|
Allegations of abuse
by NZ Police |
|
|
peterellis
Home / police allegations / Rickards,
Shipton, Schollum vs Jane Doe Page 5 - Further Reaction to Not
Guilty Verdict |
|
|
It was always the unwinnable case.
The goal was obvious: to convict
an assistant police commissioner and two of his mates, for allegedly
kidnapping and sexually abusing a 16-year-old more than 20 years ago. But the evidence? Well, that was
where the problems started. All the prosecution had was the say-so of the
then 16-year-old. A woman who had never complained - not at the time of the
alleged offence nor in any year since. In fact, she was a push-complainant -
the police pushed her into it. Their collective task was clear.
As HQ cops have privately confided, they considered Clint Rickards and his
ilk to be "dirty". And that their actions in the mid-1980s - not so
much a different time but a different country - were incomprehensible and
immoral. But then the police today are a PC
outfit. They would rather send staff to a powhiri than a pub brawl, to
apprehend speeding mums at nine in the morning than gang members at nine at
night. They are the product of this age, and the proximity of their
leadership to the sisterhood's sometimes withering chill. The latter accounts for the fact
that the deputy police commissioner is a female bureaucrat recruited direct
from Archives New Zealand. No doubt, her only previous encounters with the
sworn constabulary were being shown across the road after a home Hurricanes
match. This is not to declaim Lyn
Provost. She is a perfectly competent civil servant. But the fact that a
non-cop, steeped in the civil service, is second in line to Police
Commissioner Howard Broad gives you a fair indication as to HQ's true
mistresses these days. They are as independent from the Beehive as an addict
from crack cocaine. Which is not entirely their fault.
There has long been a feeling within However, they are intimately aware
of their fellow, university-educated policy wonks. That is their milieu and
they assume the rest of the country thinks like them too. So, let's be clear. The jury verdict from the trial of
Clint Rickards, Brad Shipton and Bob Schollum was absolutely inevitable. The
burden of reasonable doubt was always going to be too high a mountain to
climb. As was similarly plain with the Louise Nicholas case. More important: the police knew
this. Especially after the Nicholas case. There was even less evidence and
less corroboration in this current trial. I have little doubt that the
attorney-general and Crown Law so advised the police. But they persisted.
Why? Go back to my opening paragraphs.
Because Police HQ regard Rickards and his mates as dirty. Morally dirty.
Their sensual excesses in the mid-1980s were deemed to be wholly
inappropriate in the first decade of this new century. Apply that logic to every other
public institution in this country. I doubt there would be a middle-aged MP
anywhere who has not regretted his youth and early adulthood. An
inappropriate shag from two decades ago and goodbye position, goodbye salary,
goodbye career. And it seems worse if you were in uniform - well, at least
before you weren't. Then there is the specious line of
reasoning - advanced on TVNZ in the wake of the verdict by a female A commentary that presumes two
things. First, that the jury were morons. Second, that criminal law need not
apply if the alleged victim is an aggrieved female. But that's the thing these days.
If you are male, white, heterosexual and middle-aged, you must be
automatically guilty. Even when the evidence does not stack up. Then there was the media's
appalling judgement in the wake of the Thursday acquittals. "What the
jury didn't know" screamed the New Zealand Herald. That Shipton and
Schollum were banged up in Kaitoke Prison, just outside Wanganui, for an
earlier historical rape verdict in Tauranga. Sorry? Despite the suppression
orders, almost the entire country knew this "hidden" information.
We are such a small and intimate nation, and word-of-mouth and the internet
are so pervasive, that not to have known of the previous convictions would
constitute clear evidence of having received electric shock treatment. Although the fact is, that all
this shock/horror information was irrelevant. As Justice Potter reminded the
jury, they were trying only one case and applying one set of facts. If the
two former cops had turned up in white boiler suits every day, it would have
made no difference. There was no corroborative or physical evidence to
convict them. The truth is that the Rickards
trials were politically motivated. From being the darling of the force,
Rickards found himself their pariah. And that status required confirmation.
This was the point of these trials. Which now leaves the police not
only looking stupid, but with little choice. The law has pronounced Rickards
innocent. Which means he should be restored to where he was before the
allegations surfaced - to a career heading Except he won't be. The police
will offer Rickards everything except a uniform and a warrant. They will
attempt to procure his retirement and/ or resignation. I wouldn't mind so much if it was
not your and my money that they will use to obtain this resolution. So to
Clint Rickards this morning, I simply say this: do us all a favour, mate.
Tell them to stick it. |
