The rape trials
So two questions come out of the recent rape trials:
1. Should the jury have been told that Schollum and Shipton were previously convicted of rape?
It seems to me a balancing issue. On the one hand people deserve to be tried on the evidence relating to the case, not what they might have done some other time. And people deserve the space to change - just because you’ve been convicted of something once doesn’t always make you guilty.
On the other hand, if the conviction is relevant to the case at hand then the jury should be told. In this case, the similarity between the previous conviction and the charges is such that there has to be a strong argument for telling the jury. These two were convicted of a pack rape (identical), around the same time (similar), in the same town (identical). Having just spent some time on a jury, I would be pretty unhappy if I was on the jury in the case and only found out about the convictions afterwards. The similarities seem quite considerable and relevant.
I wasn’t at the trial to hear all the detail and hence can’t reach a firm conclusion, but there is a strong case for the jury to have known.
2. Should Rickards be allowed to be Auckland police chief?
I don’t see that being involved in consenting group sex is any reason for him not to go back to work. And people use sex aids so using a police baton in a consenting situation doesn’t seem grounds for refusing him his job back. He cheated on his partner but nor should that be reason to stop him being a senior police officer. Sex on the bonnet of a police car many years ago (if it’s true) probably shouldn’t stop him either. He can be into S&M or whatever for all I care so long as it’s consenting - it’s his private life and he’s entitled to it.
[ADDENDUM - I should add, in light of the useful discussion below, that I agree that the power imbalance between a group of older male police officers and a 16 year old vulnerable young woman is such that what appears to have taken place (without knowing all the detail) was an abuse of a position of power. And while it may not have been illegal, it is not the kind of behaviour that is acceptable from a police officer. Police must meet a higher standard of behaviour because of their positions of power. But the problem isn’t that they engaged in group sex, the problem is that they abused their positions of power to get something they wanted from someone in a vulnerable position. My original comment above about group sex was in response to my perception that a lot of the reaction to the case was of a conservative moralistic nature about group sex rather than about an abuse of power.]
But his comments in defence of Schollum and Shipton are good reason for him to no longer be in a senior position in the police. These men are convicted rapists who used their power as police officers to abduct and pack rape a young woman and then intimidate her into not complaining, and he is defending them to the public. The public expects him to uphold the law and when people are convicted they have done it so far as the law is concerned. Fair enough for him to have personal views to the contrary, we all think at times that the justice system has made a mistake, but when he contests this in public, and hence undermines the law in an extremely grave case, it’s really difficult to see how we can continue to have faith in him to uphold the law as a senior police officer.
March 5th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Geez, to put it mildly Russel.
“I don’t see that being involved in consenting group sex is any reason for him not to go back to work.”
As a cop, with a 16 year old?? I’m not sure what your idea of consenting is, but there is a serious power imbalance going on here (age, job, status in society at the time, number of men involved) to cause me to seriously question the word “consenting”.
Also, there are serious flaws in the justice system that this, and many previous rape trials (let alone the huge majority of rape cases that are not even reported) gravely illustrate.
Rape victims will undoubtedly feel even more scared and reluctant to come forward after this trial. That is the biggest injustice.
And yeah Russel, it is “really difficult to see how we can continue to have faith in him to uphold the law as a senior police officer” when the guy says his best friends are convicted pack-rapists, and he thinks they shouldn’t be in jail.
I’m disappointed the Greens have not come out in support of these women. Or in condemning Rickards publicly for his comments.
March against police rape and the injustice system
WHERE: Aotea Square, Auckland City
WHEN: 7pm ,Thursday 8th of March
WHAT: Rally and march
WHY: It’s International Women’s Day and we need to demonstrate that we will not accept this injustice system that protects rapists
CONTACT: 0275-147-644
March 5th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
A person accused has a right to be tried on the evidence at hand. Not on what they did in the past. An exception is if they use their character to defend themselves. “How could you accuse ME! I am such a good bloke!”. Then related past convictions should be, and are, admisible.
Oh but if it were the same for woman. We saw the spectecle of a women’s sexual history bught into evidence recently. Not fair. Again if she uses her reputation as part of the accusation “I would never consent to have sex with you” then it could be fair. But it apears (IANAL) that a women’s sexual history can be admitted in circumstances that a man’s past convictions cannot.
What a surprise that is, a sexist system.
W
March 5th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
And another thing.
I agree with M.
Grown men in a responsible and powerful position having group sex with a *16* year old girl, while legal, shows severe moral turpitude.
Maybe it was 20 years ago, ut he should never ever be allowed to be the top cop.
Evil nasty man, based on what he has admitted.
W
March 5th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
I didn’t realise that she was 16 which I agree does make it much more morally dubious.
March 5th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Very slippery slope bringing “moral turpitude” into it. The Destiny Church probably finds homosexuality “evil and nasty”, but who listens to them.
>>we will not accept this injustice system that protects rapists
Hopefully rape victims will still come forward.
Remembering it is also a big injustice to assume that white males are always guilty…
March 5th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
It is *NOT* a slippery slope!
When police start forming packs having sex with very young women, girls, what else would you call it? A gay old time?
And who said white males are always guilty? GROW A BRAIN!!!
Geeezzze!
It would be nice if we had a justice system instead of a legal system….
W
March 5th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
I think there are two additional areas which give me concern about him returning to the police in any capacity, let alone in a leadership role.
Power Imbalance
It’s very clear that there were some real issues of power imbalance, even just in the parts of the situation with Louise Nicholas which he has admitted. That doesn’t necessairly mean that it was non-consensual, but it does raise some concerns about his ability to recognise power imbalances and behave safely.
Do we think he’s a good role model for young cops? Do we think he’d give good advice to them?
I would feel different if he’d ever admitted that there were some troubling aspects because of the power imbalance. Or he could have said that, with the maturity he has gained since, he recognises that because of the imbalance it might not have been safe for her, and that he probably should have made sure it was.
He doesn’t seem to have noticed the power imbalance, or taken it into account in either his actions or his thinking. Is that someone who we would want involved in the processes around child abuse, rape or domestic violence? Or making decisions about how the police handle people with mental illnesses, or teenagers, or other vulnerabe people?
Recognising the effects
I believe that if he is accepted back by the police there are people who won’t feel safe going to the police to complain about rape or other sexual offences. Whatever the truth of the events that happened, everything that we’ve heard in the media and from friends and family has coloured our perceptions of him and the police.
He has never acknowledged that, never talked about what can be done to address that.
Do we really want a District Commissioner who is blind to the things which prevents victims complaining? Who doesn’t recognise the damage that this has done to our ability to trust the police?
—
Whether it is right for Rickards to return to the job or not, it is right for us as a society that he does not. It is right that the police do everything they can to make all New Zealanderds, especially those who are particularly vulnerable, feel they can trust the police.
March 5th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
>>When police start forming packs having sex with very young women, girls, >>what else would you call it? A gay old time?
I have a friend in the Police. He has lost count of the number of women who hit on him, in uniform, because they like the uniform, authority and power.
I can imagine that some people get their thrills from the attention of macho men in uniform, gay, straight or otherwise.
It isn’t a crime because some find it unacceptable. Should it be? If so, should we ban homosexuality because the Destiny Church find it offensive?
>>And who said white males are always guilty?
It’s the subtext running through a lot of commentary on the issue. “Injustice…”. I’m sure Rickards feels the same way.
>>It would be nice if we had a justice system instead of a legal system….
I’d like it to remain innocent until proven guilty. The alternative would be wrong.
March 5th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
PeterExistsLeft writes:
> I have a friend in the Police. He has lost count of the number of women
> who hit on him, in uniform, because they like the uniform, authority
> and power.
I would hope that he can see the difference between having sex with:
a) The emotionally healthy woman of about his age who’s single, interested in a fling, and turned on by men in uniform.
and
b) The teenager living on the street and using drugs, desparate to escape her abusive father, and hoping sex with a man her dad’s age in a position of power will keep her safe.
They’re very different things, and even tho the second woman may say “yes” I’d be pretty concerned about the judgment of the cop who has sex with her.
Rickards appears to be unable to see the difference.
March 5th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
Well said Anita!
Police, (like teachers, counsellors, doctors etc) should always be conscious of their role(s) in society, and stay within the boundaries required by those roles … when at work and when “off duty”.
These men, whether guilty or not guilty of “rape” as defined by our law, are way outside the boundaries of “appropriate behaviour”.
