Peter Ellis’s name has recently resurfaced in news headlines, particularly in New Zealand, due to a landmark Supreme Court decision. While the case itself is complex and spans decades, a common question arising from those learning about it now is: How Old Was Peter Ellis When He Died? This article will delve into this question while also providing a comprehensive overview of the Peter Ellis case, ensuring a clear understanding for an English-speaking audience unfamiliar with the details.
Peter Ellis was born in 1947 and tragically passed away in 2019 due to bladder cancer. This means Peter Ellis was 71 or 72 years old when he died. However, his death was not the end of his legal battle. In fact, it marked a pivotal moment in New Zealand’s legal history. At the time of his passing, Ellis was still fighting to clear his name after being convicted of child abuse charges in 1993.
Image alt text: Peter Ellis’s lawyer, Rob Harrison, discussing the Supreme Court decision, highlighting the legal fight for justice in the Peter Ellis case.
The charges stemmed from allegations of sexual abuse at the Christchurch Civic Creche, where Ellis worked. He was convicted on 16 counts of sexual abuse against seven children and spent seven years in jail. From the beginning, the case was fraught with controversy. Supporters of Ellis argued that the evidence was unreliable, pointing to potentially “contaminated” testimonies from the children and raising concerns about the fairness of the trial in the social context of the early 1990s. Ellis, a gay man in a more conservative era, maintained his innocence throughout his life and even after his death.
Despite his passing in 2019, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal his case that same year. In a groundbreaking move, the appeal was allowed to continue in 2020, even after his death, setting a legal precedent in New Zealand. This unprecedented step underscores the gravity of the questions surrounding his conviction and the pursuit of justice, even posthumously.
In a significant judgment released after his death, the Supreme Court ultimately quashed all of Peter Ellis’s convictions. The court cited a “substantial miscarriage of justice,” pointing to critical flaws in the expert evidence presented at the original trial and the potential contamination of the children’s testimonies.
A key figure in the case was child psychiatrist Karen Zelas. Zelas, who held a prominent position as president of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, provided expert testimony for the prosecution. However, the Supreme Court found that her evidence “exceeded the proper bounds” of legal standards. Specifically, the court determined that Zelas improperly commented on the credibility of the children’s accounts and presented an unbalanced view of behavioral evidence.
Image alt text: Dr. Karen Zelas, a central figure in the Peter Ellis case due to her controversial expert witness testimony which was later deemed a miscarriage of justice.
The court highlighted that Zelas suggested that certain common childhood behaviors were indicative of sexual abuse without adequately considering other possible explanations. This, combined with a problematic chart summarizing evidence, was found to have unfairly influenced the jury. The admission of Zelas’s evidence was ultimately deemed a critical error of law.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of potential contamination of evidence. Evidence from Professor Harlene Hayne, presented on behalf of Ellis, highlighted the high risk of contamination due to discussions between parents, between parents and children, and even between the children themselves during the investigation phase. Professor Gail Goodman, called by the prosecution, largely agreed with this assessment, acknowledging a high risk of contamination in several of the complainants’ testimonies. The court concluded that Zelas’s evidence minimized or misrepresented this risk, and that this was not adequately addressed during the trial.
The Supreme Court’s judgment emphasized that if the jury had been properly informed about the level of contamination risk, it might have raised reasonable doubt about the allegations, particularly given the mutually supportive nature of the children’s testimonies. This undermining of some testimonies inherently cast doubt on all convictions.
This was not the first time Karen Zelas’s expert testimony had come under scrutiny. In 2003, she was criticized in another child sex abuse case where the Court of Appeal found she had exceeded the permissible scope of expert opinion. Zelas later left psychiatry in 2006.
The Supreme Court acknowledged that its ruling marked the end of a “long and painful journey” for everyone involved. They clarified that the findings were not intended as a criticism of the parents, who were in an “impossible position.” The court concluded that, with hindsight, the complexity of the case was underestimated at the time of the initial investigation and trial, leading to a miscarriage of justice.
One of the individuals deeply affected by this journey was the child who initially testified but later retracted her evidence during the first appeal, stating that she had never been abused by Ellis. Following the Supreme Court’s decision, she expressed “huge relief” and hoped that lessons would be learned to prevent similar situations in the future. Gaye Davidson, the creche supervisor who was initially charged but had charges dropped, also expressed immense relief and regret that Peter Ellis did not live to see his name cleared.
Image alt text: Gaye Davidson, former creche supervisor, reacting to the news of Peter Ellis’s exoneration, expressing relief and sadness at his posthumous justice.
The Peter Ellis case is unique not only for its posthumous appeal but also for incorporating tikanga Māori, Māori customary law, into the legal considerations. The concept of mana, or reputation and legacy, was considered important even after death. This aspect, raised by Justice Susan Glazebrook, added another layer of significance to the appeal.
Rob Harrison, Peter Ellis’s lawyer, expressed profound relief and satisfaction with the outcome, highlighting the importance of the tikanga aspect and the overturning of the convictions. He acknowledged the sadness that Ellis and his mother were not alive to witness this victory but found solace in the presence of Ellis’s family.
In conclusion, while Peter Ellis was 71 or 72 years old when he died, his story extends far beyond his lifespan. The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn his convictions is a landmark event, highlighting critical issues within the justice system and underscoring the importance of fair trials, reliable evidence, and the pursuit of justice, even in the face of death. The case serves as a crucial reminder of the potential for miscarriages of justice and the long-lasting impact on individuals and their families.
