|
Allegations of abuse
by NZ Police |
|
|
peterellis
Home / police allegations / Rickards,
Shipton, Schollum vs Jane Doe Page 5 - Further Reaction to
Not Guilty Verdict |
|
|
In his heart, Clint Rickards must know
he will not get his job back. It is not enough that, for the second time, he
and two former police officers, Brad Shipton and Bob Schollum, have been
found not guilty of historical sexual offending charges. The moral authority demanded of an
assistant police commissioner has been shattered during these proceedings. In
a way, his tirade outside the court, when he denounced the police
investigation into the cases and defiantly proclaimed his continued
friendship with Shipton and Schollum, despite their rape convictions,
acknowledged as much, as well as exacerbating his alienation. Mr Rickards will probably fight
vigorously for reinstatement, but it cannot happen. New Zealanders expect
impressive standards of integrity and fairness from their police. The higher
the rank, the higher, quite rightly, is the expectation. Mr Rickards' sexual
conduct, especially towards Louise Nicholas, failed to meet those standards.
A vulnerable teenager was treated in a manner poles apart from that expected
of an officer tasked with serving and protecting the public. Justice Tony Randerson urged the
jurors in the Louise Nicholas trial not to judge the morality of what the
three police officers had done. That is not a position those who decide Mr
Rickards' future can contemplate. His reputation has been shredded, and there
is no place for him in the upper echelons of the police. The most logical
outcome is that he will secure a payout, as unpalatable as that prospect will
be to many members of the public. Many of those same people will now
also be pondering how the three men could have been found completely innocent
in two major trials, despite the resources and charges arrayed against them.
In the Louise Nicholas case, they were acquitted of 20 charges, including
alleged rape, sexual violation and indecent assault, which were said to have
occurred between 1985 and 1986 in Rotorua. In the just-concluded case, they
were cleared of charges of indecent assault and kidnapping a 16-year-old girl
in the same city between November 1983 and August 1984. Louise Nicholas' allegations
surfaced in January 2004. A police inquiry took 14 months before the three
men were charged. To some degree, the Crown Law Office's decision to proceed
in that instance was understandable. Louise Nicholas had made unprecedented
public allegations and there was considerable pressure to act. Whatever the
doubts about the durability of the evidence so long after the alleged
offences, there was also the knowledge that court cases can throw up odd
twists, turns and conclusions. Nonetheless, the jury agreed with the
contention of Mr Rickards' lawyer, John Haigh, QC, that the case against his
client was "at best, built on straw". The rationale for the
just-completed trial is far less compelling. Paul Mabey, QC, on behalf of
Schollum, spoke of too many "inconsistencies and convenient
memories" in evidence given by the complainant. This view was accepted
by the jury, this time in relatively quick order. Again, there was nothing to
show for a lot of effort and resources. In this instance, it is highly
doubtful that the prosecution should have been brought. If nothing else, the public furore
sparked by the trials serves to remind the police that society expects better
of them. In the first trial, Mr Rickards admitted to feeling embarrassed to
be in court explaining his conduct towards Louise Nicholas. At that moment,
no matter what the verdict in that or any subsequent case, his police career
became untenable. He was effectively admitting that he had brought the police
into disrepute. Police credibility, therefore, also became an issue.
Safeguarding that demands a recognition that Mr Rickards' personal qualities
fall far short of those expected of a high-ranking police officer. |