As a woman, and as a mother of a young-adult daughter, I am sickened by their attitudes.
I know a very senior police officer who tells me that police are OUTRAGED at the behaviour of their so called “colleagues”:- the handling of the whole affair; the fact that Rickard did not (even offer to) resign; and the consequent harm they have done to our individual police officers and to Police Force as a whole.
It is interesting that this comes at a time when the “delightful” behaviour of
various Pitcairn Island men is again in the media.
Make no mistake guys:
Some men find the misuse of power a real aphrodisiac!
March 5th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Russel said:
>The public expects him to uphold the law and when people are convicted they have done it so far as the law is concerned. Fair enough for him to have personal views to the contrary, we all think at times that the justice system has made a mistake, but when he contests this in public, and hence undermines the law in an extremely grave case, it’s really difficult to see how we can continue to have faith in him to uphold the law as a senior police officer.
I don’t think believing in the innocence of someone who has been convicted of a crime is itself a problem, and nor is it a problem to say to. Some people said they believed David Dougherty was innocent of the rape he was convicted for, and they have since been proven right. Arthur Allan Thomas would have been pardoned a lot sooner if more police had questioned the evidence against him.
The problem is if he believes his best mates are innocent because he’s not capable of accepting the idea that they might be guilty, or if he’s only pretending to think they’re innocent as a favour to his mates. Either of these attitudes would make him an unsuitable person to be involved in policing, and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if his claim to believe they were innocent was due to one of those reasons.
March 5th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
Eredwen said: “I know a very senior police officer who tells me that police are OUTRAGED at the behaviour of their so called “colleaguesâ€?:- the handling of the whole affair; the fact that Rickard did not (even offer to) resign; and the consequent harm they have done to our individual police officers and to Police Force as a whole.”
Absolutely. The actions of these men will make many people a lot more wary of police officers, which makes it harder for the police to do their job. And making it harder for police to do their job makes the country a more dangerous place.
And though I didn’t say so in my previous post, I strongly suspect Clint Rickards is every bit as guilty as the others. Two police officers who have been found guilty of gang rape were independently accused of gang rape by two other women who didn’t know about that incident. It’s statistically unlikely for them to be innocent of the other two offences. And if Shipton and Schollum are guilty in the Louise Nicholas case, it seems rather unlikely that her accusations against Rickards would be untrue. That’s not sufficiently watertight evidence to send someone to jail, but it is sufficient evidence for me to strongly suspect he is guilty.
March 5th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
kahikatea,
I concur with your strong suspicions!
I have great admiration and sympathy for these now-mature women who put themselves through what must be “absolute hell” to try to do something to rectify a “wrong”, only to be disbelieved again.
I also have sympathy for individual jurors who, without a complete picture at the time, now may now have to live with the feeling that they made the wrong decision.
March 5th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
>>I know a very senior police officer who tells me that police are OUTRAGED >>at the behaviour of their so called “colleagues�
Indeed.
I think Russel’s post was well balanced, and I agree with it. It is refreshingly free of the mob justice and rampant hysteria surrounding the case.
>>Rickards appears to be unable to see the difference.
Did he know all those details at the time? I feel it displays poor judgment, certainly. But it still isn’t a crime.
March 5th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
No.
March 5th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
Smells just like the system used at the LAPD to me, and I can’t say it’s a good smell. He disallowed himself any chance at being able to run any part of any police organization when he backed his two mates, and his prior admitted conduct makes him a p!ss poor example of a human being, much less a police officer.
This society has to be able to trust its officers for many reasons (I will not hijack this thread to enumerate). I would hold with Eredwen and all the rest of the chorus, that this is now impossible with him.
His career SHOULD be over. It remains to be seen how this will play out, but I think that enough furore over his presence will assist management in deciding to arrange his absence.
respectfully
BJ
March 5th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
As a former police officer, and now a therapist working with both victims, and at times, offenders, I think you are very badly astray of the mark here Russel. A police baton is totally not appropriate as a sex tool, and the implications re power and control are appalling.
Consensual sex is something that should be all very nice, and between people who are consenting adults, or even if between young people (not being naive here) should not involve age differentials or power differentials that mean one party feels coerced, obliged, or unable to truly refuse.
When police officers use not only their authority, but also their weapons, as instruments of sexual domination, then I think we are talking about something rather sick. As many, many victims know, getting off at court does not make people innocent.
If people are into more unusual forms of sex, then again, the rule about consenting adults without power differentials should apply, otherwise, again, we are looking at coercion, disempowerment, and abuse. I believe all men need to stand very firmly together to condemn any sexual activities that involve strong men, vulnerable women, and any suggestion of power over dynamics.
I also believe Rickards is completely beyond the pale in defending convicted criminals, even if they are his mates. In fact I thought criminal association was a reason to dismiss from the police. It is in other countries.
March 5th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
Good to see that the double standard is alive and well.
As far as I am concerned the only thing Rickards has done wrong is admit that he is still a supporter of Shipton and Schollum, given that he had just come out of court I can forgive him that mistake.
Some of you might not agree with what he has done but the fact remains that is was not illegal, I suspect a lot of the anger expressed here is more anti male than anything else.
Those of you who express your disgust that a man in his position admitted having group sex seem to forget that there is a policewoman (currently serving in Auckland) who was moonlighting as a prostitute, very little has been said about that.
Rickards has been found innocent of rape TWICE, there is no reason that he should not resume his role as Auckland area commander.
What is so different about Rickards behavior to that of Dover Samuels, or Benson Pope?, remember that the Police found a Prima facie case against Benson Pope yet choose (under heavy political pressure) not to prosecute. Is walking in on young girls while they are showering OK as long as you are not a Policeman?
Rickards has done nothing illegal, give him his job back.
March 5th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
bb,
By his lack of judgement and inappropriate behaviour (for example, his public “loyalty to his mates” who HAVE been convicted) Rickards has shown a lack the skills needed for a very sensitive job.
It would be a big mistake for the Police to reinstate him now!
The best he could expect might be a serious “sidelining”, but I’s judge that even that would prove to be problenmatic.
I will watch with interest to see how this is resolved!
Dismiss the opinions of women if you like.
(In this case, I will assume that you behave well in your relationships with women and are unaware of what our collective ecxperiences may have been!)
eredwen
March 5th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
steve williams:
Well said! Thank you for that.
It is great when a man with expertise/experience “tells it as it can be” !
When I read Russell’s post I HAD to assume that he was unaware of some men’s behaviour towards women … and I didn’t want the discussion to be sidelined by the few here who assume that any criticism of a man is “the batttle of the sexes.”
Many women have had little personal experience of gross behaviour, but we all know some who have not been as fortunate.
March 5th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
big bruv
Rickards has NOT been found “innocent” of rape.
A jury found that there was insufficient evidence to say that he was “guilty”.
That is not the same thing!
March 5th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
eredwen: Your assertion, whilst understandable, undermines the entire concept of a justice system. What you are proffering is the “no smoke without fire” arument, which states that we should assume that every person who is ever charged with an offense should be assumed to have done it, irrespective of the verdict of the court. I find that to not contain much justice.
Although this case is unusual in some respects, at it’s core its exactly the same as every other case; an accusor, a defendent, a jury, and (hopefully) a case decided on it’s individual merits.
March 5th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
Rickards should not be allowed back in the job. When he said his 2 convicted friends are innocent he showed he has no faith in the NZ justice system which he serves. As a member of the police has he not overstepped the line by commenting on a verdict?
aladin
March 5th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
dbuckley:
Yes, I understand your point, but I do not agree with your conclusion.
We are all aware that cases vary.
In our system we cover this by having only one category: “Not Guilty” (which covers everything from “totally innocent” to that for which the Scottish had a special category: “Not Proven”.)
In this case I suspect that Rickards is more likely to be nearer to the “Not Proven” end.
However, putting my guess/gut-feeling aside, the verdict is still “Not Guilty” (and it is not “Innocent”) …
Thus my argument does NOT “undermine the whole concept of the Justice system”. It is, in fact, right in tune with it!
March 6th, 2007 at 2:34 am
dbuckley : the problem is that he doesn’t have to be guilty… he was apparently, by his own admission, often in “borderline” situations, that he is unrepentant about, and expresses solidarity with convicted rapists. He doesn’t need to be guilty of rape to be chucked out of the police.
Russel, your libertarian take on people’s sex lives is OK up to a point (though I would draw the line at using the bonnet of a police car… that is misuse of government property, surely!) but it ignores the problem of moral authority.
