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 Auckland district, is more than just a law-enforcing automaton. He or she must be a fit person to exercise substantial powers and to warrant the confidence of the community.

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.