Allegations of abuse by NZ Police
	peterellis Home / police allegations / Rickards, Shipton, Schollum vs Jane Doe Page 6 - Further Reaction to Not Guilty Verdict
	The Nelson Mail March 5 2007 No way back Editorial Does assistant police commissioner Clint Rickards seriously expect to get his old job back? He has vowed to be back at his desk soon, but clearly a long and tortuous employment process lies ahead said the Nelson Mail in an editorial on Monday. It is difficult to see anything better than a generous golden handshake at the end of it - even if many New Zealanders would consider steel handcuffs to be more appropriate. Yes, Mr Rickards has twice been acquitted in major police sex trials. Juries have found him not guilty of a range of charges, from sexual assault and kidnapping to rape. Despite that, he has lost the moral authority expected of any policeman, let alone a leader in the force. Evidence from last year's trial of his involvement in pack sex involving a vulnerable teenage girl, while not found illegal by the jury, is clearly morally reprehensible. Mr Rickards admitted at the time that giving evidence of these activities was embarrassing. How much more embarrassing his admissions must have been to other officers. There can be no doubt that the series of trials involving Mr Rickards and fellow former Rotorua policemen has damaged the reputation of the force in this country. It raises questions about the police culture, particularly that of two decades ago, and about men's attitudes in general to women and sexuality. And it has reopened, too, the question of the low conviction rate for alleged sex crimes, whether an inquisitorial justice system would more reliably get at the truth and, in particular, whether juries should be made aware of defendants' prior convictions. A strong case can be made for disclosure. Employers, for example, examine the track record of prospective workers - how else to keep paedophiles from signing up as primary school caretakers? However, it is a long-established principle of our justice system that each case should be judged solely on the facts pertaining to it. While this is not always possible, especially when the defendant has gained notoriety, juries must attempt to ignore prior knowledge and prejudices and deal with the facts alone. Jury members inevitably would be influenced by knowledge of past convictions. Clearly, the law as it stands is appropriate. Also counting against the chances of Mr Rickards returning to normal duties are his comments outside the High Court in Auckland following his acquittal last week. He lambasted the inquiry against him and co-defendants Bob Schollum and Brad Shipton as a shambles that he would have been ashamed to have led. He criticised the previous rape convictions of the other two men - who were described by a judge as corrupt - and says he remains friends with them. In showing his contempt for the judicial system which found his mates guilty of what the judge said were "deeply disgraceful acts", and for the fellow officers who were assigned to investigate the complaints against him, Mr Rickards makes his own narrow road back even rockier. Suggestions, meanwhile, that he has been targeted simply to prevent a Maori from becoming New Zealand's top policeman are risible. As further damaging allegations emerge against Mr Rickards, even his chance of receiving a large exit package might yet evaporate. Police regulations prohibit "disgraceful conduct tending to bring discredit to the police". He is surely guilty of that, and now even Auckland's Mayor Dick Hubbard wants him gone. Mr Rickards has been suspended on full pay of some $200,000 annually for three years since the allegations against him broke. Hopefully, the matter of his employment will move more quickly than the judicial process did. He needs to seek a new career.