Policemen having sex with young girls that they meet in professional circumstances can never be OK. It’s intrinsically unprofessional. Any cop with such poor moral judgement should be chucked out, and candidates should be screened against such clueless behaviour.
Reminds me of the prevalence of sexual exploitation among aid workers in the third world. After all, from a libertarian point of view, why shouldn’t an aid worker have a “local girlfriend”?
March 6th, 2007 at 9:43 am
The test of guilt in criminal law is “beyond reasonable doubt”. It is quite possible that all 12 jurors in each of the Rickards trials thought that, “on the balance of probabilities” Rickards, Shipton and Schollum raped the complainants - but that is not the legal test. If they had any reasonable doubt that the alleged rapes actually occurred, they were bound by law to acquit.
The test in employment law is “on the balance of probabilities”, and whether the behaviour amounts to “serious misconduct”. Actions that bring the employer (in this case the Police) into disrepute are likely to be serious misconduct. The difficulty in Rickards’ case is that of limitation - I doubt there is any way that disciplinary proceedings could be validly brought in respect of events that happenned so long ago.
Where Rickards should, and I think will, come unstuck in his bid to get his job back is his outburst after the latest trial. It is unconscionable for a serving senior police officer to publicly state his two friends who have been convicted of rape are innocent. He is sworn to uphold the law, and that means respecting the deterinations of the law. He may privately believe Shipton and Schollum are innocent, but to publicly states that reflects very badly on the Police and the Courts, and is a serious error of judgment that I think makes him unfit to serve in the Police.
The other matter that interests me is when and if Sharon Shipton, a senior official in the Ministry of Justice, is charged with perjury or attempting to pervert the course of justice for telling what the Crown prosecutor clearly believed was a load of porkies in court to try to get her husband off - alibi statements that were subsequently refuted by her cousin.
March 6th, 2007 at 10:20 am
Hmmm - actually, the limitation may not prevent diciplinary proceedings being pursued against Rickards for his conduct in the 1980s. Regulation 13 of the Police Regulations:
13 Limitation period for offences
A member shall not be charged with an offence after the expiration of 12 months from the date of the act or omission constituting the offence, unless it can be shown that the charge could not reasonably have been proceeded with sooner.
March 6th, 2007 at 11:38 am
Kia ora koutou
I think Toad is spot on here.
dbuckley, I don’t think that Eredwin undermines the justice system. The law says that for a criminal sanction to apply, then the charge must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. That is always going to be enormously difficulty in securing a conviction for a historic rape charge, or any charge that is relying on one witnesses assertion over another’s (or three others) about what happened. I would have been very surprised if they had been found guilty, despite evidence that contradicted at least Shipton’s alibi’s etc. Remember, the defendent does not have to prove an alibi, and if it is disproved, the prosecution still has to prove the charge.
So Eredwin was correct in saying that all the jury found was that there was not enough evidence to convict. That is all a jury is supposed to do. They certainly did not, as Rickards asserted, find that any or all of the recent women complainants were lying.
As for ’similar fact’ cases, judges I understand can allow some evidence to be presented, but I imagine they are fairly restrictive about it. That might need looking at, but I certainly think in principle that past convictions should not be brought as evidence. A conviction should be secured on the evidence of the case before the jury.
Having said that, it does make convictions harder to secure. That is the thing with our system - it sees the conviction of an innocent person as a worse outcome than the acquittal of a guilty one. I agree.
Lastly, let me say that I have enormous respect and admiration for Louis Nicholls and all the other complainants. I think it took extraordinary courage to make those complaints. I have heard stories from people living in Rotorua and Murupara around that time and the sense I get is of a place where police power was just about absolute and they pretty much did what they liked.
As previous posters have said, even if the three were not found guilty of rape in this case, they do admit to behaviour in regard to very young and vulnerable women, that is in my view unethical and abusive of their positions as police officers.
For those women to put themselves up for the vitriol that the trial process and its media coverage inevitably created was I think a great service to NZ. It does make me wonder about ways to improve criminal justice processes so that they treat complainants better (without contravening the rights of accused) - and that is one of the things that Green Party initiated victim’s rights enquiry in the justice and electoral select committee is looking at.
oh, finally really lastly, the new Evidence Act has just been through that same committee. It does tighten up on the use of sexual history and propensity evidence in sex crime charges. About time.
March 6th, 2007 at 11:55 am
Nandor
You have “enormous respect” for a woman who once claimed that she was raped by a “pack of Maoris” and later admitted that this was untrue?
And Eredwen is wrong, very wrong!..Rickards entered the court an innocent man, he was put through a politically motivated trial and was found to be innocent, consequently he exited the court an innocent man.
Just because Eredwen does not like the man it does not make him guilty.
March 6th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
eredwen Says:
March 5th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
Well said Anita!
Police, (like teachers, counsellors, doctors etc) should always be conscious of their role(s) in society, and stay within the boundaries required by those roles … when at work and when “off duty�.
————————————————————-
Men are born with drives which tell them their “role in society”, over time they learn more appropriate behaviours but you don’t reach a magic line at (say) 25, where a ball of light drops out of the sky, ( you can’t put an old head on young shoulders”).
This case should be part of police training.
__________________
I think there is a case for telling juries about previous convictions, (thinking of past murder trials), let the onus be on the defence lawyer to explain that “it doesn’t necessarily mean he did it this time”. My feeling is that lawyers have written the rules so they can win.
jh
March 6th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
BB - he has not been found to be innocent. He has found to be “not guilty”.
Section 25(1)(c) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990:
“25 Minimum standards of criminal procedure
Everyone who is charged with an offence has, in relation to the determination of the charge, the following minimum rights:
…
(c)The right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law:”
Rickards innocence is therefore a presumption emed in law, rather than a finding of the Court. Because he has not been found guilty, he is presumed to be innocent.
March 6th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
I think Helen Clark said it all: “What I’m telling you is that, in my opinion, no reasonable person would think that a troubled teenage girl engaging in group sex with police officers in a regional town would believe that there are really issues of consent here.”
But what really gets me are the juries which acquitted them twice. What was going on there?
March 6th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Interesting discussion. Thanks particularly to Nandor for his considered thoughts. I’ve added to the posting to respond to some of the points.
March 6th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Who the hell is Helen Clark to tell us what is reasonable and what is not.
Many find homosexual behaviour unreasonable, many find the legalization of prostitution to be unreasonable, many also find a serving policewoman moonlighting as a prostitute to be unreasonable.
She is on VERY thin ice here and should keep her thoughts to herself.
March 6th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
“the similarity between the previous conviction and the charges is such that there has to be a strong argument for telling the jury. These two were convicted of a pack rape (identical), around the same time (similar), in the same town (identical).”
ecch
i find your comments “undermine the law” far worse than rickards’s support of his colleagues.
must i point out the injustices of this approach?
-that there is a danger of “piling on”, that someone once convicted becomes subject to unlimited further punishments, that an original unsound verdict can be perpetuated, that the incentive for full investigation & the presentation of concrete evidence are obviated, etc etc.
sorry but your view has no place in a justice system.
March 6th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
I think that before the collective here decides to hammer Russel, I regarded his addendum about the baton etc to be an attempt at humour. I thought he overstepped the bounds far enough for anyone here to recognize it.
You do not REALLY think he meant that seriously… do you all?
respectfully
BJ
March 6th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
toad said: “The test in employment law is “on the balance of probabilitiesâ€?, ”
really? is that written into law?
because it seems to me that an unfair dismissal will likely result in court action in which the “innocent until proven guilty” test will apply anyway.
March 6th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
BB - As for the policewoman moonlighting as a prostitute, I can’t really see what the fuss was all about. She wasn’t abusing her power as a police officer to coerce vulnerable people into sex - she was just engaging in some secondary employment because she was having financial difficulties - the people she was having sex with didn’t even know she was a police officer.
Yet, strangely, Deputy Commissioner Lyn Provost is on record stating: “I can assure the public that police have acted properly in this matter and that this type of secondary employment would never be approved given that the type of work is inappropriate and incompatible with policing.”
This was a situation of genuine consent - most unlike the group sex that Rickards, Shipton & Schollum were involved in with young and vulnerable women who knew them as police officers.
March 6th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Sorry, not the addendum… point 2.
