from the Social Welfare Department. In response, the police reopened their investigation.[14]

Altogether, at least 127 children were interviewed. Some detectives believed that up to 80 had been abused.[13]

Smart reportEdit

In addition to interviews conducted by Sue Sidey, the Christchurch City Council, which owned the creche, requested that psychologist and sex therapist Rosemary Smart review the management practices at the creche. Even though Smart's report was completed nearly 12 months before Ellis' trial, she seems to have assumed he was guilty;[13] although the word "alleged" crops up occasionally in her report, severely incriminating circumstantial evidence is presented as factual.[16]

Smart even suggested that female staff may have been involved with abuse at the Civic Creche and her report helped convince investigating officers of the women's guilt. She quoted research by the New Hampshire sociologist David Finkelhor, whose 1987 book, Nursery Crimes, became the source for American believers in ritual abuse occurring in creches.[17] Finkelhor's work has since been discredited.[13]

Arrest of four female staffEdit

Smart's report was completed in July 1992 and a copy was given to police. Detectives said her report was central to their decision to investigate four of Ellis's female colleagues at the creche. Their houses were searched for everything from pornography to babies bodies. Nothing was found.[13] Even Ellis' mother was suspected of being involved and accused of administering drugs to the children.[8]

The four female staff members were arrested on 1 October 1992 amid considerable televised publicity. At depositions they faced 15 charges that included sexual violation, indecent assault and one charge of performing an indecent act (having sex with Ellis) in a public place. The charges were subsequently dropped when Judge Williamson concluded the publicity meant their chances of a fair trial would be prejudiced by their association with Ellis.[13] Although the charges were dropped, their careers were ruined.[9]

AccusationsEdit

Ellis was accused, among other things, of "sodomising children, forcing them to eat his faeces, urinating on them, suspending them in cages, taking them on terrifying trips of abuse through tunnels, ceilings and trapdoors". Other allegations included children being forced into a steaming hot oven or buried in coffins; one boy claimed he had his belly-button removed with pliers.[18] Allegations which emerged later as the interviews progressed included "Asian men dressed as cowboys, Masonic lodges, cemeteries, the Park Royal Hotel and private houses far from the creche ... (and) the notorious 'circle incident' where Ellis and his co-workers supposedly took a group of children to 404 Hereford St on the other side of town and made them stand naked and kick each other while the adults danced around them ... Alleged by one parent, was the sacrifice of a boy called Andrew." No child was actually reported missing by anyone involved.[13]

ArrestEdit

The police arrested Ellis on 30 March, 1992 charging him with the first of what would eventually be 45 counts of sexually abusing 20 different children at the creche. By the time the case went to trial, the Crown had reduced the number of charges to 28, involving 13 complainants.[9] Some charges were dropped because the crown prosecutor, Brent Stanaway, did not want to put the more bizarre claims made by some of the children before a conservative Christchurch jury.[13]

TrialEdit

Barristers Rob Harrison and Siobhan McNulty represented Ellis; Brent Stanaway and Chris Lange appeared for the Crown. The offences were alleged to have taken place at unspecified times and dates between 1 May 1986 (four months before Ellis started work at the creche) and 1 October 1992 (11 months after he left the creche, and a month after the creche was closed)." (Hood, 2001) Defence counsel, Rob Harrison, wanted the jury to see the children's videotaped testimony containing the bizarre allegations as "he believed they would cast reasonable doubt on the more credible testimony." However, Justice Williamson ruled that these tapes were not relevant.[13] In A City Possessed, Lynley Hood observed: "[Judge] Williamson's rulings before and during the trial meant Ellis' lawyer Rob Harrison was effectively hamstrung - the jury did not get to hear the most bizarre of the children's allegations, but did learn of the highly prejudicial but irrelevant conversations Ellis had about unusual sexual practices between consenting adults."[19]

Psychiatrist Karen Zelas was the prosecution's expert witness. She also supervised the social workers conducting the children's interviews and advised the police about how they should conduct their investigation.[20] She testified that the complainants were credible and their behaviour was consistent with sexual abuse.[21] However, in August 1992, she wrote to the police saying that two of the complainants had undergone "highly leading questioning" from their parents.[22] Her letter was not disclosed to Ellis's defence, and Zelas did not mention any concerns about the two children's credibility at trial.

