|
|
Allegations
of Sexual Abuse |
|
|
|
|
Few New Zealanders
would not have made up their minds about what the verdict should have been in
the Nicholas rape trial even before the jury retired to consider its
findings. The case warranted the
description of sensational: it attracted much publicity over a prolonged
period and involved a senior policeman and his former colleagues charged with
the repeated and sordid violation of a young woman. Those emotive ingredients
aroused strong and divided opinions among the public. Now that the verdict of
not guilty is in, the debate will no doubt continue. In that post-mortem it
is important to remember that those who sat through all the proceedings had a
far more detailed knowledge of the case than did others. Those outside the
courtroom will not have a grasp on the details, the relative strength of the
opposed parties, the behaviour of the accused and the accuser, and the impact
of the points of law involved. In short, the jury was in a much better
position to decide the issues than was any outsider. Confidence in the
verdict is therefore warranted. It is particularly
unjustified to accuse the jury of being intent on protecting the police by
bringing in a not guilty finding. The defence mounted a strong case that
could reasonably be accepted by a jury; issues of identification, consent,
memory, delay in reporting the alleged offences and the length of time since
the violation was claimed to have taken place were sufficiently strong to lead
the jury to conclude the defendants did not force sex on Louise Nicholas. Their favouring of that
point of view would have been boosted by the need of the prosecution to prove
beyond reasonable doubt that crimes were committed -- a demanding requirement
given the complexity and problematic nature of the case. The jury, like several
other New Zealand juries, has been correctly cautious in a case involving
historic allegations and the muddied issues of consent, intimidation and
power. The verdict should be
accepted; there was a full airing of the evidence, for and against, and no
reason to suggest that the jury did not have the facts required to make the
correct decision. The jury has done a good job in an important and difficult
case. Whatever the outcome,
the reality is that Clint Rickards' reputation has been severely damaged. His
position is problematic -- his position as a commissioner is effectively
over. As a senior police
officer representing power and privilege, he was involved in a deplorable private
association with a young woman who plainly was out of her depth. He used her
in a callous and careless way. That record is not expunged by the not guilty
verdict on the rape charges, which will make it difficult for Rickards to
advance his once promising career in the upper echelons of the police, or,
indeed, to remain within the force. His rank requires personal probity, which
he no longer enjoys. It is not just
Rickards' reputation that has been damaged by the trial. The fact that the
sexual liaison involved three senior Rotorua officers suggests a nasty
culture afflicted police in that city in the 1980s. Perhaps it was confined
to Rotorua and perhaps it has been improved, but sceptical New Zealanders
will have to be convinced of that because the image of the force has been
fundamentally changed for the worse. Instead of the perception of police
culture as merely laddish, many people will now regard it as seriously
tainted. The incoming
commissioner will have to reform this image -- a challenging assignment that
will require a person of exceptional skill. But he or she has a sound
foundation from which to start, because most police officers are professional
and have integrity. Nicholas is a tragic
figure whom the jury did not find convincing. Yet she displayed courage and
was a victim, if not of legal wrongdoing then of highly inappropriate
behaviour by powerful men. |
