What are some of the facts?

2007-04-01T02:11:00.000-07:00

This blog has been created to inform people about some of the facts and information which haven't been suppressed in relation to the historic rape allegations and trials, via media articles and reporting.

No information on here is in any breach of any suppression order and this information is all freely available and open to the public as it is all referenced to media articles. It is also available on other websites.

All the articles on here are in chronological order, with the latest being at the top and oldest down the bottom or archived. I suggest taking a look at some of the earlier archived articles if you would like to see some of the background/ build up to the current situation.

Gossip fuels trial by the masses

2006-04-08T18:55:00.000-07:00

The Dominion Post
Gossip fuels trial by the masses
08 April 2006
By REBECCA PALMER

The trial was over in the courtroom but in the streets, via e-mail and on the Internet, it was just warming up.

Information kept from the jury at the Louise Nicholas case spread quickly throughout New Zealand after the not guilty verdicts were delivered in the High Court at Auckland last week.
Assistant Police Commissioner Clint Rickards and former policemen Bob Schollum and Brad Shipton were acquitted on all 20 sex charges.

At the end of the trial, Justice Tony Randerson ordered that widespread suppression orders made at the start would continue. Internet bulletin boards and chatrooms may need to be monitored, he said.

He was correct, but it was old-fashioned tactics that grabbed attention. On Monday, a group of women handed out 1600 leaflets breaching the suppression orders to commuters at Wellington railway station. Spokeswoman Grace Millar said the orders had meant important prosecution evidence was not presented in court.

The leaflets were modified after the group was approached by police. Others were later handed out at the University of Auckland and in Christchurch's Cathedral Square.

And if the leaflets were not enough, mass e-mails dramatically sped up the flow of the offending information. The text of the leaflet was copied into an e-mail and circulated. At least one other bulk e-mail has done the rounds.

Ms Millar says she does not know who was responsible for either e-mail. "Certainly people have done things with the leaflet that we wrote that we didn't anticipate."

Meanwhile, people have been discussing the orders through Internet news groups, blogs, message boards and chatrooms. The Nicholas case has again highlighted that the bigger the trial the better the chance that secret details will emerge.

Last July, the country was abuzz at news that television stars were embroiled in a "white collar" drug bust in Auckland. By the time the media was allowed to identify the key players – former All Black Marc Ellis and league star Brent Todd – it seemed the entire country already knew, courtesy of e-mails.

Within days of charges being laid, the gossip had even hit the stock market – shares in Ellis' Charlie's juice company fell 33 per cent.

Why do the courts suppress some information?

Name suppression is automatic for some people, such as the victims of sex crimes (unless the court permits publication) and those accused of incest. Judges can suppress other names and details to avoid a trial being prejudiced.

University of Canterbury media law expert Professor John Burrows says that though suppression orders could sometimes be made "very quickly" when people first appeared in the district court, those made in the High Court were likely to be carefully considered and made with good reason.

"People who don't know the reason take a real risk if they try and breach the order."
Police national e-crime manager Maarten Kleintjes says suppression orders are made to ensure people receive fair trials or to protect witnesses.

"The court doesn't put these suppression orders in place for a joke. They are there for a serious reason and people should respect that."

Media organisations have the right to appeal against suppression orders and are sometimes successful.

What are the dangers in breaching a suppression order?

People who breach a suppression order can face a $1000 fine for each offence. They cannot be arrested but can be summoned before the court.

Professor Burrows says it has been suggested that if a breach was deliberate, "it could be a lot higher than that. That's never been tested in New Zealand".

Offenders can also face contempt of court charges, which can carry a fine or a jail term. Police are gathering evidence about this week's suppression breaches, both by electronic and leaflet methods. Complaints have also been received by the office of Solicitor-General Terence Arnold, QC, which decides whether to take action on contempt of court in association with the judiciary.
Canterbury University senior law lecturer Ursula Cheer, a colleague of Professor Burrows, says the pamphlets circulated by the women are also potentially defamatory. "To suggest that somebody is guilty of an offence when they have been found not to be could fall into that category."

Professor Burrows says prosecutions for breaching suppressions are pretty rare in New Zealand. "The main reason for that is the media are usually pretty responsible about it."
He was not aware of any prosecutions resulting from breaches on the Internet, though there had been successful defamation cases.

A Crown Law spokeswoman says warnings for contempt are more common than prosecutions. Media organisations are sometimes warned about pre-trial publicity being potentially prejudicial to a court case.

"This is a bit more unusual because these people have been passing out pamphlets."

Who polices the Internet?

It appears no one in New Zealand is dedicated to monitoring it. But government agencies, including Crown Law, say offending material will come to their attention through media monitoring and word-of-mouth.

Mr Kleintjes says police do not monitor the Internet to search for name suppression breaches, or other offending material. "It is conceivable in future that there is a branch of police that walks the beat in cyberspace, if you like. As far as I know, there's nothing in place like that at the moment."

Cyber police are among options being considered in an Economic Development Ministry discussion paper.

Mr Kleintjes says police investigate if they come across offending electronic material or if someone complains, as with other types of offending. The e-crime unit collected data and carried out forensic investigations when asked. "We could be asked to track down where an e-mail came from – that would be within our line of work."

The unit has so far not worked on any suppression cases, though it has traced the origins of abusive and threatening e-mails, he says.

So to whom was Justice Randerson directing his comments when he said the Internet might have to be monitored for suppression breaches?

Judiciary communications adviser Neil Billington says the comments would have been directed at the Crown prosecutors. "It's not the responsibility of the courts, the judge or the Justice Ministry to actively monitor this." Judges would generally act on "contempt in the face of the court" if it arose during a trial.

During the Nicholas case, two members of the public were held in contempt by Justice Randerson – a woman who spoke to a juror and a man who breached a court order.
Mr Billington says that in other instances, a wider investigation by police or advice from the solicitor-general could be required.

In many cases, website moderators and owners monitor material because they could be culpable for anything that breaches the law. One, David Farrar, posted a warning on his kiwiblog website to other users about contempt of court in the case.

Everyone else is breaching the orders, so surely I won't get in trouble?
No one seems sure what will happen next but it seems best not to test that theory. "Would you feel safe driving through a red light because hundreds of other people do that?" Mr Kleintjes said.

Professor Burrows says posting information on the Internet is a form of publication and people who posted suppressed information were liable "like anyone else".

Sharing juicy information with a friend via e-mail was more dangerous than verbal gossip because an e-mail left a trail of evidence.

"I think anyone who sends an e-mail now knows it may get to more than the person it was sent to."

Mr Farrar, who is also the vice-president of Internet society InternetNZ, says much information posted on the Internet is "fairly easy" to trace.

He wasn't confident that authorities would turn a blind eye to the breaches. "I think if the authorities don't take any action, it's going to send out a pretty bad signal."
So are suppression orders now pointless?

"I think there's almost no point in cases involving famous people," Mr Farrar says. "Perhaps for a week or so if you need to hold things up."

High Court judge Justice John Wild said last year that it was "stupid" and "futile" to try to keep information suppressed once it was on the Internet.

He made the comments while outlining his reasons for lifting a suppression order on the "Butcher Report" on the Berryman bridge collapse. Lawyer Rob Moodie had posted the report on the Internet to support his clients, retired farmers Keith and Margaret Berryman.