Psychiatrist and defence expert Keith Le Page said that none of the behaviours described by Zelas were specific to sexual abuse.[23] Le Page said that in his experience, children and adults who had been abused usually expressed distress when recounting their experiences of abuse. The complainants showed little or no distress when describing acts of abuse during their interviews and when later testifying in court. Le Page also testified that children couldn't remember events experienced at a very young age when there was a long delay between the event and the attempt to recall it. Children couldn't remember events, even traumatic events, that had occurred at two or three years of age when there was a long delay, he claimed. The alleged abuse at the creche had occurred when children were at these ages.

ConvictionEdit

In June 1993, Ellis was convicted of 16 counts of sexual offences involving seven children. The charges on which he was found guilty were that he had urinated on two children, made one masturbate him, put his penis in the mouths of three of them, engaged in indecent touching of three, and put his penis or an unknown associate's penis against the vagina or anus of three.[13] The following year he was acquitted of three charges involving the oldest complainant, who retracted her allegations and admitted her original statement was what her mother told her to say.[24]

Treatment in prisonEdit

Corrections officers who sat through the trial with Ellis did not think he was guilty and let that be known at Paparua prison. As a result, Ellis was not subject to the kind of beatings that perpetrators of childhood sexual abuse often suffer when sent to prison.[13][25]

Creche closureEdit

On 3 September 1992, following discussions between the City Council, the Ministry of Education and police, the Civic Creche was closed. In March 1995, the four female employees and six other former staff who had also lost their jobs were awarded $1 million by the Employment Court. This was later reduced to $170,000 by the Court of Appeal in September 1996.[26]

Reliability concernsEdit

Moral panicEdit

In the years preceding the first allegation of abuse against Ellis, there had been a number of high profile child abuse cases in Christchurch involving "highly suspect interviews of children", "mistaken mass diagnosis of children" and other "highly questionable claims". The case has also been linked with the day-care sex-abuse hysteria, a moral panic that originated out of California in 1982 and that existed throughout the 1980s.[13] It has also been cited as a major cause in the decline in the number of male teachers in New Zealand schools.[3]

From September 1991 (two months before the first allegation against Ellis), there was "continuous publicity of sexual abuse and ritual abuse of children in the local press or in national media." On 4 September 1991, a Wellington sex abuse counsellor, Anne-Marie Stapp, told the Christchurch daily, The Press, that "New Zealand was fast approaching the level of ritual abuse awareness found in the United States." North and South Magazine reported that it was common knowledge around town that "various Christchurch police officers were hunting for a near mythical pornography-paedophile ring alleged to involve judges, Freemasons and prominent businessmen, though it was never found." On 3 November 1991 the Sunday News quoted the police as saying that "Satanism was rampant in New Zealand and linked to child pornography."[13]

Seventeen days later, a Christchurch mother rang Gaye Davidson, the supervisor at the Civic Creche to make the first complaint about Peter Ellis.[13] When making his appeal to the Supreme Court announced in July 2019, Ellis' former lawyer, Nigel Hampton QC, said he wants the Supreme Court to take the moral panic of the '90s into account in its decision-making.[27]

Interview processEdit

At least 118 children were interviewed as part of the second investigation into allegations of sexual abuse. Social Welfare psychologist, Sue Sidey, conducted most of the evidential child interviews used at the trial, although she had no formal qualifications in child psychology[28] In December 1991, Sidey conducted a number of interviews with children which failed to turn up any statements consistent with abuse.[29] Nevertheless, that month, she made a statement that “Peter Ellis is not a suitable person for a child centre” - before any formal allegations of abuse came to light.[30]

