|
Allegations of abuse
by NZ Police |
|
|
peterellis
Home / police allegations / Rickards,
Shipton, Schollum vs Jane Doe Page 2 - 2007 Trial of Rickards,
Shipton, Schollum Week 2 |
|
|
Sharon Shipton, wife of
ex-detective Brad Shipton The prosecution today called a surprise
witness in the trial of suspended police assistant commissioner Clint
Rickards and two former policemen, to rebut earlier evidence by the wife of
one of the accused. Rickards, 46, Brad Shipton, 48,
and Bob Schollum, 54, have pleaded not guilty in the High Court in Auckland
to kidnapping and indecently assaulting a then 16-year-old girl between
November 1983 and August 1984. Shipton's wife Sharon gave
evidence yesterday she and her husband were on a month-long holiday in
Wanganui and Wellington in February 1984, during part of the time the alleged
offences took place. She said the couple stayed with
her cousin Christine Filer in Wanganui. Today the Crown flew in Ms Filer
from Perth, where she was on holiday, to testify against her cousin but first
questioned Mrs Shipton over conversations she had with Ms Filer last week. Mrs Shipton admitted she had
called her cousin but said it was not to counteract evidence given by the
alleged victim. Mrs Shipton has admitted discussing
the alleged victim's evidence – which was closed to the public – with her
husband. Mrs Shipton said she had asked Ms
Filer if she could stay with her when she was visiting in July and then asked
if she recalled the visit in 1984. "Did you tell her not to say
anything?" Crown prosecutor Brent Stanaway QC asked. "I did say to her that if she
was going to do it [talk to police] to tell the truth." Mrs Shipton said she knew from the
investigation that if police contacted witnesses they would "intimidate,
they will say the most vile things about these men". "You were trying to influence
her and the way she might answer questions," Mr Stanaway said "No, that was not my
intention." Told her cousin had contradicted
her evidence, Mrs Shipton said she was "stunned, totally stunned she is
saying something different". Mr Stanaway asked Mrs Shipton if
she had told her cousin she had been in court. "No, Mr Stanaway, I can
honestly say that I did not tell her that." "But your purpose in
contacting her was to make sure she was on-side?" Mr Stanaway asked. "No, the purpose was to make
sure that I was accurate," she replied. After repeated questioning about
the nature of her conversations with her cousin, Mrs Shipton broke down in
the witness box. "As God strikes me down I
never said such a thing. I can't believe Christine would say such a thing. I
wish I could look her in the eyes." "I take that you deny that
[trying to influence her]?" Mr Stanaway asked. "I categorically deny it on
my daughter?s life." When asked if she had told her
cousin to stay away, Mrs Shipton said no. Ms Filer took the witness box and
told the jury when the Shiptons' visited it was generally for three to five
days. "Any recollection of them
staying for a majority of a month?" "No." "Would you remember
that?" "Yes." "And did they?" "No, they did not." When asked if she recalled the
Shiptons staying for a week and a half, then travelling to Wellington, then
returning, she said no. Ms Filer said Mrs Shipton had told
her if she was contacted by police she did not have to say anything and that
she did not have to answer questions if she could not remember. Ms Filer then contradicted Mrs
Shipton, saying she told her she had been in court. Ms Filer said she told Mrs Shipton
she had not booked a ticket to return to Brisbane, where she lives. "She said that was probably a
good thing, if I stayed in Perth it would be better." Under cross-examination by
Shipton's lawyer Bill Nabney Ms Filer said she believed she could rule out the
couple staying with her then leaving, then returning, because it was a over a
long time. "That's a lot of people in a
house for that length of time." After further questioning Ms Filer
said it was conceivable the couple had stayed with her over a month, leaving
and returning. In closing remarks from the Crown,
Mr Stanaway said errors about "peripheral details" the woman gave
in evidence were forgivable given the evidence was about a "genuine
event". Mr Stanaway said Sharon Shipton
was a victim of the trial who was under enormous pressure and had come up
with a "jack-up that has not held up under scrutiny." The complainant was certain the
three accused were at the house when the incident took place and the man she
knew as Clint was there and actively participating, he said. Rickards' lawyer John Haigh QC
told the jury there were so many gaps in the crown case which could not be
bridged. "Of all the things she has
got wrong the identification of this man must be at the top." "If there was an incident, he
wasn't involved." Shipton's lawyer Bill Nabney said
there were so many contradictions in the woman's statements, it was clear the
incident never took place. |
