Sunday Star Times
August 8 2004

Police bug telephone of rape-accused cops
by Miriyana Alexander

The telephones of the top cop and two former officers accused of raping Louise Nicholas almost 20 years ago are being bugged by police investigating her claims.

The Sunday Star-Times understands the courts issued an interception warrant several months ago against police assistant commissioner Clint Rickards and former officers Bob Schollum and Brad Shipton, who strenuously deny rape and say the sex was consensual.

While the law allows police such powers - a district or high court judge must grant the warrant, which in this case permits monitoring the trio's landlines and mobile phone calls - the move is raising eyebrows in the legal community.

Top criminal barristers say the move is unusal given the 18-year lapse between the even and the investigation. Nicholas claimed the alleged rape happened in 1986.

Wellington defence lawyer Greg King said he'd never heard of an interception warrant being issued so many years after an alleged crime. "It really does concern me that in the midst of such a public high-profile investigation this type of conduct is being resorted to."

King, a member of the NZ Law Society's criminal law committee, who stressed his views were his own, was alarmed about the impact of the warrant on the trio's ability to get legal advice. "These guys will be in the throes of preparing their defence and are likely to be speaking to all kinds of people. It's one thing to say they (the police) are not going to use it (the information gathered), but it's a pretty serious breach of the Bill of Rights if any person is prevented from talking freely and frankly over the phone to their lawyer."

Gary Gotlieb, also the Auckland Distrcit Law Society vice-president, echoed King's concerns. "On the face of it, this seems a fairly huge invasion into normal privacy and if there is discussion between co-accused and lawyers being recorded, that would have to give most people - and civil libertarians certainly - some alarm." Gotlieb said police must have good reason to seek such a warrant, but because those reasons were argued behind closed doors they were often never revealed. Such warrants were commonly used in drugs cases.

"It's a particularly interesting precedent to set. There may be perfectly valid reasons for it, but there is always limited disclosure in the end so...watch this space."

But Auckland University senior lecturer in criminal procedure, Scott Optican, said the 18 years between the event and it being investigated were irrelevant.

"If there is reason to believe that conversations between two police officers now in 2004 will give evidence of a crime 20 years ago then that satisfied the standard (for getting a warrant). They are a legitimate investigation technique."

Optican said the warrant seemed farcical given the trio appeared aware of its existence.

Clint Rickards' QC, John Haigh, declined to comment, saying the warrant was "one of number of serious concerns, together with the delay, which will be addressed in due course".