|
Allegations of abuse
by NZ Police |
|
|
peterellis homepage / police allegations / Louise
Nicholas vs John Dewar |
|
|
Former policeman John Dewar
yesterday denied in court that he had manipulated evidence during the trial
of a former policeman charged with raping Louise Nicholas. He said Nicholas refused to make a
statement to him about being allegedly raped by three other policemen,
despite his asking her about the allegations. Crown prosecutor Brent Stanaway
began his cross-examination of Dewar yesterday afternoon and questioned why
Dewar did not take a formal complaint from Nicholas despite hearing her make
a statement in court that she had been raped by the three men. Dewar replied that Nicholas
refused to talk to him about the allegations. Dewar, 55, self-employed, of
Hamilton, faces four charges in the High Court of attempting to obstruct or
defeat the course of justice between 1993 and 1995. Dewar was chief inspector of the Rotorua
CIB when Nicholas approached police in 1993 with two historical sex
allegations, including those against suspended assistant commissioner Clint
Rickards and former policemen Brad Shipton and Bob Schollum. The Crown alleges Dewar suppressed
allegations Nicholas made against the three men and attempted to pervert the
course of justice during the rape trial of a former policeman, who has
permanent name suppression, by giving inadmissible evidence. Nicholas alleged the man had
sexually assaulted her, then aged 13, which led to two mistrials before a
third trial acquitted him. Among those in the public gallery
today were Nicholas, members of Shipton's family and Dewar's wife and
daughter. Earlier, Dewar said he was
"shocked, surprised and concerned" when Nicholas made the
allegations of rape against the three men in the second retrial. Dewar said he asked Nicholas
afterwards if the allegations were true, but she did not answer. Dewar said he thought Nicholas had
lied under oath and decided not to push the issue because she could have been
charged with perjury. Under cross-examination, Stanaway
put it to Dewar that he had manipulated the evidence in the way he had
investigated the case in order to manufacture the outcome of the former
policeman's trial. Dewar replied: "I didn't
manipulate anything." If at any time Nicholas wanted to
make a complaint, it would have been investigated, but she would not talk to
him about it, he said. During an increasingly tense
cross-examination, Stanaway stopped his line of questioning and told Dewar
there was nothing personal between them and he was simply doing his job. Dewar said that after 3<<1/2
years he had been "pilloried" by the media, and was now being
"badgered" by Stanaway over whether Nicholas had made a statement. "She had ample opportunity
and she chose not to," Dewar said. "In the end I made a judgment
call, which is what I'm paid to." Dewar said if Nicholas had told
him she had lied under oath he would have had to charge her with perjury. "It was not your
decision," Stanaway said. "It was my decision and it's the same one
I would make today," Dewar replied. Dewar said if he did not follow
procedure by reporting the allegations made under oath to the district
commander, it did not make him a bad policeman; he was interested in
protecting Nicholas. Today the jury will hear closing
statements and the judge will sum up tomorrow before the jury retires to
consider its verdict. |