However, as more parents became concerned, some children were subsequently interviewed up to six times and began making bizarre allegations. The children's stories "were hardly ever challenged, no matter how fanciful their answers. If the answers were inconsistent or incoherent, then they would be asked again in more elaborate form until an acceptable answer was elicited."[31] Specific questions were employed to elicit allegations that children had apparently made to their parents, contrary to best practice guidelines.[32] The interviewers generally didn't check with the children to find out whether their parents had said things to them about Peter Ellis or about the creche to eliminate the possibility of parental contamination. One mother even admitted in court that she encouraged her son to come up with new information by cuddling him, praising him and "telling him how brave he was after he revealed more and more details of his abuse".[33]

Michael Lamb, a leading authority on the interviewing of child abuse victims, was asked to review the interviewing process the children endured. In addition to the problems caused by multiple interviews, he noted that there were substantial delays between the alleged events and the formal interviews which were conducted up to 18 months later. Lamb wrote that during this time, the children were exposed to conversations with their parents, social workers and other children and "were likely to have adopted recently acquired information about the events in question."[34]

Stephen J. Ceci, a professor at of Cornell University and an expert in children's suggestibility and children's courtroom testimony, also studied transcripts of many of the children's evidential interviews. In July 1995 he said the interviews "were not conducted in accordance with currently understood interviewing principles."[35] According to Ceci, it is impossible to distinguish between accurate and inaccurate allegations when children are suggestively and repeatedly interviewed over a long period.

Ellis' sexualityEdit

A number of people involved in the case believe Ellis was convicted because he is homosexual and was the only male worker at the creche.[36][37] At the trial, he was portrayed as sexually deviant and perverted, which was somehow consistent with the makeup of a child molester.[38]

ACC involvementEdit

One parent, Malcolm Cox, who had three children at the creche suggested that some parents may have been motivated to make claims that their child had been sexually abused because ACC automatically awarded $10,000 to anyone claiming to have been abused. He says that he and his wife were visited by a council social worker with ACC claim forms and told "we had to get in quick to claim the money because lump sums were being abolished".[13]

In the end, the Accident Compensation Corporation, ACC, paid more than $500,000 to about 40 parents of Civic Creche children. Generally parents received a standard $10,000, "but in cases where Ellis faced multiple charges relating to a single child, some parents claimed for each alleged incident of abuse" (McLoughlin, 1996). One child's parents allegedly claimed five payments, while another claimed four. According to North and South Magazine, "ACC didn't require a conviction before paying out. It paid up without so much as charges being laid in respect of some allegations. The police even wrote letters to ACC supporting compensation claims."[13]

JuryEdit

A number of irregularities in the trial were publicised in a TV3 20/20 television programme which aired on 16 November 1997. The programme alleged that the jury foreman had been the celebrant at the wedding of the Crown Prosecutor Brent Stanaway 15 years earlier. It was also alleged that a female juror had had a sexual relationship with a co-worker of the mother of one of the children involved. The programme also put forward statements that most of the children who made allegations of sexual abuse withdrew their accusations at various times during proceedings but that social workers conducting the interviews treated this as a symptom of ‘denial’.[39]

Detective Colin EadeEdit

The 20/20 programme also claimed the main investigating detective, Colin Eade, had a history of mental health problems. Eade told interviewer Melanie Reid he was "burnt out" before the case started and ‘beyond repair’ by the time it was over. He left the police force in 1994 suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder.[40] In an interview with Sean Plunkett on Radio New Zealand’s Morning Report on 20 November, 1997, Eade admitted that after the trial he had sexual relationships with two of the mothers involved in the case and that he had propositioned another mother during the course of the investigation when he was drunk.[41]

New Zealand First MP Rana Waitai, who was a former police commander with 31 years’ experience, said "If half of what was on the (20/20) programme is true, Peter Ellis must immediately be released and hugely compensated for the devastation that has been done to his life."[42]

AppealsEdit

First court of appeal 1994Edit

The case entered the Court of Appeal in July 1994 led by Graham Panckhurst QC. A key aspect of the appeal was that the seven children, whose evidence the jury accepted, had named 21 other victims – either as observers or participants. None of those 21 children confirmed any of the allegations.[9]

On the fourth day of the hearing (28 July), the oldest child on whose testimony Ellis was convicted, and probably the most credible of the child witnesses,[9] told her parents that her story was not true, that she had said only what she thought her parents and the interviewer wanted to hear. The Court of Appeal considered that it was not uncommon for child complainants to withdraw their allegations. The appellate judges believed the retraction may have been a case of denial on the part of the child and was grounds to overturn only those convictions relating to that child.[43] The child has continued to maintain that she fabricated her allegations.