BJ
March 6th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
aladin said: “When he said his 2 convicted friends are innocent he showed he has no faith in the NZ justice system which he serves. As a member of the police has he not overstepped the line by commenting on a verdict?:
no. i trust the system and the individuals involved in it far more than i would if all officers were compelled to pretend what commonsense tells us is highly improbable - that they always find the system completely blameless & perfect.
improvement depends upon criticism, & those who are intimate with the day-to-day workings of the system are in the best position to offer that criticism. the fact that they can do so in public gives us the transparency needed for public trust & some public control over the reform process.
March 6th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Andrew - actually it’s slightly more complicated than that in employment law - I don’t want to drag this thread too far off topic, but I think you might be confusing the concept of innocence and guilt with that of justification.
Section 103A Employment Relations Act 2000:
103A Test of justification
For the purposes of section 103(1)(a) and (b), the question of whether a dismissal or an action was justifiable must be determined, on an objective basis, by considering whether the employer’s actions, and how the employer acted, were what a fair and reasonable employer would have done in all the circumstances at the time the dismissal or action occurred.
March 6th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Toad
So you see no problem with the obvious double standard then?
People are suggesting that Rickard’s should not get his job back because he indulged in behaviour (group sex) that SOME find not acceptable, he has not been convicted of anything and despite what some say the man is innocent, yet you see no problem with a female police office serving as a prostitute.
You either sack the both or you let them both keep their jobs.
March 6th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Hi again,
Thanks to Russel for clarifying his views, I think it is helpful.
To big bruv. I can assure you that I at least am not ganging up on men, nor engaging in double standards. I believe that in any situation where one party feels coerced to perform or submit to sexual actions that are against their will, then it is seriously not ok. I don’t even care if the court makes a finding of “not guilty” - I continue to believe that it is not ok, and reiterate my view from years of prosecuting offenders - that “not guilty” can be a long way from innocent.
And until they put me in a box I will continue to assert that is the right of all people, whether they be male, female, or someplace in the middle, to be treated with kindness, honesty and integrity. And that does not include stand over techniques and coercion. So as far as I can tell there are no double standards here at least. I would be saying the same if it were a male victimised by females, although for some reason this is a lot less common as far as we can tell.
Sometimes being a man means we have to use those gifts of strength and power to stand up for the vulnerable, and for what is right. Those men who fail to do so, I believe, fail themselves. This is not, however, about men, or women specifically. It is about people, and to some extent, about how we want our society to be: caring or abusive.
March 6th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
interesting that you feel that men are born with inherently greater responsibilities
March 6th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
What’s all this power imbalance crap people are talking about? Surely we’re entitled to have sex with people who aren’t our perfect equals without being labeled morally repugnant. I mean, welcome to the real world, eh.
16 is the age of consent; was then, is now. Cheating on ones wife twenty years ago is not a sacking offense even when the boss is your wife.
He thinks some people are falsely convicted? I think a hell of a lot of people are falsely convicted, albeit a small minority of all convictions. Don’t damn him for it, look at the case!
Need we morality clauses in employment law? Hell no.
Need we raise the age of consent? It would criminalise some fairly normal behavior, so no, not IMO.
Must our police be free of serious criminal conviction? Sure, might help.
Should our police always toe the official line on what they honestly see as wrongful convictions? Of course they shouldn’t, they should be the first to speak out.
Should police use official equipment as sex toys? One would hope they’d be cleaned afterward, but it’s not really anyone’s business.
Should the PM lecture us on morals? Fuck no!
Should people go to trial on historic charges solely on the evidence of one person’s word? Um, I’m struggling to see the point of it all. Anyone?
March 6th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
andrew says :
“interesting that you feel that men are born with inherently greater responsibilities”
I took steve williams to mean that in matters of “strength and power to stand up for the vulnerable, and for what is right.”
There are also areas where women have “a birthright of inherently greater responsibilities”.
and MANY areas where both men and women tend to share ….
March 6th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Look, I think chances are that they all did it, every time, and it was rape. Moreover, this case seems to represent a culture of male police violence and sexual abuse and it’s important that we condemn that behaviour. I also want to acknowledge the bravery of those women who came forward. I hope that the publicity around this case will highlight the importance of coming forward rather than discourage women from bothering.
Having said all that, the discussion which has surrounded this issue leaves me with questions as to what “consent” means and who people think should be allowed to consent to what. The implication of some comments is that even if a 16-year old were to want to have sex with a group of older male cops (NB I am NOT saying the one in this case did, just a hypothetical), she shouldn’t have the right to “consent” because clearly she isn’t capable of making a good decision under those circumstances. In other words, that the presumption should be that it’s always non-consensual, or rape. Maybe that’s a fair suggestion. The thing is, whatever we think of the character of cops wanting group sex with teenagers, are we willing to say that there are certain sex acts which should automatically be condemned even if they are legal and all parties are keen to engage in them? Should the law reflect this? When should we be legally obliged to presume that ‘yes’ is really ‘no’? Once again, I want to make it very clear that this is not a comment about the current case, but is in response to those who have said that even if there had been consent, Rickards should still not get his job back. My position is that for a number of reasons he shouldn’t get his job back, but that I don’t think it’s totally straightforward.
We know that there is an age below which you can’t legally consent. But, once we reach the age of consent it’s much more complicated. People have raised several factors as relevant to determining whether we should assume lack of consent - age gap, profession, gender, object, number. I’m presuming people think it’s ok for 16 year olds to have sex with other consenting 16 year olds. At what age-gap does it cease to be ok? Should the law reflect this? How? Should it be legal for 16 year olds to sleep with people under 20, with the actual age of consent 18 or 20 or something?
When is group sex not ok? There was a case a couple of hundred years ago in which consenting gay men were found guilty of an offence for a group activity which involved nailing one another’s scrotums to the wall. Not my cup of tea either, but do I think it should be outlawed even if the participants are happy for it to continue? No. People do all kinds of things that other people find sick and gross, but I don’t think our prejudices over sexual practice should have a say over our criminal or our employment law decisions.
There has been a lot of talk about the impact of power imbalance on the value of consent. The presumption seems to be that the more equal people are, the less likely they are to be being coerced into sex. That may be true, but, is the flip side that when there’s a major power imbalance then sex is somehow morally if not legally wrong? If a movie star has sex with lots of fans because he/she clearly has the upper hand should we condemn that behaviour? What if all the fans are fantastically happy to have slept with their idol? The cliché that “power is an aphrodisiac” exists because there are people who are sexually drawn to those more powerful than themselves (be they richer, more famous, better looking, more influential). Differences in power status exist in all relationships, and in fact it would be dishonest to say that some people don’t find those power differences erotic. These factors influence why people agree to sex, but do they sometimes automatically mean that consent can’t be given? Those who are into S & M often have a safety word which means ’stop’. Presumably this is because, by prior arrangement, any protestations up until that point do not mean ’stop’. Clearly in those situations it’s really important that ongoing consent in maintained - that is, there’s a heightened burden to insure consent. Maybe that heightened burden exists in other situations too. Is it that the greater the power imbalance the greater the onus on the more powerful party to ensure that ‘yes’ really means ‘yes’? Is there any way the law can accommodate this? (I’m not suggesting that there is).
Clearly I’ve avoided the issue of the men being cops, which is what, for me, makes it improper in this case, regardless of consent. However, cops are allowed to have sex (however kinky) with some people. And, if they cheat on their partners and have group sex that’s not a sackable offence either. But, the combined factors of the woman’s youth and the men’s positions makes it behaviour which brings the police force into disrepute in my opinion (even if we’re to believe it’s consensual). Add that to his best mates being rapists and his sledging of the investigation and I don’t think he should be reinstated. But, I want to make it clear that what I’m also saying here is that no 16 year old has the right to have group sex with older men who have positions of authority, even if she/he wants to. I think this is something we need to think carefully about.
Ned
March 6th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
toad,
Thanks for the accurate information:
“Section 25(1)(c) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990:
… The right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law:â€?
(Rickards innocence is therefore a presumption … rather than a finding of the Court.)
The ongoing saga will be interesting!
March 6th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Big Bruv said:
“So you see no problem with the obvious double standard then?”
I don’t think it’s a double standard to reach a different conclusion about different situations, based on the respects in which they differ.
March 6th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Hi there……..
It seems reading the blogs above that the discussion has centred around power, consent and authority - quite rightly so. But perhaps this thread is very relevant. From my understanding it appears that “sackfuls” of objective evidence was never presented to the juries of either RS&S trial - this is in addition to the recent-ish revelation of Shipton and Schollum.
