Allegations of abuse
by NZ Police |
|
peterellis
Home / police allegations / Rickards,
Shipton, Schollum vs Jane Doe Page 4 - Initial Reaction to
Not Guilty Verdict |
|
A relative of one of the men yesterday
cleared of indecent assault says the jurors knew the former policeman was
already in jail for rape. Brad Shipton's brother-in-law
Chris Foot told Newstalk ZB: "Jury members approached our family last
night, yesterday evening, and actually said that they did know. "Bear in mind the jury
members did approach us, we did not approach them." Clint Rickards' lawyer John Haigh
said the jury would have been aware of the convictions of two of the
defendants but had withstood media pressure in reaching their verdict. Last night a legal expert said
juries should not be allowed to know about a person's previous convictions in
order to ensure a fair trial. Barrister Peter Winter, who
specialises in criminal law and is the past president of the Criminal Bar
Association of New Zealand, said: "No one in their right mind could
believe that the jury didn't know about Shipton and Schollum's previous
conviction," he said. "If they did know [about
previous convictions] they may be completely adversely influenced by the convictions
and not the evidence in front of them. "The whole issue is a fair
trial. In relation to that, it's really important the jury focus on the
evidence in front of them, not things that may have happened in the past, the
circumstances of which are not known - just the convictions. There's a very
strong chance they will focus on the convictions, not the actual evidence.
That's the rationale behind it." He said it
was an excellent rule. "I think that without that, people will
invariably believe if they are convicted, that they were convicted not on the
evidence but on what may have happened in the past." He said that could lead to people
feeling they had been punished twice for something they might not have done.
"So it's important to look at it from the perspective of the person who
is accused as well as the overall picture," he said. "It's a very sound rule. It's
a rule that is long-standing and there's a lot of wisdom behind it. The whole
point of the system is to be fair and to try and safeguard against wrongful
convictions." He said it was important jurors were not prejudiced in any
way when they considered a case in front of them. "What they really need to
concentrate on is the evidence that's put before them." He said previous convictions were
of importance in sentencing. "If there has been a previous
conviction for [a similar] type of offending, chances are the sentencing will
be much more severe." High-profile Auckland barrister
Kit Toogood, QC, told NZPA there was nothing wrong with a jury being allowed
to know defendants had previously been proved innocent, but not that they had
been previously found guilty. "In the great majority of cases the fact
that somebody has been convicted or acquitted on an earlier occasion is
completely irrelevant. "It happens more often that
you'd think, but [other cases] just don't get the publicity. "Each case must be judged on
its own merits according to the interests of justice, but particularly the
interests of justice so far as the accused are concerned. "There's nothing about this
that suggests the rules need to be reviewed." Nor were similarities between the
three cases involving Shipton and Schollum so compelling that a jury needed
to know of the parallels, Mr Toogood said. "If they were so similar that
the similarities amounted to compelling and cogent evidence of guilt, then
the court could have admitted them. "There's a strict test for
admitting that sort of evidence." However, retired barrister and top
criminal defence QC Kevin Ryan said it was time the law was changed to allow
juries to be informed of an accused person's criminal past so they could
properly evaluate the defendant's character. "Too much is made about the
protection of the accused and nothing about the defendant," he said. "I feel the law needs to be
changed. The jury should hear everything - not just part of the truth. The
balancing act which the jury have to do means all matters should be put
before the jury so they can evaluate the character of the accused. "The two defendants in this
case [Shipton and Schollum] were clearly savage. "It's just a personal view
and I have been criticised for this before." - with NZPA and NEWSTALK ZB |