|
|
Allegations
of Sexual Abuse |
|
|
|
|
The jury in the police
rape case has this morning asked the judge for a transcript of his summing up
following almost a day of deliberation. Justice Tony Randerson
agreed to them seeing his legal direction but not the entire transcript. The jury was continuing
a second day of deliberations into the fate of former Assistant Commissioner
Clint Rickards and two other former police officers. The seven women and five
men retired at 1pm yesterday at the High Court in Auckland to consider the
case against Rickards, and former officers Bob Schollum and Brad Shipton. They adjourned for the
night at 10pm after asking several questions of Justice Randerson. The judge had earlier
told them their task was not easy, as there were effectively three trials
running as one. The three accused face
20 charges of rape, indecent assault and sexual violation against Louise
Nicholas said to have occurred between 1985 and 1986 in Rotorua. Lawyers for the three
men have said the sex was consensual and that an alleged sexual attack with a
police baton never took place. After 2 hours the jury
emerged to ask if they could have a whiteboard and take a break. They also asked if
police officers kept their own uniforms. Justice Randerson
referred them to evidence given by former sergeant Raymond Sutton, who told
the court CIB officers were entitled to keep police uniforms and were
encouraged to do so. Mrs Nicholas has
alleged Rickards and Shipton visited her at her flat for sex without her
consent - sometimes wearing uniform and sometimes in plain clothes. But the men's lawyers
said during the trial that the men were plain-clothes detectives in the CIB
at the time of the alleged offences and would not have been wearing uniform,
as Mrs Nicholas had claimed. The second question
asked by the jury cannot be revealed because it would breach one of a number
of suppression orders in place at the trial. In a three-hour summing
up yesterday, Justice Randerson said the jury had to decide if Mrs Nicholas
was a credible and reliable witness or whether she genuinely believed she was
truthful but might have been mistaken. Justice Randerson said
the men were only to be judged on evidence given in court and were entitled
to any doubt in the jurors' minds. "If you have a
reasonable doubt that leaves you feeling unsure then you must acquit." The fact that the
allegations were first made in 1993 could have been for any number of
reasons, he said. The evidence of a
flatmate who said she had seen Mrs Nicholas having sex with the officers in
one location, if found to be credible, could have a bearing on Mrs Nicholas'
credibility in her evidence about alleged offences in another location. The jurors were told it
was not their job to judge the morality of what the men had done. "Whatever view you
may have about the morality of their behaviour must be put to one side. This
court is not concerned with the morality of their behaviour." It would be wrong for
the jury to take into account any material they may have seen or heard other
than what had been presented in court. |