One is left with the question “WHY were the juries provided with mainly hearsay evidence?” Especially as these cases were “Historic”! Let me give examples:
1. Louise was accused of flirting with Schollum at a wedding party which was supposedly backed up by a defence witness (her background questionable)- but there is a wedding video in which an unhappy Louise appears. It shows her shrinking away from Schollum. The images speak for themselves and are as fresh as they were all that time ago. Why did the prosecution not allow the jury to see it to refut the other witness?
2. There were a number of private counsellors in the Rotorua and Bay of Plenty area with records of many women who were raped by a “gang” of police in those past times. Guess who is on the files? None of this hard information has come forward yet - why not may we ask?
3. The question lingers about the flatmate. She was never bought over as a witness. Her last statement said that Louise was laughing and welcoming to the “pack”. The flatmate had previously given statements - all different!
Why were the jury not told about these contrary and conflicting documents? One could surmise that pressure from a certain source could have been the reason for her being a defense witness and not a prosecution witness. There is more documentation yet to surface that vindicates Louise.
So 3 examples of what the jury did not get - not just that 2 were already in the clink - but there is considerably more. How then can juries bring about a clean verdict when factual evidence is withheld. All thats left is “she said… he said! It turns out that “JUSTICE” is trapped in a web of out-moded laws and procedures through which clever lawyers can play games with peoples lives!
There is a heap more to come - truth will finally reveal itself as it always does. But lets make it a bit easier and pressure all those responsible for law and judicial responsibility to make the changes - however hard they may be.
And let us have an independant system or group, where women or(men) who are sexually assaulted by Police, can safely give their evidence knowing that it will not become lost, destroyed, changed, delayed or that they will not be abused, threatened, pressured, and so on…..
Now how do we go about that?
March 6th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Kahikatea
You are indeed supporting a double standard.
Those who are apposed to Rickards returning to work are left with nothing other than “he will not have the publics confidence” as a reason to justify their prejudice.
How can any member of the public have confidence in a woman who moonlights as a prostitute, it could be argued that both of these police officers have shown poor judgment (Rickards was 20 years ago) yet you want one sacked and one retained on the force.
That is a double standard.
March 6th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
People seem to be confusing the two trials. Nicholas was 18, the complainant in the latest trial was 16 at the time of sexual relations.
Rickards denies having ever met, or had sex with, the woman who was 16 at the time.
What he had admitted to was sex with Louise Nicholas, but she was 18 not 16 at the time it happened.
I still think it was abusive and exploitative of Rickards, but 18 is different to 16.
March 6th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
andrew Says:
interesting that you feel that men are born with inherently greater responsibilities
Men are born with inherently greater powers, Andrew. Men may also acquire greater powers through age and status (e.g. by being a cop).
With power comes responsibility; or don’t you agree?
Ned : I want to make it clear that what I’m also saying here is that no 16 year old has the right to have group sex with older men who have positions of authority, even if she/he wants to. I think this is something we need to think carefully about.
For me, it’s not about the rights of the girl. It’s about the responsibilities of the older party.
If it wasn’t a matter of cops, but of a girl’s family doctor, or teacher, or lawyer, the issue would be the same.
Men have been abusing their authority to get sex since the dawn of time. It’s not going to stop any time soon. But there are categories of people that we NEED to be able to trust, for our society to function. If we allow such people to get away with abuses, then we’re living in barbary.
Those cops should be nailed to the wall by their scrotums. Consenting or not.
March 6th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Also : If we consider that any cop is free to accept any freely granted, legal sexual favours, then we open the door to corruption.
March 6th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
The hypocrisy of the left never ceases to amaze me.
The issue of David Benson-Pope was raised it was left in the too hard basket.
Should that pervert still be an MP?
Should Dover Samuels be an MP?
Chris Carter has stated that he met his partner at a summer camp while he was a supervisor. He was 20. His partner was 16. Do any of you think their may have been a power imbalance?
It is the same around the world. Bill Clinton treated women in a shocking manner. He was publicly called a rapist in relation to an accusation made by a woman while he was a State Governor. The left looked the other way.
If Al Gore got caught have group sex with a bunch of 12 years olds you lot would make some excuse.
March 7th, 2007 at 1:56 am
Oh get a grip Chuck!
Blah blah blah left-wing hypocrisy my arrrse. You’ll have to come up with some better evidence than that you silly little blue troll.
Some of the loudest protests I have personally observed against sleazy left-wing politicians are from the left themselves. If you want evidence of that fact go so a search on No Right Turn and find some of the angry left-wing critics of Benson-Pope and Taito Philips (who you forgot to mention in your little one-eyed hissy fit)
Being from the Far North and having personal knowledge of Samuels my opinions on that man are not fit for print and I wonder that he ever had any business being a politician in the first place. Clinton is a creep (from a sexual point of view) but his punishment is that he gets to have to live with Hillary LOL
But as to your comments about Chris Carter - well that is just downright infantile. I mean to say, a four year age difference is barely even worth mentioning is it? Unless you have nothing of more substance to base your venting on.
Now back to our regular viewing……
March 7th, 2007 at 2:11 am
Oh and while we’re on the topic of double standards….
Please explain to me why it is unacceptable to drag the defendants predatory sexual history into the trial as evidence of his character and yet some of you think it is perfectly OK for the woman’s sexual history to be dragged through the courts as (supposed) evidence of her character?
And was I the only one here who felt pissed every time they heard the previous trial referred to in the media as the “Louise Nicholas Trial”? It’s a bit of Freudian slip that reveals our sordid public attitudes to rape victims as being the one who is “on trial” rather than the accused perpetrators.
To Ned: Excellent post my friend! I’m so glad somebody finally bought up the issue of all the evidence that was suppressed from the jury in this trial. Maia has a very excellent post on her blog about this subject if anybody is interested:
http://capitalismbad.blogspot.com/2007/03/some-legal-issues.html
All I can say is thank gawd for this new Law of Evidence thing. It’s by no means a perfect solution but at least it is a step in the right direction towards ridding NZ of this terribly ingrained misogynistic attitude we have here towards rape victims.
March 7th, 2007 at 2:23 am
Ooops, I made a typo when I said “Ned”. I actually meant to refer to Michaelangelo’s post DOH
March 7th, 2007 at 3:01 am
I want to thank Nandor for his comment, which at least treated the people involved with respect.
I was upset and disappointed with Russel’s post, I explain why in detail in my blog: http://capitalismbad.blogspot.com/2007/03/expecting-more.html.
But the short version is that this post ignores the women involved.
March 7th, 2007 at 6:01 am
Zan
“yet some of you think it is perfectly OK for the woman’s sexual history to be dragged through the courts as (supposed) evidence of her character”
So you think the jury should not have heard about Louise Nicholas completely false allegation that she was raped “by a pack of Maoris”
The woman is a lair and the jury have a right to know.
March 7th, 2007 at 6:02 am
Chuck
You make some very good points, all of which will be ignored by most on here.
March 7th, 2007 at 9:55 am
BB - I am not suggesting Rickards should lose his job because of the events in the 1980s. While I find it difficult to accept that there was genuine consent in the Louise Nicholas rape case, I don’t think it would be possible to prove that she was manipulated into group sex this far down the track - even to the standard of the balance of probabilities. And as Russel has said, engaging in group sex in itself does not make a person unfit to be a police officer (although the one about sex on the bonnet of a police car, if true, is probably borderline.
As I have said before, the reason Rickards should lose his job is his public assertion of Shipton’s and Schollum’s innocence, and his public attack on the Police investigation that resulted in their convictions and his arrest. Police officers are sworn to uphold the law, and it is unconscionable that Rickards, as a senior police officer, places his loyalty to his friends and his belief in their innocence above the finding of the Court that convicted them. If he genuinely believes they are innocent he has the choice to resign from the Police and run, as a private citizen, a campaign like Joe Karam has for David Bain’s innocence.
March 7th, 2007 at 10:06 am
Big Bruv…
“So you think the jury should not have heard about Louise Nicholas completely false allegation that she was raped “by a pack of Maorisâ€?”
According to the information that I have on this incident she never accused any Maori of pack rape.
The real story…
What actually happened is that she was out riding her pony one day when she came across a group of male Maori youths on horseback. As she passed them they made jokes and innuendos, as all teenagers can do. She became a bit anxious and galloped home. On arriving at her house her father scolded her for what he thought was reckless riding. To which she replied that she had been a bit frightened by the comments of a group of Maori boys riding on the hills.