Second court of appeal 1999Edit

In November 1998, Ellis presented a second petition to the Governor General seeking a Royal Commission on Inquiry into his case, and either a free pardon or for the whole case to be referred back to the Court of Appeal. The Secretary for Justice sought advice from Sir Thomas Thorp on the second petition. His advice concluded that the terms of reference should be expanded. In 1999 the Ellis case was referred to the Court of Appeal for a second time.[5] Judith Ablett-Kerr, QC, appeared as counsel for Ellis, and Simon France for the Crown. Ablett-Kerr argued emphatically that the children's evidence had been contaminated by parental questioning and presented updated opinions on the dangers of multiple interviews, using anatomically correct dolls and suggestive questioning.[9]

Barry Parsonson, former head of the New Zealand Psychologists Board, was asked to write a report into the process used to interview the children prior to Ellis's second Court of Appeal hearings. Parsonson concluded that "given the conditions prevailing (at the time), the level of parental contamination, and the extremely suggestive interviewing procedures, the probability of the proportion of fact outweighing the proportion of fiction must be very, very small indeed."[44] The Crown presented the expert opinion of Constance Dalenberg. The court concluded that they were not persuaded that a miscarriage of justice had occurred but suggested a Royal Commission of Inquiry could better examine some of the issues raised. Ellis immediately presented a third petition to the Governor General.

Petition for mercyEdit

In 1999, a retired High Court judge, Sir Thomas Thorp, was commissioned by the Ministry of Justice to examine a petition for the royal prerogative of mercy lodged by Ellis's counsel, Judith Ablett-Kerr QC. She commissioned and supplied reports by experts that were based on selective information, for Thorp to consider. Despite the limitations of the reports, Thorp considered they raised serious concerns that should be investigated further.[45] He wrote that the interview transcripts revealed that on more than one occasion, one child claimed to have seen serious abuse committed against another child, but the second child denied anything happened. Thorp said there was no evidence that the interviewers or the police or did any cross checking before presenting abuse allegations to the jury.[46] He was also concerned that the more bizarre allegations made by children were not put before the jury, arguing that "the jury had to see that the children were capable of outrageous and fanciful allegation".[47]

Thorp stated that the central concerns were "the claims of defective interviewing techniques ... the risk of contamination of the childrens' evidence... (and) the exclusion of evidence necessary to a proper assessment of the childrens' reliability". He added that if the opinions of Dr Barry Parsonson, Professor Ceci and Justice Wood were found to have substantial support, it would "be difficult to argue against the existence of a serious doubt about the safety of the Petitioner's convictions."[48]

Eichelbaum inquiry 2000Edit

In March 2000, then Minister of Justice Phil Goff established a ministerial inquiry into the conduct of the interviews, headed by Sir Thomas Eichelbaum. This was undertaken in response to Justice Thorp's report[49] and ongoing concerns over the reliability of the children's evidence. In a later submission, Ministry officials stated that the Ministerial Inquiry was "intended to address specific areas of concern that might not have been seen to have been fully resolved by the Court of Appeal." Released in March 2001, Eichelbaum's inquiry concluded that the interviews were of good quality overall, and that though excessive questioning by some parents could have led to some contamination, this would not have been sufficient to affect the convictions.[50]

