Dominion Post
March 6, 2004
Investigating officer rejects judges' censure in Nicholas case
by Fran Tyler
The police officer
criticised by judges over the way police handled Louise Nicholas' rape
complaint against three policemen when she was aged about 18 said he did not
have a chance to explain himself.
The Dominion Post has successfully had some suppression orders lifted in three
rape trials against a man accused of raping Mrs Nicholas when she was aged
about 14.
The lifting of the suppressions allowed criticisms of investigating officer John Dewar, made by Judge Michael Lance in 1995 and
Judge Philip Evans, to be made public. Judge Lance criticised Mr Dewar in a
costs decision against police.
In a statement from his lawyers, Stace Hammond,
issued yesterday, Mr Dewar said he did not know at the time about the costs
application and decision. Nor did he know at the time that he had received name
suppression in that decision. He did not at the time have the criticisms put to
him by the court and did not have the opportunity to explain his position.
"He rejects the criticism. He will explain his position in the appropriate
forum. John Dewar did his duty and will continue to do his duty and denies any
wrongdoing. He looks forward to the commission of inquiry."
The first two of the three trials against the man were abandoned because
Detective Inspector Dewar, then Rotorua CIB chief, gave hearsay evidence at
critical points of the Crown case. The man was acquitted after the third trial.
Details of multiple rape allegations made by Mrs Nicholas against Clint
Rickards, now assistant commissioner, and former officers Tauranga city
councillor Brad Shipton and Napier car dealer Bob Schollum emerged during the
trials but were suppressed. The men deny the allegations.
Mr Dewar, who had assigned himself to investigate the complaints in 1993, told
the court that he had advised Mrs Nicholas not to record the allegations
because they were not specific in "time and event".
Judge Lance, in court documents in the later costs decision against police,
said: "I am of the view the failure to record and detail these allegations
was not only remarkable it was utterly incredible. After all, he was an
experienced detective inspector investigating allegations of serious sexual
offending.
"During his interview with the complainant, he is told of allegations of
potentially serious sexual offending by three other named and currently serving
police officers.
"Such disclosures should have triggered alarm bells that would have
permanently silenced Big Ben, no matter how vague in terms of time and event.
"Even more surprising than the failure to record is the officer's deliberate
advice to the complainant not to make a statement about her allegation against
these officers."
In the second trial, Judge Evans questioned Mr Dewar's motives in giving
hearsay evidence at a similar point in the trial to where he gave hearsay evidence
in the first trial.
Meanwhile, the commission of inquiry into police conduct is asking for
expressions of interest from those who want to be part of the inquiry.
Spokesman Colin Feslier, who is helping to set up the
commission, said those people were being asked to register their interest by
March 15.