Her father, who was in the search and rescue group, knew many of the police and it was he who happened to mention it to one of the police officers (a so called friend of the family) had been raping Louise. Her father knew nothing of this at the time. Later when she finally found the courage to accuse the cop of rape, it was he who bought up the story about the Maori pack rape - basically in order to discredit Louise and better his own case. “Smoke screen”
There is no signed statement by Louise as to this story and she has consistantly denied being raped by a “pack of Maori”. According to her it was a harmless encounter but because she was being raped by others she felt afraid. It was her father who passed the story to the police - it was changed to “rape” by the guys in uniform - not Louise.
Why did the prosecution not demand the defense to show a signed statement by Louise stating that she was raped by a pack of Maori”? Because there wasn’t one! Because it never happened…..
March 7th, 2007 at 10:49 am
Alistair - I’m not saying that it doesn’t come down to the responsibilities of the older party, and in fact, in the end, that’s why I think it was wrong (even had it been consensual which is clearly also in serious doubt). But, in saying that, we are also saying that sometimes, no matter what the individuals involved want, we don’t think they have the right to consent. It’s interesting that you compare cops to family doctors; to the best of my knowledge doctors are under professional obligations not to get involved with patients. If we treat cops as equivalent then how wide does the circle go around a cop - who are their ‘patient’ equivalents?
capitalismbad - I’ve had a look at your blog and I have to say that I have some concerns that you see the key questions to be things like:
“Is Brad Shipton the most vile man in New Zealand? (I’m really hoping the answer to this one is yes)” and
“Are there actually any ‘reasonable doubts’ here aren’t they all just ‘misogynist doubts’ or is that considered the same thing?”
I wasn’t on the jury, nor did I investigate the case, nor live in Rotorua at the time of the alleged offending, and I share the concerns of those who think that the jury needed access to more evidence to make an informed decision. However, are you suggesting that those accused of rape are automatically guilty because any doubts are clearly just misogynist? Do you think there could ever be ‘reasonable doubt’ in a sex trial? Is it sexist to believe in innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Should we just lock up anyone accused of rape, without trial and throw away the key? Because I feel like that’s what some people are suggesting is the solution and I just can’t agree. I am absolutely with you on the need to make trials safer for victims. But the key has got to be maintaining a balance between that and the right we all have to a fair trial - I think that balance has yet to be achieved and will never be easy to maintain.
ned
March 7th, 2007 at 10:49 am
zANavAShi said: “Please explain to me why it is unacceptable to drag the defendants predatory sexual history into the trial as evidence of his character and yet some of you think it is perfectly OK for the woman’s sexual history to be dragged through the courts as (supposed) evidence of her character?”
because it is unacceptable to convict a suspect on the grounds that “they are that type of person”. the highest standards of proof should be met. that includes confidence in the credibility of witnesses.
i feel like i’m conducting an “introduction to civics” course.
March 7th, 2007 at 11:10 am
zANavAShi, please forgive me, I usually do not read left wing blogs. I was alerted to some of the garbage on this one from Kiwiblog. Benson-Pope was mentioned and ignored so it it legitimate for me to raise the issue of the left being hypocritical. I am not saying every single left winger ignored or even tried to justify Benson-Pope’s behaviour.
However, I remember Helen Clark and other Labour MPs saying things like it was long time ago and things were different then. It has never been acceptable for an adult man to go unannounced into a girl’s dorm let alone shower.
In regards Chris Carter if you read my post you will see I stated he was a supervisor at a school camp. That is he was in a position of authority. The four year age difference was the same as Rickard and Nicholas. I do not know if his 16 student was sexually experienced. He might well have been. If he had not been there could have been a different outcome which could have had a lasting effect on him.
In regard your next post relating to past convictions I accept there are valid arguments for allowing this. In fact it can happen now and may have in the last case if they did not try to fit Rickard. There was no real evidence that Rickard was even there other than the recollection of someone called Clint being present.
March 7th, 2007 at 11:21 am
Toad…. Good points
“And as Russel has said, engaging in group sex in itself does not make a person unfit to be a police officer (although the one about sex on the bonnet of a police car, if true, is probably borderline.”
I think that the baton, bottle and car bonnet have been part of a “point scoring culture” within different police districts - and still have some relevance today - so I have heard. I wonder how many “station points” the male and female officers got for “having it” off in front of a police station recently!
Of course this point scoring mentality is prevalent in other professions and occupations as well - “high flyers, office hi-jinks” to name a few.
If this is the case then the line between consensual and non-consensual point scoring becomes blurred very easily. But the “point” I am making is that when it comes to the Law - generally the public have only one option. That is to go to the Police with a complaint and then to court.
But if the perpetrators are members of the police - then what! And if the judicial system is so antiquated - then what! For example if one was raped by say a group of firemen (sorry guys) would one go to the firebrigade to complain? - no - one would go to the police. So the question I have is when the police are accused of rape - who does one go to?
From the mess (and hope) that is appearing from the current cases the police must be the last place that frightened women would reveal their harrowing story. The system has to change, there has to be another option. We pay the police who carry out the law and laws are made in Parliament by people we elect, the judicial system sees that the Law is carried out according to the current rules that Parliament has set - so I guess it is up to us to insist on change. Lets do it.
March 7th, 2007 at 11:48 am
I was asking specifically about these trials. For example, any questions the jury had which resulted from the evidence that Louise Nicholas wore the white dress again, were misogynist doubts, based on the idea that there is a correct way for rape victims to behave.
You are reading a lot into that that I didn’t say.
If you don’t understand why I’m hoping Brad Shipton is the vilest man in New Zealand, you haven’t been following the cases closely enough.
March 7th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
So, you’re assuming that the jury are all misogynists and that’s why we got this verdict? You don’t think there’s any way that they looked at the evidence available to them and had some doubts about what happened - a ‘reasonable doubt’ even? I think it’s fair to say they might’ve reached a different decision with more evidence, but to say that not convicting WITHOUT enough evidence makes you a woman-hater?
March 7th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Capitalismbad, your question seems a bit sexist. Should it not be, “Is Brad Shipton the most vile person in New Zealand?�
March 7th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Get set for the next chapter in the saga - former Detective Inspector John Dewar is on trial later in the year on charges of attempting to obstruct or defeat the course of justice in heading the original “investigation” into Louise Nicholas’ allegations against Shipton, Schollum and Rickards.
March 7th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Toad….
The John Dewar trial and don’t forget the Commission into Police Conduct (CPC) long overdue report…….should keep this blogg going the whole year!
March 7th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Andrew, I think you missed my point which is that they are BOTH wrong. I agree that it is totally unacceptable to convict a suspect on the grounds that “they are that type of person”. And my point is that it should be seen as equally unacceptable for our legal system to condemn the evidence of the accuser on the grounds that “they are that type of whore”.
I was not trying to make a case for past offending history to be introduced in trials I was trying to make the point about all the OTHER evidence that could have been brought in to support these women’s cases but was disallowed or ignored, some of which was mentioned above by Michaelangelo.
Let’s just hope that the John Dewar trial and CPC will expose the ways in which justice did not have a fair chance to proceed in these cases and lead to changes ,so that victims do not continue to be raped first by the offender and second by the system.
March 7th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
zANavASHI
Well spoken - lets hope so too.
The next trial seems to be more about internal evidence tampering, and obstruction within the system. Which of course results in complainant injustice.
One wonders why JD would do such a thing! What has he got to hide I wonder? How much evidence in this trial will be suppressed - we all wonder?
March 7th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
The maximum term of imprisonment for conspiring to obstruct or defeat the course of justice is 7 years.
So if it is proven that Dewar corruptly covered up the allegations into Shipton, Schollum and Rickard’s conduct, he won’t receive anywhere near the sentence they would have, had they been convicted of rape.
Doesn’t this send the wrong signals? If you commit a rape, you can go down for up to 20 years. But if, as a corrupt police officer, you cover one up so your mates get off, the most you can go down for is 7.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
The maximum penality for rape is 20 years but someone making a delibrately false accusation seldon gets imprisoned. In the case of Nick Wills the woman who made the false complaint got community service and name suppression.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Don’t have more than the vaguest recollection of the details of that case, Chuck, but section 109 of the Crimes Act 1961 states:
109 Punishment of perjury
(1)Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who commits perjury.