Eichelbaum interpreted his terms of reference such that he did not interview anyone who had been directly involved with the case. He did not speak with any of the children. He did not speak with the children's parents, some of whom regularly visited the Civic Creche. He did not speak with the children's evidential interviewers. He did not speak with any of the creche workers. He did not speak with Ellis's mother. He did not speak with Peter Ellis. He did not speak with the oldest complainant, one of seven children upon whose evidence Ellis was convicted. Several months after the trial had ended, the child stated that she had not been sexually abused. Eichelbaum did not seek advice from academics within New Zealand universities when appointing experts for his inquiry.[51] The only people with whom Eichelbaum discussed the matter of the selection of the experts were Justice Ministry officials and Thomas Lyon, a USA law professor. In 1999 Lyon criticised the direction and relevance of research undertaken by experts nominated by Ellis's counsel.[52] Lyon's critique was cited approvingly in the Crown's submission to the ministerial inquiry.

Eichelbaum did not say how he determined the children's evidence to be reliable. Professor Graham Davies, one of his appointees,wrote he would not "pronounce on the reliability of individual children's accounts."[53]

Petitions for a royal commissionEdit

In June 2003, two petitions called for a royal commission of inquiry into the case. The first, organised by then National Party leader Don Brash and MP Katherine Rich, had 140 highly prominent signatories. They included two former prime ministers (David Lange and Mike Moore), four former Cabinet ministers, 26 MPs, a retired High Court Judge (Laurence Greig), a retired District Court Judge, 12 law professors, 12 Queen's Counsel, former Auckland police chief Bryan Rowe, historian Michael King, psychology professors, professors from other disciplines, lawyers, child protection workers, psychologists, social workers, therapists and counsellors.[54]

In August 2005, Parliament's justice and electoral select committee reported on two petitions relating to the Ellis case. The committee had several concerns with the way the case was prosecuted. It recommended several changes, although it acknowledged that changes had already been made to the way that children were now interviewed. It also suggested that the testimony of expert prosecution witness Karen Zelas would not be permitted if it were proffered now. The committee noted that "The operation of the legal system in respect of this case did not inspire adequate public confidence in the operation of the legal system. A justice system should lead to certainty. In this case it seemed to increase the sense of uncertainty." However, the committee rejected the petitioners' call for a commission of inquiry, concluding that it was not practical to hold such an inquiry.[55]

In 2011, Ellis announced his intention to lodge a fourth petition to the Governor General.

Supreme court 2019Edit

On 25 July 2019, Ellis, aged 61, lodged an appeal to the Supreme Court.[56] This was his final appeal as he had been diagnosed with terminal cancer and only had five weeks to live.[57] In August, the Supreme Court said it would consider hearing Ellis' appeal even if he died before the hearing date, 11 November.[58]

Prominent supportEdit

Lynley Hood's A City PossessedEdit

In 2001 Lynley Hood published a 616 page book about the case and the moral panic of sexual abuse within New Zealand at that time. In 2002 A City Possessed won the top prize for non-fiction and for readers' choice in the New Zealand Book Awards. As Hood tells it, fear and anxiety about ritual abuse began in childcare facilities overseas in the early 1980s. Given the number of sex abuse scenarios in Christchurch in the 1980s such as "the Glenelg Health Camp, Ward 24, and the Great Child Pornography fiascos – it was probable that some sort of panic would break out in Christchurch."[59] Hood argued that the professional careers of experts benefited from the case while more than 100 children were subjected to unpleasant, repetitive and psychologically dangerous procedures for no good reason.[24]

A former National Party leader, Don Brash, was drawn to the controversy after reading Hood’s book. He commented: “I was stunned at how compelling a case it made. The Peter Ellis case is a serious miscarriage of justice and I am utterly astonished [his conviction] hasn’t been overturned. It is implausible to believe four women and one man could do this in a busy creche.”[60] In 2006, Brash cited the case when supporting calls for an independent body investigating miscarriages of justice in New Zealand.[61] On 17 December 2014, Brash and author Lynley Hood again called for a review of the case by way of an independent inquiry led by an authority from outside New Zealand. The appeal was made to Amy Adams, the newly appointed Minister of Justice for the National Party-led government returned in the 2014 General Election.[62]