Law Commission deputy president Warren Young said this week it was "much too simplistic" to say that suppression orders were redundant just because the Internet had increased the number of breaches. "It is very difficult to control through the Internet . . . but that does not mean that they have no effect at all."

Professor Burrows says the issue has to be considered in the context of the number of orders made in the courts. "There's a whole lot of suppressions. The problem mainly arises if there's a celebrity or a really infamous case." If authorities were able to track an offender down, "it's certainly not pointless".

And despite all the fuss, many people did not care enough to go looking for the information. "I don't think most people can be bothered. Most aren't particularly interested."

Suppression breaches 'very serious'

2006-04-08T18:51:00.000-07:00

The Dominion Post
Suppression breaches 'very serious'
08 April 2006
By REBECCA PALMER

The justice system could be undermined if no action is taken against those who spread suppressed information about the Louise Nicholas case, the head of the Criminal Bar Association says.

Association president Peter Winter said the breaches were very serious. "It calls into question the rule of law and has the potential to undermine the justice system."

Groups in Wellington, Auckland and Christchurch have handed out leaflets about the case. E-mails containing suppressed material have also been circulating.

They include information kept from the jury that acquitted Assistant Police Commissioner Clint Rickards and former policemen Bob Schollum and Brad Shipton of 20 sex charges relating to Mrs Nicholas' allegations.

Mr Winter said the spread of suppressed information was unfair to the jurors in the trial and would be difficult for them to hear about.

"Those matters were deemed for good reason by the trial judge not to be matters which needed to be placed before the jury."

People who circulated such information often did not realise that suppression orders were made not just to protect the accused, but also the complainants.

Police are gathering information about breaches and the solicitor-general is considering the issue of contempt of court.

Suppression orders could be lifted - internet lawyer

2006-04-07T12:23:00.000-07:00

Radio New Zealand
Suppression orders could be lifted - internet lawyer
Posted at 12:23pm on 7 Apr 2006

A Wellington barrister who specialises in internet law, says court suppression orders about the Louise Nicholas rape case could be lifted, because so many people are now aware of the suppressed information.

Assistant Police Commissioner Clint Rickards and two former officers Bob Schollum and Bradley Shipton were last Friday found not guilty by an Auckland High Court jury on 20 rape and sexual assault charges.

Since then pamphlets, faxes and now emails containing information suppressed by the court, have been widely distributed.

Lawyers for Mr Shipton and Mr Schollom have written to police to ask them how they plan to deal with the situation.

But Internet law specialist, Peter Dengate-Thrush, says once the information is out there it is very difficult to get it back, and the view of the courts is that once it is in the public domain, they will not longer maintain suppression orders.

And he says because the information is being forwarded by personal email it could mean thousands of people would have to be prosecuted.

Police investigate but no action yet taken

Although police are investigating the possible breach of suppression orders; so far no action has been taken against those known to have handed out the pamphlets.

National's Justice Spokesperson, Richard Worth says that is not good enough; and that by not acting immediately, the Crown is encouraging people to continue spreading suppressed information.

Criminal Bar Association president, Peter Winter, says lawyers would support making an example of those who have spread the information.

Police are collating information about the matter and a legal opinion will be sought.

Contempt of court

The issue of contempt of court is being dealt with separately by the Solicitor-General's office.
The issue raises questions about the point of suppression orders in high profile cases - given that information spreads so easily via the internet.

Until this week; a suppression order prevented television presenter Lana Co-croft being identified in relation to a celebrity drug scandal last year in Auckland. But her name had already been spread via email and word of mouth since the scandal first broke.

The offence of breaching suppression orders carries a $1,000 maximum fine, and does not carry a term of imprisonment.

Contempt of court charges are far more serious: under Section 9 of the Crimes Act, there is no maximum sentence for the charge. This means anyone prosecuted for contempt in this case could face a prison term.

Nicholas suppression-order violators encourage others to join in

2006-04-07T04:11:00.000-07:00

Nicholas suppression-order violators encourage others to join in
07.04.06
By Louisa Cleave

A Christchurch group involved in handing out pamphlets breaching suppression orders in the Louise Nicholas case hope there will be less chance of prosecution if more people spread the information.

Two sets of leaflets were handed out in Cathedral Square and outside the Christchurch central police station.

One contained information that was suppressed during the trial and another pledged support for Mrs Nicholas and a Wellington group who broke suppression orders this week.

Activist Frances Martin said those involved in the Christchurch leaflet drop were connected to the Wellington group.

Suppressed information was also handed out at University of Auckland on Wednesday. "We're in contact with [Wellington] and have been talking about the legal repercussions of it quite extensively," said Ms Martin.

"There was concern that handing out the suppressed information would have a negative impact for victims of rape so we were really concerned about that.

"But in the end we know the information is out in the public anyway, it's on the internet and easy to get hold of. We think the more people handing out the information the less likely there will be charges laid against the women doing it in Wellington."

People who breach suppression orders can be charged by police with breaching a suppression order but they can also face contempt charges if the judge who imposed the orders decides to take action.

The offence of breaching suppression orders carries a fine of $1000. A complaint has been lodged with police over the Wellington pamphlets but no one has yet been charged.

Ms Martin said the group did not hand out many pamphlets but there was "unbelievable" public support.

People had a choice of handing out the pamphlet without suppressed information, "because some people don't have time to be in court". Pamphlets also appeared to be circulating in Dunedin yesterday.

Email campaign spreads Nicholas case details

2006-04-07T04:06:00.000-07:00

NZPA
Email campaign spreads Nicholas case details
07.04.06 7.55am

An email delivered from a bogus address is spreading suppressed information from the Louise Nicholas rape case around the country.

The email is the latest in a campaign by protesters to highlight alleged injustices in the case. Pamphlets breaching suppression orders relating to the trial have already been distributed in Wellington and Auckland in support of Ms Nicholas.

Yesterday, they hit Christchurch. The email includes information that was kept from the jury that acquitted three men of 20 sex charges relating to Mrs Nicholas' allegations, The Dominion Post reported today.

Police Assistant Commissioner Clint Rickards and former policemen Bob Schollum and Brad Shipton were last week cleared of offences alleged to have occurred in Rotorua 20 years ago.

Barrister Peter Dengate Thrush, an internet law specialist, told the newspaper the bulk emailing of court-suppressed information was something he had never previously encountered.

He said current law governing breach of court order suppression was tailored towards media organisations, or individuals distributing leaflets.

"The question is how can the law adapt to apply to hundreds and thousands of small operators who download this information on the internet or forward bulk emails."

The email admits forwarding it would breach suppression orders and encourages recipients to do so in an untraceable way to "honour the bravery of Louise Nicholas".

Mr Thrush said people who received the email were not breaching the suppression order, but as soon as it was forwarded or printed, it constituted republication.

Evidence suppressed in rape trial turns up on campus

2006-04-06T04:16:00.000-07:00

NZ Herald
Evidence suppressed in rape trial turns up on campus
06.04.06
By Elizabeth Binning

Suppression orders relating to the Louise Nicholas case have been breached again, this time in Auckland - just around the corner from where the high-profile rape case was heard.

