|
Allegations of Abuse
in NZ |
||
|
Tea Ropati - League Star accused
of rape |
||
|
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=240&objectid=10490172 NZ Herald Lawyer Gary Gotlieb made some
extraordinarily harsh criticisms of police practices and perceptions after
his client, former Warriors and Kiwis league player Tea Ropati, was found not
guilty of six sex charges. The law, he said, had become “so bloody PC'' and
“so anti-male it's not funny''. For good measure, he complained that the
pursuit of Mr Ropati had been all about the police adult sexual abuse unit
trying to make a name for itself by claiming a celebrity scalp. Mr Gotlieb's bottom line was that
his client should not have been prosecuted. It is not a view that stands up
to scrutiny. Nor, indeed, do any of his other claims. The police, themselves,
acknowledge that, in the wake of the Louise Nicholas trials, there is much attention
on their handling of rape allegations. This creates the danger that, as a
precautionary measure, they will seek to have all such allegations examined
by the courts. At the very worst, extreme sensitivity could lead to cases
based on the flimsiest of evidence being advanced. There is nothing, however,
to suggest that was so in this example. A complaint initially dealt with
by the on-duty crime squad in June 2006 was passed to the newly established
sexual assault team. It seems unlikely that members of this squad regarded Mr
Ropati in terms of proving themselves. Just as conceivably, they could have
recognised the danger to their reputations and the team's fledgling status if
the case failed. They might also have considered the public outcry had no further
action been taken and Mr Ropati's accuser then made her allegations public. Duly, the police decided to
prosecute, leaving the final judgment to the seven men and five women on an
Auckland District Court jury. Subsequent events confirm this was not as ill-
conceived as Mr Gotlieb suggests. The jury found the prosecution
evidence compelling enough to deliberate for nearly 12 hours. Its members
also returned to the court to ask several questions, an unlikely occurrence
if the case had been clear-cut. The difficulty of their exercise was
illustrated by the statements released by the two main protagonists after the
verdict. Mr Ropati said that he had ``never doubted that I would be found
innocent of all charges. I have been honest and up-front at all times with
everyone concerned''. His accuser was equally adamant. ``While I am
devastated by the verdict I have no regrets about coming forward and would
still encourage any woman who endures this type of experience to do so''. Rape cases often hinge on the degree
of consent and, by their nature, are difficult to prove. The cases involving
Mrs Nicholas illustrated this, even allowing in her case for questions about
the durability of evidence. It, therefore, seems incomprehensible for Mr
Gotlieb to say that in the 38 years he has been working on rape trials, he
has seen the law go ``so anti-male it's not funny''. The outcome of most
recent high-profile trials suggests otherwise, and serves only to confirm
that sexual violation remains an area of great difficulty for juries. Certainly, there are lessons to be
learned from this trial. Mr Ropati's reputation has been severely tarnished
even though he was acquitted. That should give pause to men who find themselves
in similar circumstances. Further, the prosecution case suffered because of
the intoxicated state of Mr Ropati's accuser. There is a message there for
women. None of this, however, bears on
the criticisms of Mr Gotlieb, who seems to covet a world of black and white.
Unfortunately, in matters of sexual violation, even more than life in
general, that is rarely the case. |
||
