Govt rules out apology and compo in Peter Ellis case

On October 7, Tania Ellis visited the cemetery where her mother Leslie and brother Peter are buried and she shed a tear.
It’s been two years since the Supreme Court’s miscarriage of justice ruling in the Peter Ellis case, but for the family left behind, nothing’s changed.
Talking to her mum and brother – who both died before the final decision – Tania Ellis told them nothing had changed since she and her other two brothers stood on the steps of the country’s highest court two years ago, in what the family often refers to as a “bittersweet” moment.
Ellis, a childcare worker at the Christchurch Civic Creche, spent seven years in prison after being convicted in 1993 on 16 counts of indecencies against seven creche children.
He died of cancer in 2019, however in a legal first the Supreme Court ruled his appeal be allowed to continue.
After three decades of fighting at every level of the legal system, in October 2022 the country’s highest court quashed Ellis’ convictions.
His case was unprecedented – it was the first time a conviction has been appealed and won by a dead person in this country, and it was based on the introduction of the holistic concept of Tikanga Māori, which posits that a person’s mana – their reputation or legacy – is as important in death as it is in life.
But two years on, the Government is ruling out compensation or an apology that would acknowledge the wrongs that have been done.
Last week, the police apologised to Alan Hall and his family for the shortcomings of the investigation and the harm this caused. Hall spent 19 years in prison for the murder of Arthur Easton before his conviction was quashed by the Supreme Court in 2022.
In 2023, the government announced it would pay Hall $5 million in compensation.
But the Minister of Justice has told Newsroom that there are no plans to offer acknowledgement to Ellis’ family.
“Under existing compensation guidelines, a wrongly convicted person must be alive at the time of their application,” Paul Goldsmith said.  
“Therefore, no further action is being considered.”
Tania Ellis said this response sat “slightly uneasily” with her, considering the highest court in the country granted leave for Peter’s appeal after his death.
Tikanga Māori dictates that disputes are not affected by death and that the mana of all parties and successive generations still living are impacted.
Tania says this is not the end of Peters’ story.
“We will wait patiently for any further action from the Crown. We’ve been very patient for many years after all.”
Tania says despite the landmark Supreme Court ruling, she feels like they are no closer to getting closure than they were 30 years ago.
The Ellis family never received any direct correspondence from any government agency, or the Crown, following the 2022 decision. Not even a personal letter.
“Imagine fighting for 30 years and finally reaching an outcome, some form of resolution, only to be followed by what I love to call a deafening silence,” Tania says.
“I don’t believe anybody walking in our shoes could feel anything other than being profoundly let down.”
People at a range of different government departments and agencies were involved in making the Civic Creche case into what it was, and as a result harm has been done to a lot of people – not just Peter and his family, but everyone who has been caught up in this case.
At the end of the day, the buck has to stop somewhere, Tania says. It’s appropriate that the Crown takes ultimate responsibility.
Without that, there is no closure – for anyone.
Compensation is not the Ellis’ family’s focus. They want a public apology; acknowledgement of the wrongdoings and the harm caused.
“Peter was a flamboyant person. He was a colourful character. He had a cheeky sense of humour. He was intelligent, he was well-read. He loved animals. He was homosexual … Peter was a lot of things, but he was not a paedophile, and he did not abuse those children in the Civic Creche. That is my bottom line,” Tania says.
Peter’s brother, Mark Ellis, says an apology would mean vindication for Peter.
“The apology is owed to him, whether he’s alive or dead … I don’t want an apology for me or my family. I want it for him, and he deserved to have got it. He should have heard it.”
Mark says he now wishes they’d formally applied for compensation – not for the money, but because it would have forced the Crown to state it’s position one way or the other.
“Because we didn’t apply for it, they seem to think they can sweep it under the table,” Mark says.
“The Government seems capable of apologising for many things well down the track,” he says, referrng to the Alan Hall case.
“What they did to Peter was atrocious … Just give an apology. Just say: ‘It was wrong’.”
Peter’s lawyer Rob Harrison says regardless of any compensation guidelines or framework, he believes the Crown should apologise.
“I would actually talk about something that doesn’t cost the Government money: Acknowledgement.
“I think there needs to be some acknowledgement, not only just for Peter’s family, but everyone who was involved in that.” 
The Crown needs to acknowledge the manner in which the entire investigation and case was conducted, Harrison says.
While the family doesn’t accept the current compensation guidelines remain fit-for-purpose, particularly in light of the Supreme Court ruling, the Government does still have the power to make a payment outside the official guidelines.
Alan Hall’s lawyer Nick Chisnall KC says while the current guidelines might dictate that the person has to be alive to apply for compensation, the Government could choose to allow an application anyway.
Or they could make an “ex gratia payment” – essentially a one-off goodwill payment– outside of the official compensation scheme, he says.
For example, after David Bain had his convictions overturned by the courts, instead of compensation, Bain received an ex gratia payment of $925,000. Official compensation wasn’t offered by then justice minister Amy Adams because a report she commissioned couldn’t establish Bain’s innocence.
“At the end of the day, they’re not binding in law so the Government can do whatever it wants, and it just really depends on whether it’s got the appetite to do it,” Chisnall says.
Tania says she’d be lying if she said she hadn’t carried on with her life, despite Peter’s case.
“I mean, we’ve all got our lives to carry on with, and I think that’s what we’ve done.”
But that doesn’t mean she is going to just give up on justice.
“We’re not stupid people, we’re not silly people, we’re not greedy or bitter or angry people, but we’re still people who’ve got some things that are not quite finished.”
Mark says he doesn’t know where to go from here.
“It’ll be with me forever, and even the apology doesn’t change what went on; how appallingly they treated him … But I will go to my grave always thinking that he deserved an apology.”
He says it’s time for the Government to put this to bed.