Assistant Police Commissioner Clint Rickards and former police officers Bob Schollum and Brad Shipton were last week cleared of the historic sexual allegations made by Ms Nicholas.

Yesterday morning, around 200 pamphlets, detailing information suppressed during the trial, were distributed at Auckland University.

Part of the pamphlet said: "This information is being disseminated in Wellington by a group of concerned women. I believe that they should be congratulated for their stance and that they should be supported."

The contents of the pamphlets were then debated on the university quad in front of about 80 students who voted to support the illegal distribution of the pamphlets earlier in the day as a "show of solidarity".

Political activist Nick Keesing, who organised the pamphlet drop, said he wanted to support the Wellington women who had distributed 1600 similar pamphlets on Monday.

The students also resolved to support the Wellington women's cause. They seemed unaware that those in Wellington have agreed to stop spreading suppressed information after being spoken to by police.

Authorities are already investigating the breach of suppression that occurred and breaches that have allegedly occurred on the internet and radio. Mr Schollum's lawyer Paul Mabey said news of yesterday's pamphlet drop increased his concern about the suppression breaches.

Auckland City Police spokeswoman Noreen Hegarty said she was not aware of any complaints in relation to yesterday's pamphlet drop. Mr Keesing said he did not fear the repercussions of breaching suppression and would fight any such charges or fines in court.

Breaches of Nicholas case suppression spread further

2006-04-06T04:14:00.000-07:00

NZPA
Breaches of Nicholas case suppression spread further
06.04.06 1.00pm

More pamphlets breaching suppression orders relating to the Louise Nicholas police rape trial, are likely to be circulated in Christchurch today.

A third group has said it will follow protest action in Wellington earlier this week and in Auckland yesterday, and distribute pamphlets containing suppressed information.

Pamphlets were distributed in Wellington and Auckland in support of Rotorua woman Louise Nicholas, who claimed Assistant Police Commissioner Clint Rickards and former police officers Brad Shipton and Bob Schollum raped and sexually abused her when she was an 18-year-old in Rotorua 20 years ago.

The three men were acquitted on all 20 charges by a jury of seven women and five men last week. Justice Tony Randerson imposed suppression orders relating to some evidence and issues relating to the case.

He also expressed his concern at apparent breaches of his suppression orders during the trial by material which appeared on the internet and asked for more details at another hearing within the next few weeks.

In Wellington earlier this week pamphlets containing suppressed information were circulated although they were later modified to remove some of the information after the women distributing them were approached by police.

At the University of Auckland yesterday, more pamphlets were circulated, also containing suppressed information before the issue was debated on the university quad by nearly 100 students who said they supported the Wellington women's cause.

A group of Christchurch women and men said today they would distribute pamphlets in Cathedral Square containing suppressed information. They said their action was in support of Louise Nicholas and the Wellington women.

The Christchurch group claimed justice was not served in the trial. People who breach suppression orders can be charged by police with breaching a suppression order but they can also face contempt charges if the judge who imposed the orders decides to take action.

A complaint has been lodged with police but no one has yet been charged.

It is believed the Solicitor-General Terence Arnold, QC, may also be involved. The Solicitor-General is considered the Government's principal legal adviser and a judge can raise an issue such as a breach of a suppression order, with him.

Lawyers for two of the three acquitted men would not comment today although Paul Mabey, QC, yesterday said the apparent breach of the suppression orders was a real concern.

The Auckland pamphlets were organised by political activist Nick Keesing who said he did not fear the repercussions of breaching the court orders and would fight charges in court.

No more Nicholas fliers - for now

2006-04-05T19:00:00.000-07:00

The Dominion Post
No more Nicholas fliers - for now
05 April 2006
By LANE NICHOLS

A group of women under investigation by police and the solicitor-general for breaching court-ordered suppressions from the Louise Nicholas case have stopped distributing leaflets on legal advice.

The women, who handed out 1600 leaflets on Monday at Wellington railway station, took to Manners Mall yesterday with an amended leaflet.

They also protested with banners in central Wellington, saying they had been inundated with messages of support, some from rape victims.

The action was in support of Mrs Nicholas after Friday's acquittals of Assistant Police Commissioner Clint Rickards and former policemen Bob Schollum and Brad Shipton on rape and sexual assault charges.

Group spokeswoman Grace Millar said the women met lawyers yesterday and had made an "interim decision" to stop distributing the pamphlets.

Ms Millar stressed it was not for fear of being prosecuted. Lawyers had advised them not to make police statements.

Group members were meeting last night to decide on their possible next move and were considering rewriting the leaflets.

"The advice generally is we probably won't be handing out any more fliers at the moment," Ms Millar said.

She said the suppressed information, which could not be presented during the 10-day Auckland trial, was already in the public domain.

The women – one of whom had a young child – were apprehensive about facing potential prison sentences, but believed Mrs Nicholas' allegations and were prepared for the consequences, Ms Millar said.

"We don't regret it. People keep asking me whether I'm prepared to go to prison.
"In the scale of things, it's not the worst thing that could happen in the world."

Detective Senior Sergeant Simon Perry said police had asked for a copy of the suppression orders from the trial at the High Court at Auckland and had one of the leaflets.

They were yet to speak to the group but planned to do so as part of the inquiry.

"We will be continuing to gather possible evidence and watch where, when and how the leaflets are being distributed, and who is involved in their distribution."

The penalty for breaching a suppression order is a fine of up to $1000. Contempt of court carries an open-ended penalty, which can include a fine or a jail term.

Rape trial inquiry extends to internet, radio

2006-04-05T04:20:00.000-07:00

NZ Herald
Rape trial inquiry extends to internet, radio
05.04.06
By Angela Gregory

Authorities are investigating alleged breaches of suppression orders relating to the Louise Nicholas rape case - not just in pamphlets handed out by a Wellington vigilante group, but also on the internet and radio.

The breaches are causing concern in relation to the High Court trial which last week cleared Assistant Police Commissioner Clint Rickards and former police officers Bob Schollum and Brad Shipton of historical sex allegations by Mrs Nicholas.

Mr Shipton's lawyer, Bill Nabney, confirmed he had laid complaints with the police over the actions of the Wellington group and other incidents involving the internet and radio broadcasts. "They are investigating."

The Herald yesterday viewed two internet sites which discussed matters under suppression orders, although by late afternoon the material was removed from one of those sites.

On Monday, about 1600 pamphlets containing suppressed material were handed out at the Wellington Railway Station and in Cuba Mall.

A spokeswoman for the distributors, Emma Wills, said the group had since decided to stop circulating the flyers after being spoken to by police.

Officers had given information which caused them to change their minds about carrying on, she said.

Ms Wills denied that showed they were reckless to have taken the action in the first place and said they would have just done things differently. "We had sought legal advice."

Instead the group was distributing a new leaflet which did not breach any suppression orders. Ms Wills said they had had only positive feedback from passersby, many of whom already knew what had been suppressed.

She thought it unlikely their action would lead to a contempt of court charge and possible jail.

Professor John Burrows, a media law specialist at Canterbury University, said whether a breach of a suppression order would lead to a charge of contempt of court was a complex question.
Breaches were usually accidental, he said, and even if deliberate were not necessarily evidence of contempt of court. That would depend on whether there were circumstances over and above the breach which showed contempt of the court process.

