NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE

7 MAY

1415

Justice

Coroners Act 1988

Coroner Appointed

Pursuant to section 32 of the Coroners Act 1988, His Excellency the Administrator of Government, has been pleased to appoint

David Samuel Dothwaite, barrister and solicitor of Rotorua

to be a Coroner for New Zealand.

Dated at Wellington this 24th day of April 1998.

D. A. M. GRAHAM, Minister of Justice.

gc2979

Crimes Act 1961

Reference to the Court of Appeal of the Question of the Convictions of Peter Hugh McGregor Ellis for Sexual Offences Against Children

THOMAS EICHELBAUM, Administrator of the Government

ORDER IN COUNCIL

At Wellington this 4th day of May 1998

Present:
His EXCELLENCY THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE GOVERNMENT IN COUNCIL

His Excellency the Administrator of the Government, acting under section 406 (a) of the Crimes Act 1961 and by and with the advice and consent of the Executive Council, refers the question of the 13 convictions of Peter Hugh McGregor Ellis for sexual offences against children to the Court of Appeal for hearing and determination. The background to, and the reasons for, the reference appear in the Schedule.

Schedule

1. Interpretation—In this Schedule, "the applicant" means Peter Hugh McGregor Ellis.

Background

2. Information about trial and appeal—(1) On 5 June 1993 the applicant was convicted in the High Court at Christchurch on 16 charges of sexual offences against 7 children who had attended the Christchurch Civic Childcare Centre.

(2) On 22 June 1993 the applicant was sentenced by the High Court at Christchurch to a total of 10 years imprisonment.

(3) On 8 September 1994 the Court of Appeal—

(a) Allowed the applicant’s appeal in respect of 3 counts relating to one child, identified as child A, who retracted her evidence during the hearing of the appeal in the Court of Appeal; and

(b) Dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the remaining 13 convictions.

3. Information about trial evidence, and statement by court on appeal—(1) Evidence at trial included evidence given by the child complainants.

(2) The child complainants were interviewed a number of times in the course of the inquiry into alleged sexual offending at the Christchurch Civic Childcare Centre.

(3) The interviews were conducted by the Specialist Services Unit of the Department of Social Welfare under the supervision of a specialist child psychiatrist.

(4) The interviews were conducted in accordance with the Evidence (Videotaping of Child Complainants) Regulations 1990.

(5) In allowing the appeal in respect of child A, the Court of Appeal said that it was not uncommon for child complainants in sexual abuse cases to withdraw their allegations or claim they were lying.

4. Information about Dr Barry Parsonson—(1) The applicant commissioned Dr Barry Parsonson to prepare reports in support of some of the grounds in the applicant’s application for the exercise of the mercy of the Crown.

(2) Dr Barry Parsonson is a registered psychologist. He is currently employed part-time as an Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Waikato and also works part-time as a consultant psychologist.

5. Applicant’s application for exercise of mercy of Crown—(1) The applicant made an application, received on 2 December 1997, for the exercise of the mercy of the Crown in respect of his convictions for sexual offences against children.

(2) One ground of the application is, among others, that, since the applicant’s appeal, it has become clear that the methods of obtaining evidence from the child complainants were flawed and had unacceptably high risks of contamination.

(3) The submissions in support of this ground include the submission that 3 reports by Dr Barry Parsonson relating to the techniques of interviewing children contrast, unfavourably, the techniques used in the applicant’s case with the techniques used today. The titles of the reports are set out in clause 6 (3).

(4) A further ground of the application is, among others, that, since the applicant’s appeal, it has become clear that the recantation of child A was of greater significance than the Court of Appeal had appreciated.

(5) The submissions in support of this ground include the submission that a report by Dr Barry Parsonson indicates that the process by which the retraction was dealt with was unfair and based on inadequate scientific evidence. The title of the report is set out in clause 7 (3).

(6) A further ground of the application is, among others, that, since the applicant’s appeal, it has become clear that the jury which convicted him failed to disclose that it might not be impartial and as a result he did not receive a fair trial.

(7) The submissions in support of this ground are, among others, that—

(a) The Crown witness identified as child A’s mother worked with the intimate partner of one of the jurors; and

(b) Child A’s mother and the juror’s partner worked together in a small, multi-disciplinary team in an open plan work environment; and

(c) Child A’s mother and the juror knew each other through the juror’s partner; and

(d) Given the circumstances of the case, namely a high profile, lengthy, sexual abuse case, it was unfair and unjust for the juror to have remained on the jury.

6. Documents relating to ground involving children’s evidence—(1) In support of the ground described in clause 5 (2), the applicant tendered 3 reports by Dr Parsonson.

(2) In reaching his conclusions in each report, Dr Parsonson