|
Allegations of abuse
by NZ Police |
|
|
peterellis
Home / police allegations / Rickards,
Shipton, Schollum vs Jane Doe Page 5 - Further Reaction to
Not Guilty Verdict |
|
|
The trial of Brad Shipton, Bob Schollum
and Clint Rickards ended explosively last week with the acquittal of all
three men on abduction and indecency charges, followed by the revealation
that Shipton and Schollum were already serving time for rape and kidnapping. I would question just how many
people were surprised to hear of the men's prior convictions. Although suppression orders have
been in place since Shipton and Schollum's sentencing in 2005, this is a
small country, and these were high-profile men. The internet tends to make a mockery
of any suppression order, and certainly the supporters of Louise Nicholas did
their level best to inform the public of the convictions. And given that neither Shipton nor
Schollum arrived at the trial through the front doors of the court - surely
the jury might have had some inkling that all was not as it appeared. I suppose in light of the fact
that these trials came down to a question of credibility, it's only natural
that some people are demanding people's criminal records be made available to
jury members to help them make a decision on the trustworthiness of a
defendant. In historic cases like this one,
where there is no, or very little, forensic evidence, it comes down to a
question of who the jury believes. I would be totally against the
removal of one of the fundamental principles of our justice system - that
everyone is entitled to a fair trial. Each and every case must be tried
on its merits, and if the evidence in one case is not sufficient to convict,
then it would be very wrong to convict purely on the basis of an earlier
trial. You can't be tried for the same
crime twice, and allowing the records of criminals into court would, in
effect, be doing that. Perhaps a fairer system would be
to introduce the Scottish verdict of "not proven" in cases where it
comes down to a "she said, he said". Historic crimes are notoriously
difficult to prosecute, and if the evidence is not sufficient to prove guilt,
a jury must acquit under our justice system. In the Scottish system, if a jury
finds there is not enough evidence to warrant a conviction but jury members
have doubts about the innocence of the defendant, they can bring in a verdict
of not proven, in effect telling the defendant that they may have got away
with it technically, but they didn't pull the wool over the eyes of the jury. Other people have called for a
statute of limitations on the laying of charges. Again, I wouldn't support
the introduction of a time limit. It might take time for a man or
woman to gather the courage and strength they need to lay a complaint and go
through the court system, and no one would deny that there are a number of
dirtbags inside who absolutely deserve to be there who must have thought
they'd got away with it. The reporting of these trials has
made for gruesome reading. The 80s was a time of huge social upheaval and
change. All the constraints came off -
economically, socially and morally - and while it was a time of excitement
and exhilaration, there was a dark side, too. And we've been unwilling spectators
to the dark side over the last couple of years. Predatory men, group sex, sad,
pathetic young women - it doesn't paint a pretty picture. Now there's just the Bazley report
to come before a curtain can be drawn on that unsavoury chapter in our past. And I suppose there'll be more to
come on Clint Rickards' battle to get back to work as assistant police
commissioner. I don't really see how he can. His
triumphalist chest beating, branding the women who levelled accusations
against him as liars and attacking the investigating officers who brought the
charges against him may have been understandable, given the pressure he was
under, but it probably didn't help his case. A thoughtful, considered statement
along the lines of how being on the other side of the system can only help
him become a better officer might have been a wiser option to take. But then,
we don't always take the wise option, do we? And some people end up paying a
heavy price many years later. |