Mr Schollum's lawyer, Paul Mabey, QC, said he had referred the matter to the Solicitor-General as well as the police because the action of the Wellington group was a "flagrant breach" of the suppression order.

Wellington police said they were waiting for documents from the High Court at Auckland to help assess whether a breach had been committed.

Detective Senior Sergeant Simon Perry said he hoped to have them within the next few days. "Once we've received and studied the documents we'll have a better idea of what orders may have been breached and what action will follow."

The offence of breaching suppression orders carried a maximum fine of $1000 but not a jail term. "People can't be arrested for this but can be summonsed to appear before the court."

Mr Perry said the issue surrounding contempt of court was a separate one determined by the judiciary in consultation with the Solicitor-General.

A spokeswoman for the Solicitor-General yesterday confirmed he, too, was looking into the issues.

Nicholas case suppression orders breached in flyers

2006-04-04T04:30:00.000-07:00

Nicholas case suppression orders breached in flyers
04.04.06
By Mike Houlahan

Information withheld from the jury considering the Louise Nicholas rape claim case and covered by court suppression orders has been handed to Wellington commuters and shoppers in a flyer distributed by a vigilante group.

Police are now investigating the flyer's distribution. On Friday, assistant police commissioner Clint Rickards and former police officers Bob Schollum and Brad Shipton were found not guilty of a range of historical sexual charges against Mrs Nicholas, after a high-profile trial in the High Court at Auckland.

Now a Wellington group is intent on retrying the case in the court of public opinion.

The group staged a protest at the Police College open day on Saturday, and yesterday stepped up their campaign by distributing hundreds of flyers to workers passing through Wellington Railway Station, and to shoppers in the busy Cuba Mall shopping area.

Group spokeswoman Emma Wills said they were well aware they were breaching suppression orders by distributing the flyer, headed "We Believe Louise Nicholas". "We are outraged at the way the trial went and obviously the fact that Louise Nicholas was punished for the fact that the jury didn't have access to all the information," Ms Wills said. "Some of us had access to this information earlier and we didn't hand it out during the Louise Nicholas trial because we believed there was still a possibility of the right verdict being reached, but we have seen exactly how it has worked for Louise Nicholas and we believe the information has to be out there now."

Lawyers for Mr Shipton and Mr Schollum both reacted angrily yesterday when told about the flyers. "I take it seriously and have referred it to the Solicitor-General and New Zealand police for further action," Schollum's lawyer Paul Mabey QC said.

Mr Shipton's lawyer, Bill Nabney said the breach of suppression orders was deliberate and serious. "The court makes suppression orders for good and valid reasons. They're not made lightly, and obviously this is of great concern. "

The police are the people who should investigate the matter and we will await the outcome of their inquiries and what they decide to do. We'll take it from there, once the police have ... made a decision."

Wellington police district commander, Superintendent Rob Pope, confirmed police were investigating the distribution of the flyer.

Nicholas rape case leaflet referred to police

2006-04-03T04:36:00.000-07:00

NZPA
Nicholas rape case leaflet referred to police
03.04.06
6.50pm

A leaflet about the Louise Nicholas rape trial, circulated in Wellington today, has been referred to the Solicitor-General and the police.

The leaflet was apparently handed out by four women at Wellington railway station and referred matters suppressed at the trial at which one serving and two former police officers were found not guilty of a variety of sexual offences against Mrs Nicholas in Rotorua 20 years ago.

The accused men were Assistant Commissioner Clint Rickards and former officers Bob Schollum and Brad Shipton who faced a three week jury trial in the High Court at Auckland.

Mr Schollum's lawyer, Paul Mabey, QC, said he had referred the leaflet to Solicitor-General Terence Arnold, QC, and the police. "It's in their hands," he said. "All I can do is bring it to their attention, which I have and they're the enforcement authorities.

It's up to them what they do." A spokeswoman for the Crown Law Office said the matter was one for the police. "It is a breach of a suppression order, which is a criminal offence," she said. She also suggested that Mr Mabey could go back to the court that imposed the suppression order. "It's a serious breach," she said.

The spokeswoman said she had heard the women had given out about 1600 leaflets so far.

No-one was available for comment from Wellington police.

First police accused speaks out

2006-04-02T17:46:00.000-07:00

Sunday Star Times
April 2 2006
First police accused speaks out
by Rachel Grunwell

The first policeman accused and acquitted of sex crimes against Louise Nicholas has broken his silence, saying her lies have ruined his life.

The man, who has permanent name suppression, is one of seven officers Nicholas has accused of sexual assault. None has been convicted.

Last week, the other three officers to have been charged over her allegations - Clint Rickards, Bob Schollum and Brad Shipton -were acquitted of rape charges.

The first policeman faced three trials during 1993-94, two of which were aborted because of inadmissible police evidence. The third jury acquitted him, and it was during these trials that Nicholas's other allegations came to light.

Nicholas claimed he had sex with her when she was 13, while she boarded with him and his family. He denied ever having sex with her and was later paid $21,300 compensation for his ordeal.

The man last week told the Sunday Star-Times Nicholas lived in a "fantasy world". He said he was obsessed about what happened to him, and that had contributed to the collapse of his marriage.

His wife last week said: "Her lies have ruined a lot of lives."
The man, now a North Island farmer, is astounded he was never interviewed by police investigating her allegations against Rickards, Schollum and Shipton. "I'd have liked to have been interviewed, I could have contributed."

The Operation Austin police team spent thousands of hours interviewing people who knew Nicholas and the three men, and vowed the inquiries would be thorough. But police never asked the man first accused by Nicholas for his version of events.

Supporters of the latest officers acquitted have also raised concerns about the police inquiry. Shipton's brothers Craig and Greg Shipton were concerned detectives had not interviewed key people, and said the police inquiry had been selective with its evidence.

The first accused man says the only contact he has had from police was at Christmas, when a Rotorua detective rang him to say he could be charged with perjury over his historic case, and asked if he would be interviewed. He told the detective to "piss off" and has not heard from police since.

He was still haunted by a huge "injustice" and a room in his house is filled with neatly-stacked piles of files, photos and evidence from his trial.

His marriage collapsed more than a year ago - just after details of the latest Nicholas allegations surfaced. It brought back ugly memories for the couple.

The man's wife said she had been glued to TV coverage of the latest trial and felt for the wives of the three accused.

She said watching last week's case brought back horrible memories, and she felt like she had gone through her husband's case all over again.

She said she had never doubted her husband's innocence.

The former policeman plans to start a new life overseas

Rickards' accuser has no regrets

2006-04-02T04:41:00.000-07:00

Herald on Sunday
Rickards' accuser has no regrets
02.04.06
By Staff Reporters

The woman who accused one of the country's top police officers of rape has revealed she has no regrets about pursuing the case.

Her comment came the day after one of the country's most senior policemen walked free from the High Court in Auckland after a three-week rape trial.

Assistant police commissioner Clint Rickards and former policemen Brad Shipton and Bob Schollum were acquitted on all 20 sex charges against them on Friday afternoon.

Mrs Nicholas, through a family friend, said she had no regrets about the case. She had claimed Rickards, Shipton and Schollum had raped her and sexually abused her, once with a police baton, while she was an 18-year-old in Rotorua in 1985 and 1986.