(2)If perjury is committed in order to procure the conviction of a person … for any offence for which the maximum punishment is not less than 3 years’ imprisonment, the punishment may be imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.
So if a complainant gives evidence that she knows to be false accusing someone of rape, she can get up to 14 years.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
zanavashi said: “Andrew, I think you missed my point which is that they are BOTH wrong. I agree that it is totally unacceptable to convict a suspect on the grounds that “they are that type of personâ€?. And my point is that it should be seen as equally unacceptable for our legal system to condemn the evidence of the accuser on the grounds that “they are that type of whoreâ€?.”
but they are not both wrong. the justice system is not supposed to be set up to ensure that the proportions of guilty people being acquitted and innocent people being convicted are approximately equal.
it is supposed to ensure that it is almost impossible for an innocent person to be convicted.
otherwise it would not be a justice system, it would be a lottery system.
as such the reliability of witnesses, including the complainant, is always a legitimate issue.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Andrew
When evidence, witnesses, drawn out timescale, outmoded laws and deliberate obstruction are present - the whole thing becomes a lottery. But there are no winners.
Would you buy a ticket?
March 7th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Yes, Andrew, section 109 of the Crimes Act that I’ve just posted reinforces that point. If someone commits perjury to procure a conviction for a serious offence, they can be liable to up to 14 years imprisonment. But someone who commits perjury to procure an acquittal for a serious offence can only be liable to 7 years imprisonment.
Sharon Shipton might take some small comfort in that knowledge.
March 7th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Toad, do you understand there is a difference between theory and practice?
If rapists were getting PD and those making false complaints were going to jail for 7 years I am sure you would be complaining.
What do you think an appropriate sentence for someone who attempts to put an innocent person in jail for somewhere between 7 and 12 years?
March 7th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Chuck - as I’ve said, I’m not familiar with the facts of that particular case, or whether she was charged with perjury or some lesser offence such as making a false allegation or report to Police, which carries a maximum of only 3 months imprisonment.
I would think that a term of imprisonment should normally be appropriate for a false allegation of the nature you suggest, but don’t know the full circumstances or what mitigating factors may have been taken into account by the Court.
March 7th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Should Rickards get the Auckland job?
No. Leadership of a region over the mainstream force would do nothing to restore confidence that such a culture in police was historic.
He has however been paid 450,000 over 3 years and is likely to get 300,000 more even if he does not return to the job. They should offer him another job on a 2 year contract.
Why not establish an anti-violence Commission. He could do work preparing for it’s foundation. In the future, one of the deputy’s to such a commissioner could come from the police force.
Such could relate to an idea that there should be advocacy to the parole Baord for the public safety whenever someone with a violent past is up for parole.
Some gathering of research on violence - and associated abuse of power (with a reference to Maori statistics and also gangs) in our society and a programme for police playing a role in dealing with causes (in support of others) and effective police management etc. The “Peter Doone” shuffle.
Otherwise police HQ should focus on professional standards for the police (and develope this and release it as soon as possible after the piolice inquiiry findings come out in a few weeks).
The issue is what professional standards the police have. All professional groups have such expectations. This group which has a role of public trust should have a standard of behaviour expectation. The question is of course, where the boundary between profession/public trust role and private life is.
Teachers can “date” people of school age 16-18 - but not pupils in the school where they teach. Doctors can date anyone of the public but their patients. Being in uniform or being on duty (work hours) is part of one’s public role, as is driving around in a police vehicle. This provides a clear separation of public and private life. The next boundary, is where behaviour “as a group of police officers” reflects on the police in general (that is while private relationships and such is personal business, being a group of off duty police officers sharing the same women the way a gang does reflects badly on the police).
One police officer represents himself, a group represents the police force and this can result in an abusive breach of trust/power which could intimidate people. Thus an apparent consent which was coerced by their circumstance, rather than being a genuine one.
The other matter is of course, relationships between police force memebrs of differing ranks where one is boss over the other. Most organisations premised on rank have an issue with internal power being abused in relationships with junior ranks.
None of this speaks to what individual officers legally do in their private life, nor should it. But after this, only such a professional code puts the past in the past and prevents such cultures developing again.
Other matters such as consorting with known cons, people under investigation etc would also have to be covered.
March 7th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
In any evidence based court case system, basic equality as to the nature of evidence also applies.
If it is not admissable to say that defendants had priors, then it is not admissable to say that the complainant made up allegations on other occasions.
If a man trying to pick up females for casual sex is not indicative of predatory behaviour that shows a risk of rape, then her sexual past does not speak to any suggestion that she would not have denied consent on any occasion to anyone.
If consent is not to be presumed on any occasion, then a history of consent has no bearing on any subsequent occasion.
March 7th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Toad, I will go over the facts of the case briefly.
A university student accused another student of rape. The accused parent’s were divorced. However, they worked together to help him. This cost them about 30 - 35k.
Before the case went to court the student confessed to making the whole thing up. She got sentenced to community service, was ordered to pay about 5k cost (which I doubt if she paid) and was given permanent name suppression.
I actually appeared on a TV debate on the issue of rape and false complaints on a show compared by Ian Frazer. I was in a minority compared with the militant feminist. The reason I was on was because I volunteered after being a juror on a rape trial where the complainant clearly committed perjury. I will not go into detail but I was so appalled at wasting three days listening to a pack of lies that I called the police prosecutor and asked why the case went to court. He said that it was police policy to let the jury decided if a complainant sticks to her story.
I then asked why she was not prosecuted for perjury. He did not dispute the fact that she lied under oath which was obvious but said if we prosecuted such a case it would discourage legitimate complaints.
Hopefully, there are a few on this blog who would like to look for a solution rather than bash men. The ideal solution would allow the justice system to find those who commit rape guilty while not increasing the number of innocent men falsely convicted and hopefully reducing the number going to court when there is not a case to answer.
If a reasonable solution could be found it is doubtful the government would listen. One only has to listen to the smacking debate – a reasonable compromise is proposed and it is rejected by Sue Bradford who thinks violence is only justified if perpetrated by her. I supposed spitting in the face of a policeman is not violence – oh well he was a potential pack rapist
March 7th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Ned : It’s interesting that you compare cops to family doctors; to the best of my knowledge doctors are under professional obligations not to get involved with patients. If we treat cops as equivalent then how wide does the circle go around a cop - who are their ‘patient’ equivalents?
SPC and Michelangelo have covered this pretty comprehensively… I’m impressed… Just a personal observation.
I have a 13 year old daughter. It is desperately important to me that she should be able to trust the police. What are my alternatives? Send her to a convent, or hire a security guard?
March 8th, 2007 at 9:47 am
alistair
Its a hard one…but hope this helps
Trust based on ones own innate awareness and an informed mind is vital as it will open new possibilities and generally have positive outcomes for that individual. Blind faith and group trust unfortuantely does not always lead one in the same direction. Lemmings over the cliff mentality. Likewise anger, apprehension and frustration tends to lead to more of the same - but is a good indicator for movement out of that situation.
We don’t actually have to trust the “police” but we do have to insist that we are being listened to, treated with respect and that our rights are being protected. Individual members of the policeforce need to insist on the same conditions within the force. This is “self responsibility” first “group responsibility’ second. Trust is gained through association/experience and self confidence. It is not something that we give away.
Your daughter is the same age as Louise when she was first raped by a friend of the family who happened to be a cop. You can teach her to be aware and to trust her gut feelings but most of all to show her love. Love and awareness will produce more of the same, fear and anger as I have said previously will also create more of the same. It is a choice we all have to make every moment.
Lets push to get these historical laws bought up to date so that “justice” comes back into the NZ judicial system. Then with better laws that cannot be manipulated, as we have seen recently, group trust may begin to filter back. A good starting point is honesty - self-honesty.
If you look at the bigger picture internationally you will notice that it is really more of the same….power, violence, injustice, lies, cover-ups ….. It is a time when perpetrators are being found out and truth (whatever that is) is coming to the surface. So its a time for “truth” to surface in NZ as well.
Watch the “Sunday” programme for more revelations to come about the last trial - call it misplaced evidence!
March 8th, 2007 at 9:51 am
I’m not sure I agree with the idea that one cop equals member of the public but a group equals cops. But I do think that you could probably say that police shouldn’t get involved with anyone who they’re having dealings with in the course of their duty (ie, investigating etc). And, i’ve consistently agreed that it’s wrong for a group of cops to have sex with a teenager (whatever the consent), but, if they don’t have dealings with a woman professionally, how old would she need to be before we would accept that her consent made the behaviour ethical? It seems like lots of people are uncomfortably with the current age of consent for lots of contexts - do you think there should be some legal changes to reflect these concerns?
