13 MAY
NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE
1297

Raymond Bull and Dr Michael Lamb in support of some of the grounds in his second application.

(4) Dr Barry Parsonson, Professor Stephen Ceci, Professor Raymond Bull, and Dr Michael Lamb are currently employed as follows:

(a) 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:

(b) Professor Stephen Ceci is currently employed as professor of human development at Cornell University, Ithaca, U.S.A.:

(c) Professor Raymond Bull is currently employed as professor of criminological and legal psychology at the University of Portsmouth, England:

(d) Dr Michael Lamb is currently employed as senior research scientist and chief in the section of social and economic development of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, U.S.A.

7. Grounds involving children’s evidence—(1) One ground of the first and second applications is, among others, that, since the applicant’s appeal, material has become available or obtainable that shows—

(a) That the methods used to interview child complainants were seriously flawed; and

(b) That the risks of contamination of the child complainants’ evidence were underestimated and not properly investigated.

(2) The submissions in support of this ground include—

(a) That the techniques used to interview the child complainants in the applicant’s case were materially defective, having regard to the findings of expert research over the last 5 years; and

(b) That the risks of contamination, and the special hazards that arise from mass allegations, in the child care environment were not recognized; and

(c) That the matters described in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) or both paragraphs may affect the reliability or credibility of the child complainants’ evidence.

(3) In support of this ground, the applicant tendered, among other material, the following 3 reports by Dr Barry Parsonson:

(a) “Comment on the probability of contamination in ‘disclosures’ obtained from children in the case of R v. Ellis”, dated 30 November 1997:

(b) “The interviewing of children: Effects of question form, props, question repetition and repeated interviews on the accuracy of children’s reports. A review and commentary in respect of the Christchurch Civic Crèche interviewing and interviewers’”, dated 27 November 1997:

(c) “Children’s memory: A brief review of developments”, dated 27 November 1997.

(4) The applicant also tendered, among other material, brief reviews by Professor Bull, dated 13 July 1998, and Dr Lamb, dated 17 September 1998, on the 4 reports of Dr Parsonson referred to in this order. The reviews jointly confirm the accuracy of Dr Parsonson’s understanding of the literature in the areas covered by his reports. (A grant of legal aid was made for full reports by Professor Bull and Dr Lamb. The full reports were not available when the second application was made.)

(5) The applicant also tendered, among other material, a report commissioned by TV3 from Professor Ceci, dated 24 July 1995, together with extracts from a transcript of an interview with Professor Ceci on an unknown date. These documents referred to the need for special care in dealing with mass allegations of sexual abuse in the child care environment.

(6) The applicant also tendered, among other material, the report of the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service, dated May 1997. As part of its consideration of the investigation and prosecution of paedophile activity in New South Wales, the commission examined a number of cases characterised by multiple allegations of sexual abuse against staff at child care centres. The commission’s report contains a number of structures relating to the interviewing of child complainants in such cases.

8. Grounds involving retraction—(1) One ground of the first and second applications is, among others, that, since the applicant’s appeal, it has become clear that the significance of child complainants’ retractions of their evidence was not properly understood.

(2) In support of this ground, the applicant tendered, among other material, a report by Dr Barry Parsonson entitled “Retraction of allegations of abuse by children”, dated 27 November 1997.

9. Grounds involving trial procedure—(1) One ground of the first application is, among others, that the applicant did not receive a fair trial because of rulings made at the trial relating to the admissibility of evidence.

(2) The submissions in support of this ground include the submission that, as a result of Oral Ruling 14, the jury was deprived of material relevant to the assessment of the reliability or credibility of the child complainants’ evidence.

10. Grounds involving jury—(1) One ground of the first and second applications 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.

(2) The jurors involved are—

(a) “Juror A”, who is said to have had a connection to a Crown witness through the juror’s intimate partner:

(b) “Juror B”, who is said to have expressed the view in a public place that the applicant was guilty, before the case for the prosecution was complete:

(c) “Juror C”, who is said to have told Ms Lynley Hood, an author proposing to write a book on the applicant’s case, in an audiotaped interview—

(i) That he was sexually attracted to one of the child complainants at the applicant’s trial; and

(ii) That he had counselling because of this attraction.

(3) The submissions in support of this ground include the submission that the material on juror C, when considered with the evidence of possible jury bias through juror A, gives new significance to the evidence of possible jury bias through juror B.

11. Grounds involving non-disclosure of material—(1) One ground of the first and second applications is, among others, that material that was clearly important for the defence—

(a) Existed at the time of the applicant’s trial; and

(b) Was in the possession of the Crown at that time; and

(c) Was not disclosed to the defence.

(2) The material includes—

(a) Photographs; and