A family spokesman said Mrs Nicholas was "feeling as anyone would in her situation". "She and the Nicholas family just want to thank family and friends for their support and the hundreds and hundreds of ordinary New Zealanders who sent cards and letters of support."

There was anger from the families of the men involved in the trial. As he was leaving the court, Mr Rickards said he had strong concerns over the way the police investigation was carried out.

Mr Shipton's brother Craig said yesterday the family planned to lodge a complaint with the Police Complaints Authority. He said the trial was an attempt to prevent Mr Rickards from becoming the first Maori Police Commissioner. "Certain people did not want to see that happen. We don't know exactly who but we do know some politicians waded into that."

Prime Minister Helen Clark was among those who made comments on the case. "The question which is on everyone's mind is, what were the prevailing standards of police behaviour where group sex with relatively young women was not considered a matter of concern to the employer?" she asked.

Ms Clark yesterday dismissed accusations of interference. "The Government has no influence on prosecutions."

Mr Schollum's wife Caron said she was delighted. Family and friends had celebrated after the verdict. Rickards, 45, has been suspended from the police on full pay since the inquiry began but discussions about his future are expected to take time.

Lawyer Dr Rob Moodie said the suspension of Mr Rickards would not attract compensation as it did for senior police officer Alec Waugh.

After a successful personal grievance claim in 2004, Superintendant Waugh was reinstated and awarded $1 million for five years out of the police. "The opportunity for that would be virtually zero," Mr Moodie told the Herald On Sunday. He said unless Mr Rickards could show the police hierarchy had mishandled his case or that prosecutors had fabricated information, he didn't have a case to argue against his employers or the court.

Deputy Commissioner Lyn Provost said on Friday that talks would begin with Assistant Commissioner Rickards over employment matters but the process could not be rushed.

2006-04-01T05:09:00.000-08:00

NZ Herald
Tears of relief follow police trial verdict
01.04.06
By Eugene Bingham, Nicola Boyes, Phil Taylor, Elizabeth Binning and Angela Gregory

Long pent-up emotions found voice in gasps and guttural sobs among a packed public gallery yesterday as the jury forewoman in the Louise Nicholas case uttered the words "not guilty" for the 20th and last time.

It was just gone afternoon tea time, two days and two hours since the seven women and five men on the jury were asked to begin their deliberations. "Justice," yelled one woman among the throng in courtroom 12 in the High Court at Auckland. "At last," a man added. "Love you, Brad," Sharon Shipton called to her husband, Brad, in the dock 5m away, where stood Bob Schollum - like Mr Shipton a former policeman - and one of the highest-ranking officers in the land, Assistant Commissioner Clint Rickards.

Mrs Nicholas, accompanied by her husband, Ross, seated towards the rear of the court, left quietly as the final verdict was read. Visibly upset, she walked from the historic stone and brick courthouse in Parliament St, Central Auckland, soon after, her husband at her side. Detective Superintendent Nick Perry, head of the police team set up to investigate her allegations, said Mrs Nicholas was obviously disappointed but had no comment.

Extensive suppression orders remain in place. It was a day for the accused and their supporters to have their say, the end of a chapter of a story that began 20 years ago.

Mr Shipton's family expressed disgust that so much taxpayers' money had been spent on the inquiry and alleged that politics had played a part. For the two and half weeks leading up to yesterday's decision, courtroom 12 had been taken back to a time of beat-up Vauxhall Vivas, old Triumphs, of drinking in Rotorua's Cobb and Co, when police officers finishing a night shift at 5am on a Sunday went for drinking sessions known as "Sunday Schools".

Out of those times had come allegations of rape and indecent assault. Among them, Mr Rickards, Mr Shipton and Mr Schollum had faced 20 charges, including allegations that they had violated Mrs Nicholas with a police baton.

After hearing from 25 witnesses and addresses from prosecution and defence counsel, the jury had retired at 1pm on Wednesday and was now back with its verdicts. Lawyers, journalists, friends, family, police officers, former police officers, law students and about 60 members of the public gathered to hear the outcome.

In the front row sat Caron Schollum, expressionless, gripping a friend's hand. Beside her Sharon Shipton closed tired eyes and mouthed words to herself.

Mr Rickard's partner, Tania Eden, smiled, a Maori carving around her neck as it had been for the past 13 days, and said "be strong"as she held tight to a friend's hand. Their partners walked into the dock. Behind them, Mrs Nicholas, the woman who brought them all here, sat steely faced, flanked by her husband and detectives.

Before the jury entered the room, Justice Tony Randerson called for the public to show consideration, that "whatever the outcome, the verdicts be received in complete silence and that you save your reactions for outside the courtroom". As the not guilty verdicts were read one by one, tears began to flow. Mrs Schollum was surrounded by people holding her shoulders, Ms Eden nodded her head, grinning wider and wider.

In the dock, Mr Rickards stood emotionless, even as the wave of jury decisions rolled in.

Mr Schollum was first to show emotion, shaking his head and bowing forward as the forewoman said "not guilty" to the charge of indecent assault with a baton. He squeezed his eyes but was unable to stem the tears.

Mr Shipton rubbed his friend's back, then he too started weeping. Head bowed, he pinched the bridge of his nose with thumb and forefinger. With all the verdicts read, Mr Rickards finally buckled. His eyes watered, his shoulders slumped, the first visible signs of relief.

In the gallery supporters of the men were hugged. In the direction of the prosecution a supporter snapped, "You're a piece of shit."

As Mrs Nicholas left the room, the emotions were too much for the three women who had sat and listened to the sordid stories of their partners' sexual past, evidence of where they had sex, how they had sex and of who had watched.

Justice Randerson thanked the jurors, saying their task had been "unpleasant and unsavoury".

The trial itself had been quite simple, he said. It was the events "swirling around in the outside world" that had caused the problems.

The judge revealed that there had been a risk of the trial being aborted and that he had had to take drastic action.

Two members of the public had been held in contempt of court: A woman was jailed for three days for talking to a member of the jury, and a man who had breached a court order was banned from returning to court during the trial.

Within five minutes of the verdicts being read, the public gallery was empty. Mrs Nicholas had gone, with the portion of the gallery who were there in support of her. While the judge and lawyers remained inside sorting out suppression orders, family and supporters of the cleared trio gathered in a circle outside for karakia. Among them was former MP Willie Jackson, who called himself part of the support team.

Mr Shipton's brother Craig thanked the group of about 30 and said the verdicts restored his faith in God. "It is something to lose faith in the system, and an apology is warranted. These are good men. The world needs more of these men, and we should all be proud of them. "Our family can sleep tonight and know maybe, maybe, this justice system works. However, I hate to think that any persecution like this might happen to someone else."

He and another brother, Greg Shipton, described the prosecution of the men as political. Even the Prime Minister had commented, which they said was inappropriate. Craig Shipton: "It's purely political and quite frankly we are going to be asking some serious questions about the use of taxpayers' money to put good people through this. We have a lot of rubbish going on at the moment in this country. This is politically driven, and it's time it stopped." Greg Shipton: "Had Clint Rickards been a plumber in Rotorua, it would have been investigated once and that would be it. This is about stopping the first Maori commissioner of police." He criticised the "corrupt" police and said they were "still out there soliciting complaints".