March 8th, 2007 at 10:21 am
SPC Said:
“In any evidence based court case system, basic equality as to the nature of evidence also applies. If it is not admissable to say that defendants had priors, then it is not admissable to say that the complainant made up allegations on other occasions.”
i’m sorry but there’s no such principle in law. i’ll have to refer you back to my previous post.
but there is an “equlity of evidence” of sorts in that if the defendant uses his character as a defence, then the prosecution may give evidence to the contrary.
March 8th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Ned
Perhaps the “group” is the problem - if there was more self responsibilty and individual integrity, then the past activities in Rotorua would have been brought to a swift end long ago. It is obvious that many others were aware of what was going on in Rotorua and Bay of Plenty.
In the recent trials - one has to ask - where were the police witnessess who knew about the activities of the 3 that were accused . Why have none of them come forward now, or if they did, made themselves known? - where is their individual integrity - are their mates and the police system more important than the human qualities that we all aspire to? For those who have left the force and knew about RSand S and others, why have they not come forward?
If the police is to regain a less suspicious relationship with the public that it serves - it has to show that these days it does not tollerate murkyness, closed ranks, inappropriate behaviour or injustice. I hear not a peep from Howard Broad, Annette King (apart from posters) Rob Pope - yet!
March 8th, 2007 at 11:19 am
Andrew said
“but there is an “equlity of evidenceâ€? of sorts in that if the defendant uses his character as a defence, then the prosecution may give evidence to the contrary.”
Does this mean - if the defence puts nothing on the table then the meal is over before it has begun? The prosecutions evidence is therefore not part of the menu? OR does this relate to character references only.
What I am trying to discover is why so much prosecution objective evidence never made it to the banquet.
March 9th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
“I have a 13 year old daughter. It is desperately important to me that she should be able to trust the police.”
One should never trust the police. One may have need to make use of their services in regards criminal wrongdoing, but one should absolutely not trust them any more than you would any other person, especially considering the extraordinary legal powers they have.
March 9th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
Absolutely! individuals have enough problems trusting themselves!
The police are public servants, as are our friends in politics and those in the justice system. It is up to us as the citizens to demand better standards, laws and service from them - and ensure that we get it!
March 9th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
The public CAN trust the police, all this hysteria is being whipped up by the likes of Sue Bradford and her anti police mates, make no mistake, Comrade Bradford sees this as a chance to get one back on the Police for all the times she has been (quite rightly) arrested.
To demand an apology from the Police for things that MIGHT have been done in the 80’s is absurd, she is simply grandstanding for political gain, it is no coincidence that she is vocal about this at the time her anti smacking bill is going through the house.
March 9th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Tussock :
I strongly disagree. I trust my doctor. That doesn’t mean I trust my doctor blindly, I may question her judgement and ask for other opinions. BUT I trust that she will do her best for me, in what she considers to be my best interests, according to her professional conscience and ethics.
I DEMAND the same level of conscience and ethics from the police. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Well, actually that’s probably unfair, or in any case hard to attain. The cops don’t go through rigorous selection and training like doctors do. They are more on a par with teachers in this respect. That’s a problem, because they have far greater power than teachers. Their power is more on a par with that of doctors. This disparity between training/ethics and power is the heart of the problem.
For example, there are a couple of my daughters’ teachers who I consider to be idiots, unfit to teach. That’s a problem, but it’s not a huge deal, because one teacher doesn’t have all that much power to mess up the life of a kid, much less than a doctor or a cop anyway.
March 9th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
I dunno Bro. Imagine for a moment that you have a 16 year old daughter, and you live in a town where the cops have a reputation for wild sexual behaviour. Do you let her go out at night?
In fact, whether I myself trust the police is less important than whether my daughter does. If I have misgivings, I can keep her at home (perhaps), or take the risk of letting her go out. But if she has misgivings, she may end up in some sort of dicey situation (she inevitably will sooner or later) and hesitate to call the cops.
And that’s far worse.
March 11th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Whew Russ, that was interesting!
I’ve posted on this case in the member’s forum, so go there, those who have access. I won’t repost here, but you can view at
http://indymedia.org.nz/newswire/display/72704/index.php
where you will see language that doesn’t appear in frogblog thrown at me in the replies.
As a footnote to alister’s post, I am also a mother, and on the night we marched, my children were firmly locked up at home, with their babysitter.
My 19-year-old uni student flatmate was comfortable with joining me on the march, and as a fresh new law student, enjoyed the atmosphere immensely!
These actions are about empowering women, especially rape survivors, but all women need empowerment in our society, specifically iin response to comments like:
(tussock)
What’s all this power imbalance crap people are talking about? Surely we’re entitled to have sex with people who aren’t our perfect equals without being labeled morally repugnant. I mean, welcome to the real world, eh.
This shows such breathtaking ignorance of the inherant power that is accorded to male citizens inour society, I’m astounded. I’m assuming he has white and middle-class priviledge as well, simply because of the unfeigned superiority implicit in such a statement.
I’m sure you, tussock, have never been in a situation where you have been coerced by another adult into sex you didn’t want to have, but sit a bunch of women down over a drink, and most of us have a story or two about a rape or near-rape exerience. Swapping stories of how to get away from those kind of experiences is how women survive.She who fights and runs away, etc.
To all the people who have posted compassionaltely and clarified this topic for those who needed clarification, thank you.
March 16th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Thanks for the debate Russell, very interesting, and I hope you’re not put off posting controversial material in future.
Katie - I disagree that admitting sexual power imbalances exist and are normal “shows breathtaking ignorance”. I think that the conclusion demanded by your argument is that women can only have sex with those they consider less or equal in power, never those they perceive to be more powerful. As a feminist, I don’t find this acceptable. It’s up there with the ‘all sex is rape’ way of seeing the world which I find really disempowering. Surely part of being liberated is being able to make choices about sex - who, when, where - and not be judged for those choices.
Molly
March 16th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
A while since I spoke to this debate, so here are some thoughts. Yes I did mean that the stronger (be that who it may be) should protect the weaker in our society.
I also believe that we should have the right to expect that police officers have a stronger sense of ethics and what is right, than joe average; and do their best to live and work to those standards. Yes of course they are human too. But sadly I don’t trust the NZ police one little bit. To many of my clients they are known as “the blue gang” and still operate much like one (hate to be controversial..). Woe betide you if you upset the cops and live in a small town.
If you are a vulnerable victim, and it was the police wot dun it, who indeed can you go to? And would you be brave enough to report it, knowing that your unfriendly local police officers may well have you targeted thereafter. My own view is that we badly need some police law reform in this country - to give them powers to deal with crime in the 21st century, as well as serious doses of accountability to the public. It might even restore some public confidence in those unusual people who always manage to arrive after the event, but rarely seem to be doing anything to prevent crime.
March 17th, 2007 at 2:04 am
Molly, I totally agree with you about the “all sex is rape” way of seeing the world being very disempowering.
I am quite opposed to such cliches from the old style “victim model” of feminism and am pleased to say that I moved beyond that model a very long time ago and I am certainly a stronger woman for it.
However, I personally did not interpret Katie’s meaning as you have here and I think that the power imbalance issue is very much of importance when it is being applied to relationships such as those in these trials. Not saying it is an issue in all cases, but we are talking about this particular case here, OK.
And please forgive me if I misinterpreted your meaning above, but I get the sense from your words that you are implying that the women in this case were in a position to give their empowered consent (and hence should not be judged for their choices).
After all, these girls were drunk at the time and how much freedom does a drunk (or stoned) woman have to say no to sex, and especially when there are three very much larger sober adult males grouped around her like that?
Certainly I agree that part of being liberated is making choices, but it also has to be taken into account how much freedom she has to make her choice under the circumstances.
March 17th, 2007 at 8:44 am
zANavAShi Says, “After all, these girls were drunk at the time and how much freedom does a drunk (or stoned) woman have to say no to sex�.
Johnny Cash once said, “I never went to bed with an ugly woman but I certainly woke up with a few.� So it sounds like a man not only is expected to carry around condoms and a consent form but a breathalyser as will. I understand that a man can also be charged or having sex with a female who is of unsound mind. So in the case of many females on this blog such as you a man should bring along a psychiatrist as well.