JournalistsEdit

According to Greg Newbold, senior lecturer in sociology at the University of Canterbury, even cynical journalists like Frank Haden, David McLoughlin, Melanie Reid, George Balani, and Martin van Beynen – the only journalist to have sat right through the trial – agree that Ellis is not guilty. Newbold notes that "it was a politician who saved Arthur Allan Thomas, but the Ellis case is different from Thomas’s, because Ellis lacks government support." In 2000 (after Ellis' failed appeals) he wrote: "at the moment the judiciary is turning away from the plight of a man impugned by some of the most absurd testimony ever heard in a New Zealand court."[59]

New Zealand Law JournalEdit

In late 2007 and January 2008, three articles on the Ellis case were published in The New Zealand Law Journal. These included "New Evidence in the Peter Ellis Case"[63] by researcher Ross Francis. Francis concluded that despite two appeal hearings, three applications for a pardon, a ministerial inquiry, and a parliamentary inquiry, questions about the reliability of Ellis' convictions remain. He wrote: "Whilst it may appear that the case has been examined thoroughly, the facts show otherwise. The Court of Appeal did not review all the available evidence and, at the second hearing, failed to give any weight to the expert opinions."[64] The journal review prompted Sir Thomas Thorp to comment that the articles "must add to concerns expressed previously that that case may have gone awry".[65]

New Zealand Innocence ProjectEdit

In December 2007 the New Zealand Innocence Project heard from University of Otago professor Harlene Hayne of her research which compared the standard of interviews conducted in the Ellis case with those of the Kelly Michaels case. Empirical analysis allowed Hayne to conclude that there was a "strong risk that the evidence of children who told of sexual abuse by Ellis was contaminated by the way the interviews were carried out," and that, contrary to Eichelbaum's conclusions, "the standard of the questions in Ellis was not substantially better than those in Michaels." Francis's articles and Hayne's research were cited in January 2008 by Ellis's counsel when making a renewed request that the Ministry of Justice establish a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the case,[66] but Associate Justice Minister Rick Barker rejected this approach in March 2008.[67] A further call for a Commission of Inquiry was made by former National MPs Katherine Rich and Don Brash and author Lynley Hood in November 2008,[68][69] and the new Minister of Justice Simon Power said that the government would reconsider the issue.[70] He later declined their request for an inquiry, on the grounds that Ellis still held the right of appeal to the Privy Council and an inquiry therefore could not achieve finality.[71]