Mr Shipton's sister, Tracey Shipton, told the Weekend Herald the family had never thought the men would be acquitted.

As he was about to leave the courtroom, Mr Rickards hugged his lawyer, Queen's Counsel John Haigh, then left hand-in-hand with Ms Eden to an unlit room off the foyer.

Two women, arms folded, defiantly blocked the doorway and window. One, a Maori warden, was soon replaced by a man wearing a black T-shirt, "Awesome Aotearoa Warriors" emblazoned across his burly chest.

Inside the room, a blinking Mr Rickards greeted well-wishers with hugs and backslaps. Mobbed by reporters as he left the court, Mr Rickards vigorously rubbed Ms Eden's shoulder as he told the media how "terribly relieved" he was.

In January 2004, before the allegations against him became public, Mr Rickards was commander of the Auckland police district.

His career had been a stellar one.

He joined the police in January 1979, signing up to cadet wing 23 three days after his 18th birthday, and was first stationed in his hometown of Rotorua. The remarkable career of police officer CR7055 was under way.

Not long into the job, he was shoulder-tapped and asked to join the undercover programme. A well-built man trained in the martial art of judo (he represented NZ at the 1986 Commonwealth Games, where he came fourth in his division), he seemed the perfect candidate.

Long-term operations in Kawerau, Invercargill and Christchurch followed, with short-term stints in Wellington and Auckland too. He delved into drug rings and burglary rackets. Proving he had brains as well as brawn, he gained a bachelor of business studies degree from Massey University and a masters in public policy from Charles Sturt University, New South Wales. During the past two years he has been studying for a doctorate in business.

By the time he was appointed Waikato district commander in 1999, he was being noticed by then Police Minister George Hawkins for his innovative crime prevention and community programmes, some of which were run in conjunction with Ms Eden, at that time a fellow officer.

The pair became a couple about 1993 and have a daughter, one of five of Mr Rickards' children. He also won plaudits for his work in the Maori community, taking pride in his Ngati Apakura and Ngati Hikairo tribal links and seeking to reduce Maori offending rates.

The Nicholas allegations became public in January 2004, but unlike previous inquiries that were conducted away from the gaze of public attention, these accusations against Mr Rickards, Mr Schollum and Mr Shipton were very much in the open.

A high-powered inquiry team, headed by Mr Perry, began one of the most important investigations conducted by the New Zealand police, and Mr Rickards was stood down from duty.

The inquiry took 14 months before the trio were charged. It was another 12 months before they stood trial. After all those months, the length of time that the jury took to make its decision had been almost unbearable, family members said. "We were praying," said Tracey Shipton.

Because of the time it took for the jury to come back she said the families had started to think the worst. "There were so many charges we weren't sure when the end [of the jury's not guilty verdicts] was coming. "We're all sad because it should never have come to this." She said they had stuck it out on the second floor of the High Court - a divide between them and a scrum of waiting media for three long days.

She recalled sitting on the floor massaging her mother Lorraine's feet at 8.30 on Thursday night. "It has affected her health. It has affected her faith in society," she said as she waited for Mr Shipton's wife, who was spending private time with her husband. They hugged and cried and as she walked out of courtroom 12 for the last time, Sharon Shipton nodded with dark-ringed eyes and said, "He's very happy with the result. "We never ever doubted. We never ever doubted for one moment these men were innocent. We know them."

Mr Rickards, the only one of the trio to have taken the stand, had told the jury he admitted having two consensual sexual encounters with Mrs Nicholas. He said he made no excuse for what was a jovial, happy time but he was not proud. "I had a partner and I had two children; that speaks for itself," he told the court.

Mrs Nicholas' evidence was of rape. She spoke of a loss of control, wanting to hide, and of the moment she alleged a smirking Mr Shipton loomed over her in 1986, police baton in one hand as the other two officers looked on. She had been a victim of conditioning, of an imbalance of power, and had lost her ability to resist.

Mr Rickards said her allegations were a lie. What they said

* Clint Rickards It was the right result as far as today, and I certainly would like to make my heartfelt gratitude to my legal team, Mr Haigh. They have done a splendid job, and justice prevailed today. It has been torture, torture for the last 2 years. This has been the worst nightmare you could ever imagine. Look, it's been very traumatic for my wife [Tania Eden] and my whanau as well.

One thing that's pulled me through has been my whanau. You have seen them here today, my wife, Tania, my son and my brother have been with me all the way and my extended whanau. If you didn't have that support it would be even more traumatic.

Twenty-four hours, seven days a week. [The period the jury deliberated had been] torture, yeah it's been mayhem. Asked if Mr Rickards expected to take his job back, his lawyer, John Haigh, QC, said it was a matter to be resolved later. "There are a lot of negotiations and so forth and discussions with the police department and we'll pursue that at a later point." Asked his view of Louise Nicholas right now, Mr Haigh said: "It's probably not appropriate to go into that."

* The police Deputy Commissioner Lyn Provost says police will start talks with Clint Rickards' lawyer about employment matters. "There are many factors involved both from the point of view of the employee and the employer and I am not going to speculate or prejudice those matters by public commentary," said Ms Provost. She said the Operation Austin team which had undertaken the investigation into Mr Rickards, Brad Shipton and Bob Schollum had done so according to the highest standards of professionalism in the police. "They have discharged their duty in exemplary fashion," she said.

* Shipton family Helen Clark, who passed over Clint Rickards for the job of deputy police commissioner six years ago after hearing he had been investigated for sexual misconduct, was accused yesterday of persecution. "As a family we will be asking serious questions - this is persecution from the Prime Minister down," said Craig Shipton, brother of Brad Shipton.

Craig Shipton accused Helen Clark of interfering in the case by commenting publicly on it. This was denied last night by a spokeswoman for Helen Clark, who said neither the Prime Minister nor any Government minister had ever commented on the court case.

The charges

* Clinton John Tukotahi Rickards
2 charges of rape (one representative)
1 representative charge of sexual violation by rape
4 charges of indecent assault (one representative)
1 representative charge of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection
Verdict: not guilty on all charges

* Robert Francis Schollum
1 charge of rape
4 charges of indecent assault
Verdict: not guilty on all charges

* Bradley Keith Shipton
2 charges of rape (one representative)
1 representative charge of sexual violation by rape
3 charges of indecent assault (one representative)
1 representative charge of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection
Verdict: not guilty on all charges

Rickards' partner speaks of 'rough time'

2006-04-01T04:55:00.000-08:00

NEWSTALK ZB
Rickards' partner speaks of 'rough time'
01.04.06 1.00pm

The partner of Assistant Police Commissioner Clint Rickards says her family just want to get on with their lives.

Clint Rickards, along with former policemen Brad Shipton and Bob Schollum, has been acquitted on 20 charges of raping Rotorua woman Louise Nicholas. Clint Rickards' partner Tania Eden says it's been a rough time for herself and her five children.

Ms Eden says she and Mr Rickards just want to get back to watching their kids play rugby and netball, and have an ordinary family life.

Police National Headquarters says a decision about Mr Rickards' employment with the police is yet to be made. Meanwhile, a brother of one of the three policemen acquitted of raping Louise Nicholas 20 years ago is furious the case went as far as it did.

