The Press
February 9, 2004
New beat
Few would have
predicted that the allegations of a police rape would have had such radical
consequences. Within days of the charges being made public last Saturday, the
case is subject to a high powered investigation, as is the culture of the
police force, and the judgment of the commissioner is under question. The
issues have the attention of the Prime Minister, as they do of the many New
Zealanders who care about one of the nation's main foundations.
That concern justifies a wide- ranging investigation. The public needs
reassuring that the police are not a law unto themselves and that their ethos
reflects the society in which they operate.
New Zealanders will have to be satisfied that the rape charges have been
rigorously explored and, if it is found crimes have been committed, that the
suspects are placed before a court. They will also want assurance that any past
failure to investigate these matters is identified and learnt from, and that
the force is not a chronic protector of law-breakers in its ranks.
None of those issues can be dealt with to the satisfaction of the public if
they are investigated by the police themselves or by the Police Complaints
Authority. Justly or unjustly, both organisations have been tarnished by their
previous failure to resolve the rape issues.
New Zealanders will therefore have welcomed the Prime Minister's rapid response
once the case had become public and the independence and authority of the
inquiry she has established.
The High Court judge who will preside might not find the rape charges justified
or detect faults with the manner in which they were investigated or in the
culture of the police force. But at least New Zealanders will know that the
issues have been given rigorous scrutiny.
The outcome is unlikely to be as simple as that, though. Some damaging things
already known appear uncontestable and likely to
attract criticism from the investigation.
Perhaps particularly damaging is the tolerance of Commissioner of Police Rob Robinson
in promoting Clint Rickards to a powerful position. Robinson did this knowing
that Rickards had confessed to unorthodox sexual behaviour with police
colleagues in a police house. Rickards had not been charged with an offence,
but that did not make the promotion acceptable, and a wiser employer would have
recognised as much. Robinson's suggestion that employment law prevented him
from taking such matters into account does not convince.
Any police officer, let alone the commander of the
Robinson was naive in assuming that he could promote Rickards without the rape
allegations becoming public knowledge and causing a scandal. If only to protect
Rickards from the humiliation he must now be suffering, the promotion should
have been denied or delayed until the allegations were properly investigated.
The suspicion is that the commissioner was not so much naive as intent on
protecting an effective officer. That closed-ranks mentality had, apparently,
already seen off the rape investigation and might have sheltered Rickards until
he wore the uniform of commissioner and retired with honours. Robinson might
have thought police solidarity was unbreachable.
If the official inquiry does find fault, it should not content itself with
pointing a finger at Commissioner Robinson. It should also discover how deep
the notion of closed-ranks-above-all runs in the force and suggest ways of
modifying it.
No-one wanting accountable and effective police will tolerate practices that do
not give priority to the law in the way the force disciplines itself.