NotesEdit

  1. ^ Gilbert, Jarrod (8 February 2018). Jarrod Gilbert: "Peter Ellis martyr to deranged prejudice", New Zealand Herald.
  2. ^ See http://www.peterellis.org.nz for reproductions of articles.
  3. ^ a b "Schools 'need to appeal to boys'". The Northern Advocate. Retrieved 21 June 2018.
  4. ^ a b Hood, Lynley (2001). A City Possessed: The Christchurch Civic Creche Case. Longacre Press. ISBN 1-877135-62-3.
  5. ^ a b R v Ellis [2000] 1 NZLR 513
  6. ^ "Peter Ellis diagnosed with terminal cancer as he seeks last appeal against child sex abuse convictions". TVNZ. 26 July 2019.
  7. ^ "Convicted Civic Creche sex abuser Peter Ellis dies while appealing conviction". Stuff.co.nz. 4 September 2019. Retrieved 4 September 2019.
  8. ^ a b Why the Peter Ellis Civic Creche case won't go away. Noted
  9. ^ a b c d e f g Civic Creche: Sexual abuse or abuse of justice? Stuff 2 August 2019
  10. ^ Peter Ellis and the Christchurch creche case, RNZ, 2 August 2018
  11. ^ Goodyear-Smith, Felicity (1993). "Civic Creche Case, Christchurch". IPT Forensics. 5.
  12. ^ Felicity Goodyear-Smith, Civic Creche Case, Christchurch, from First Do No Harm: The Sexual Abuse Industry, 1993, Auckland, New Zealand: Benton-Guy Publishers.
  13. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q McLoughlin, David (August 1996). "Second Thoughts on the Christchurch Civic Creche case: Has justice failed Peter Ellis?". North & South. p. 54-69.
  14. ^ a b Ansley, B. (10 July 1993). "Judgement in Christchurch". New Zealand Listener.
  15. ^ "Education Review Office Civic Child Care Centre 25–29 November 1991" (PDF). Retrieved 19 September 2006.
  16. ^ Beyond the Civic creche case, Cate Brett, North & South September 1993, pp. 54-70.
  17. ^ de Young, Mary (2004). The Day Care Ritual Abuse Moral Panic. Jefferson, North Carolina, United States: McFarland and Company. ISBN 0-7864-1830-3.
  18. ^ New evidence in the Peter Ellis case, Ross Francis, New Zealand Law Journal, November 2007
  19. ^ Lynley Hood, "A City Possessed," Longacre Press, (2001), 672 Pages, cited in Christchurch New Zealand Ritual Abuse Cases
  20. ^ Peter Ellis the case for a Commission of inquiry, Ross Francis, September 2009 p.12.
  21. ^ Peter Ellis the case for a Commission of inquiry, Ross Francis, September 2009 p.6.
  22. ^ Peter Ellis the case for a Commission of inquiry, Ross Francis, September 2009 p.4.
  23. ^ Peter Ellis the case for a Commission of inquiry, Ross Francis, September 2009 p.5.
  24. ^ a b Peter Ellis - his court appeal dies with him, Newsroom 2 August 2019
  25. ^ Christchurch new Zealand ritual abuse cases
  26. ^ "PeterEllis.org.nz – Chronology". Retrieved 25 April 2006.
  27. ^ As dying Peter Ellis appeals child sex rituals convictions again, court should consider 'moral panic' of the '90s, ex-lawyer says, OneNewsNow, 31 July 2019
  28. ^ Critique of the Eichelbaum report and matters arising from the Ellis convictions, Jonathon Harper, January 2006
  29. ^ Comments on the investigation and interviewing of children in the Ellis case, para 60
  30. ^ Critique of the Eichelbaum report and matters arising from the Ellis convictions, Jonathon Harper, January 2006. p 31.
  31. ^ Time to revisit the lessons of the Civic Creche case, Stuff 27 July 2019
  32. ^ Eichelbaum, Thomas (2001). "Appendix C – Sas's comments". Sir Thomas Eichelbaum's Report into the Peter Ellis Case. Ministry of Justice. Retrieved 9 February 2010.
  33. ^ Civic Creche Case, Christchurch, IPT Journal Vol 5 1993
  34. ^ New evidence in the Peter Ellis case
  35. ^ "TVNZ Interview with Professor Stephen Ceci". Retrieved 3 August 2007.
  36. ^ "Complainant seeks inquiry into Ellis case". The Press. 23 January 2003. Retrieved 1 May 2006.
  37. ^ Jarrod Gilbert: Peter Ellis martyr to deranged prejudice, NZ Herald 8 February 2018
  38. ^ The Christchurch Civic Creche case Steven Sliepen, August 26, 2003
  39. ^ Peter Ellis and the Christchurch Creche Case, COSA Newsletter, Volume 4 No 10.
  40. ^ "Peter Ellis". Retrieved 25 April 2006.