Brad Shipton's brother, Greg Shipton, says the trial was merely an attempt to prevent Clint Rickards becoming the first Maori Police Commissioner.

He says if Mr Rickards was a plumber from Rotorua the case never would have got this far. He says the jury's 27 hour deliberation paled in comparison to the real wait the families of the accused have faced.

Mr Shipton says they have been been hauled over the coals and slated for the last ten years. He says it was the hardest thing his family has ever had to do.

Louise Nicholas thanks supporters

2006-04-01T04:49:00.000-08:00

NZPA
Louise Nicholas thanks supporters
01.04.06 1.00pm

Louise Nicholas, the woman who took one of the country's top policemen to court on rape and sex charges, has been getting support from throughout the country.

Mrs Nicholas told NZPA through a family spokesman today she was "feeling as anyone would in her situation" the day after a jury of seven woman and five men dismissed her allegations of rape and sexual abuse against assistant police commissioner Clint Rickards and former policemen, Brad Shipton and Bob Schollum.

The three men were acquitted on all 20 charges after a three-week hearing in the High Court at Auckland yesterday.

Mrs Nicholas claimed they had raped her and sexually abused her, once with a police baton, while she was an 18-year-old in Rotorua in 1985 and 1986.

She told the court she could not say no to the men because they were policemen who intimidated her and she was scared of them. In their own defence the three men said she lied.

They said the incident with the baton never happened and although they had had group sex with her, it was consensual and not against her will.

Mrs Nicholas walked smartly from the court in Auckland yesterday, one hand holding her husband Ross's hand, the other clenched in a fist. She refused to answer questions.

Today a family spokesman issued a brief statement to NZPA. "She and the Nicholas family just want to thank family and friends for their support and the hundreds and hundreds of ordinary New Zealanders who sent cards and letters of support," the family spokesman said.

Outside the court Rickards told of the "torture" of the last 30 months since the inquiry began but he would not talk about his feelings for Mrs Nicholas.

When asked by NZPA how he felt about her, his lawyer John Haigh, QC, intervened and said it was not appropriate.

Rickards, 45, has been suspended from the police on full pay since the inquiry began but discussions about his future were expected to take some time.

Jury in third day of police rape case deliberations

2006-03-31T05:25:00.000-08:00

NZ Herald
Jury in third day of police rape case deliberations
31.03.06
By Nicola Boyes

Jurors were today starting a third day of deliberations in the rape case against Assistant Police Commissioner Clint Rickards and former police colleagues Bob Schollum and Brad Shipton.

The jury considering Louise Nicholas' rape allegations had been deliberating for almost 21 hours in the High Court at Auckland when it adjourned last night about 8.45pm.

Earlier yesterday the jurors asked if they could have access to Justice Tony Randerson's summing-up notes.

While the family and friends of the three accused have kept a vigil outside court room 12, Mrs Nicholas has not been seen.

Supporters of the defendants gathered again last night. Mrs Nicholas alleges that between September 1985 and December 1986 Shipton and Rickards visited her Rotorua flat between six and 12 times uninvited for sex she did not consent to.

She also alleges that in January 1986 Schollum picked her up while she was walking home from her job at the BNZ Bank and took her to a police house where the trio took turns raping her before indecently assaulting her with a police baton.

Jury clears men in police rape trial

2006-03-31T05:23:00.000-08:00

HERALD STAFF
Jury clears men in police rape trial
31.03.06 3.25pm
UPDATE

The three men accused of the rape and sexual assault of Louise Nicholas have been found not guilty by a jury at the High Court in Auckland this afternooon.

Assistant Police Commissioner Clint Rickards and former police colleagues Bob Schollum and Brad Shipton had denied a total of 20 charges.

There were emotional scenes in the courtroom as they gave their verdict at around 3pm.

Family and supporters of the three men cried and hugged each other. Schollum and Shipton also cried, Newstalk ZB reported, while Rickards showed little emotion.

The jury had spent more than two days considering its verdict.

Mrs Nicholas had alleged that between September 1985 and December 1986, Shipton and Rickards visited her Rotorua flat between six and 12 times uninvited for sex she did not consent to.

She had also alleged that in January 1986 Schollum picked her up while she was walking home from her job at the BNZ Bank and took her to a police house where the trio took turns raping her before indecently assaulting her with a police baton.

Police rape jury asks for judge's summing up

2006-03-30T05:28:00.000-08:00

NZ Herald
Police rape jury asks for judge's summing up
30.03.06 12.35pm
UPDATE
By Nicola Boyes

The jury in the police rape case has this morning asked the judge for a transcript of his summing up following almost a day of deliberation.

Justice Tony Randerson agreed to them seeing his legal direction but not the entire transcript.

The jury was continuing a second day of deliberations into the fate of former Assistant Commissioner Clint Rickards and two other former police officers.

The seven women and five men retired at 1pm yesterday at the High Court in Auckland to consider the case against Rickards, and former officers Bob Schollum and Brad Shipton.

They adjourned for the night at 10pm after asking several questions of Justice Randerson.

The judge had earlier told them their task was not easy, as there were effectively three trials running as one.

The three accused face 20 charges of rape, indecent assault and sexual violation against Louise Nicholas said to have occurred between 1985 and 1986 in Rotorua.

Lawyers for the three men have said the sex was consensual and that an alleged sexual attack with a police baton never took place.

After 2 hours the jury emerged to ask if they could have a whiteboard and take a break.

They also asked if police officers kept their own uniforms.

Justice Randerson referred them to evidence given by former sergeant Raymond Sutton, who told the court CIB officers were entitled to keep police uniforms and were encouraged to do so.

Mrs Nicholas has alleged Rickards and Shipton visited her at her flat for sex without her consent - sometimes wearing uniform and sometimes in plain clothes.

But the men's lawyers said during the trial that the men were plain-clothes detectives in the CIB at the time of the alleged offences and would not have been wearing uniform, as Mrs Nicholas had claimed. The second question asked by the jury cannot be revealed because it would breach one of a number of suppression orders in place at the trial.

In a three-hour summing up yesterday, Justice Randerson said the jury had to decide if Mrs Nicholas was a credible and reliable witness or whether she genuinely believed she was truthful but might have been mistaken.

Justice Randerson said the men were only to be judged on evidence given in court and were entitled to any doubt in the jurors' minds. "If you have a reasonable doubt that leaves you feeling unsure then you must acquit."

The fact that the allegations were first made in 1993 could have been for any number of reasons, he said. The evidence of a flatmate who said she had seen Mrs Nicholas having sex with the officers in one location, if found to be credible, could have a bearing on Mrs Nicholas' credibility in her evidence about alleged offences in another location.

The jurors were told it was not their job to judge the morality of what the men had done. "Whatever view you may have about the morality of their behaviour must be put to one side. This court is not concerned with the morality of their behaviour." It would be wrong for the jury to take into account any material they may have seen or heard other than what had been presented in court.

Jury considering police rape charges

2006-03-29T14:05:00.000-08:00

NZPA
Jury considering police rape charges
29.03.06 2.05pm
UPDATE

A jury of seven women and five men retired at 1.25pm today to decide if a high-ranking policeman and two former policemen are rapists.