  41. ^ Peter Ellis, Crime.co.nz
  42. ^ Peter Ellis and the Christchurch Creche Case, COSA Newsletter, Volume 4 No 10.
  43. ^ "Peter Ellis – Other arrests / Appeal fails". Retrieved 25 April 2006.
  44. ^ Reference to the Court of Appeal page 1415
  45. ^ Press release (16 March 2001). "Thorp report not secret anmd doesn't cast doubt on Ellis conviction". Beehive. New Zealand government. Retrieved 9 August 2019.
  46. ^ The Thorp report, Para 4.2
  47. ^ The Thorp report, Para 4.4
  48. ^ The Thorp Report, Summary, Conclusions and recommendations, para 2
  49. ^ Press release (16 March 2001). "Thorp report not secret anmd doesn't cast doubt on Ellis conviction". Beehive. New Zealand government. Retrieved 9 August 2019.
  50. ^ Eichelbaum, Thomas (2001). "Chapter 1 – Executive Summary". Sir Thomas Eichelbaum's Report into the Peter Ellis Case. Ministry of Justice. Retrieved 9 February 2010.
  51. ^ Corballis, Michael (13–19 September 2003). "Memory and the Law". New Zealand Listener. Archived from the original on 28 September 2007. Retrieved 20 September 2006. Cite uses deprecated parameter |dead-url= (help)
  52. ^ Lyon, Thomas (May 1999). "The New Wave in Children's Suggestibility Research: A Critique". Cornell Law Review. 84 (4): 1–71. Retrieved 7 August 2009.
  53. ^ Eichelbaum, Thomas (2001). "Appendix A – Davies's comments". Sir Thomas Eichelbaum's Report into the Peter Ellis Case. Ministry of Justice. Retrieved 9 February 2010.
  54. ^ New evidence in the Ellis case – II, Ross Francis, New Zealand Law Journal December 2007
  55. ^ "Report of the Justice and Electoral Committee (pdf)" (PDF). New Zealand House of Representatives. Retrieved 25 April 2006.
  56. ^ "Peter Ellis takes fight to clear name to Supreme Court". New Zealand Herald. NZME. 25 July 2019. Retrieved 27 July 2019.
  57. ^ van Beynen, Martin (27 July 2019). "Former Civic Creche worker Peter Ellis' last bid before the cancer takes him". The Press. stuff. Retrieved 27 July 2019.
  58. ^ Possibility Peter Ellis' appeal could go ahead even if he dies, Stuff 12 August 2019
  59. ^ a b The Christchurch Crucible, Greg Newbold, New Zealand review of A City Possessed, 1 December 2000.
  60. ^ Why the Peter Ellis Civic Creche case won't go away, Noted, 29 July 2019
  61. ^ Brash said, "It is cases like the Peter Ellis case that highlight the need for an independent body with the resources and authority to investigate possible miscarriages of justice." "Brash backs probe panel". New Zealand Herald. 23 January 2006. Retrieved 24 April 2006.[permanent dead link]
  62. ^ "Don Brash renews appeal for Peter Ellis". Radio New Zealand. 20 December 2014. Retrieved 21 December 2014.
  63. ^ "New Evidence in the Peter Ellis case(pdf)" (PDF). New Zealand Law Journal. Archived from the original (PDF) on 30 May 2008. Retrieved 7 August 2009. Cite uses deprecated parameter |dead-url= (help)
  64. ^ New evidence in the Peter Ellis case, New Zealand Law Journal, November 2007.
  65. ^ "Call for inquiry into justice system ignored: ex-judge". New Zealand Herald. 12 January 2008. Retrieved 7 August 2009.
  66. ^ "Peter Ellis' lawyers seek Royal Commission". New Zealand Herald. 29 January 2008. Archived from the original on 23 February 2013. Retrieved 29 January 2008. Cite uses deprecated parameter |dead-url= (help)
  67. ^ "Commission decision inevitable says Ellis". TVNZ. 28 March 2008. Retrieved 25 January 2009.
  68. ^ Espiner, Colin (15 December 2008). "Brash, Rich call for fresh inquiry into Ellis verdicts". The Press. Retrieved 25 January 2009.
  69. ^ "Former Nat MPs call for Commission of Inquiry". Scoop.co.nz. 15 December 2008. Retrieved 25 January 2009.
  70. ^ "Government to reconsider Peter Ellis case". The Press. 15 December 2008. Archived from the original on 13 January 2013. Retrieved 25 January 2009. Cite uses deprecated parameter |deadurl= (help)
  71. ^ "Request for inquiry in Peter Ellis case declined". New Zealand Herald. 14 October 2009. Retrieved 15 October 2009.

ReferencesEdit

See alsoEdit

External linksEdit