Assistant police commissioner Clint Rickards, and former police officers Brad Shipton and Bob Schollum are being tried in the High Court at Auckland on 20 historic rape and sexual abuse charges against Rotorua woman Louise Nicholas.

She told the trial all three men raped her and indecently assaulted her in 1985 and 1986 when she was an 18-year-old in Rotorua.

They deny the charges.

Summing up this morning Justice Tony Randerson told the jury the three men were entitled to benefit from any element of doubt in the case with an acquittal.

He told the jurors they faced a daunting task but were not to be influenced by moral issues after the three men said in court they had had group sex with Mrs Nicholas but that it was consensual.

Lawyers for Rickards, suspended from the police on full pay, Shipton and Schollum, said that Mrs Nicholas made up the rape allegations.

They said she liked sex with policemen.

Mrs Nicholas said in evidence she had lost control and could not say "no" to the three men who used their influence as police officers to intimidate her. She said she was very scared of them.

Too many flaws in Nicholas case, say defence lawyers

2006-03-29T05:40:00.000-08:00

NZ Herald
Too many flaws in Nicholas case, say defence lawyers
29.03.06
By Nicola Boyes

Holes in the Crown case against Assistant Commissioner Clint Rickards and two former police colleagues are too great for any jury to convict the men, the High Court at Auckland was told yesterday.

Lawyers for Rickards, 45, Brad Shipton, 47, and Bob Schollum, 53, gave their closing addresses to the jury of seven women and five men, saying the complainant, Louise Nicholas, had lied and fabricated events and the Crown case did not come within a "bull's roar" of what was required.

The jurors will retire today to consider their verdicts. Rickards' lawyer, John Haigh, QC, told the jury the case the Crown had presented was not enough to convict anyone. Mrs Nicholas was courting attention for a past of which she was ashamed, he said. "If these allegations are indeed true then Mrs Nicholas must be a hauntingly tragic figure."

Between them the three men face 20 charges of rape, indecent assault and sexual violation of Mrs Nicholas. She alleges Shipton and Rickards visited her Rotorua flat uninvited for sex she did not consent to between September 1985 and January 1986.

She alleges all three men took turns at raping her and then indecently assaulted her with a police baton at a police house in January 1986.

Mr Haigh said Mrs Nicholas had courted publicity in the case, waiving the right to name suppression given to all complainants in sex cases. "She chose to have her name here, to have her name splattered all over the media."

Flaws in the Crown case emerged if the jury asked why she allowed the abuse to continue at her flat after the incident at the police house in Rutland St, Mr Haigh said.

"Rutland St is so gross that if it is true it would be an abomination." He said all she offered was, "No, guys, I don't want this." "She doesn't speak out, she doesn't shout, she doesn't push, she doesn't run. Is that common sense? Can you write that off as saying poor Mrs Nicholas had lost control?"

Mr Haigh asked why she had not complained to anyone at the time, when she had already made a previous complaint against a police officer to her mother, who tried to do something about it. "It was the simplest thing in the world," he said. "What loss of control prevents you from saying, 'Mum, this happened to me'?"

Mr Haigh said Rutland St was a fabrication and questioned why Mrs Nicholas continued wearing the dress she said she had on that day years after the incident. "Would you not think forever this dress would be contaminated? It was a memento, if you like, of the most ghastly moment of her life."

Evidence that Rickards was never in uniform, as Mrs Nicholas had suggested, because he was a plain-clothes detective at the time could not be ignored, he said.

Evidence given by her former flatmate who said she had sex with Shipton and Schollum and had seen Mrs Nicholas having sex with them did not come "within a bull's roar" of the Crown case. "Doesn't that knock Mrs Nicholas out of the ring because she says [her flatmate] was never there. If it wasn't so tragically serious you could describe it as laughable." Rickards' achievements in the police were to be admired and his work was impeccable, he said. Rickards conceded he had consensual sex with Mrs Nicholas twice and while that might have been morally reprehensible, it was not criminal. "She consented and he reasonably believed she was consenting."

Bill Nabney, for Shipton, said his case was on two fronts: Shipton admitted having consensual sex with Mrs Nicholas and Rutland St simply did not occur. He said the trial was not about a married man having extra-marital sex with a young woman. "It's a bunch of people having fun." The evidence of Mrs Nicholas' flatmate showed that, he said.

Paul Mabey, QC, for Schollum, said the evidence in the case was just not good enough. Mrs Nicholas had created a fantasy and told lies.

Evidence was presented which proved that Schollum was not driving a Triumph at the time, as Mrs Nicholas claimed when she said she had been picked up by him and taken to Rutland St.

Her claims that she made a solemn promise to her brother Peter that she would be civil to Schollum at his wedding in February 1993 were untrue.

In his evidence he said he knew nothing of her allegations. Instead, Mr Mabey said, she had flashed her leg to Schollum during wedding photos.

The court was not for judging morality, he said.

He asked the jurors to write "Are you sure?" on a white board before they started deliberating.

Justice Tony Randerson will sum up the case for the jury this morning.

Jury returns to ask judge question in police rape case

2006-03-29T05:33:00.000-08:00

NZPA
Jury returns to ask judge question in police rape case
29.03.06 6.25pm

Two hours into deliberations the jury in the historic police rape case, came out of the jury room to ask whether police officers owned their own uniforms.

The jury of seven women and five men retired at 1pm today to decide verdicts on Assistant Police Commissioner Clint Rickards, 45, and former policemen Brad Shipton, 47, and Bob Schollum, 53.

The men face twenty charges of rape, indecent assault and sexual violation against Louise Nicholas.

Judge Tony Randerson answered the jurors by directing them to sections of the 300 page transcript of evidence from the three week trial.

Mrs Nicholas alleges Rickards and Shipton visited her at her Corlett Street flat in Rotorua, between six to 12 times in the mid 1980s for sexual intercourse and oral sex without her consent.

She had testified in her evidence they sometimes wore their police uniforms and other times were dressed in suits.

Rickards and Shipton told the court they had consensual sex with Mrs Nicholas but they were CIB officers and were never dressed in police uniform.

Rickards gave evidence in his own defence last week and said he never wore police uniform during the time he was alleged to have raped Mrs Nicholas.

Rickards and Shipton were both uniformed police in the early 1980s.

Judge Randerson read out evidence to the jurors from retired Rotorua Sergeant Ray Sutton who said CIB officers were still expected to have a police uniform but not all CIB officers did.

Rickards defence lawyer John Haigh QC said yesterday Mrs Nicholas was lying when she said she saw Rickards in police uniform and her evidence had gaps "a mile wide".

Earlier in the day Judge Randerson spent three hours summing up the trial, he told the jury they had a difficult task ahead and reminded them there were effectively three trials in one.

He said they had to decide if Mrs Nicholas was a credible and reliable witness or whether she genuinely believed she was truthful but may have been mistaken.

Defence says Nicholas' story full of holes

2006-03-28T13:00:00.000-08:00

NZPA
Defence says Nicholas' story full of holes
28.03.06 1.00pm

The holes in the evidence of Louise Nicholas are too wide and it would be impossible to convict Assistant Police Commissioner Clint Rickards of raping and indecently assaulting her, a jury was told today.

John Haigh, QC, defence lawyer for Rickards, said Mrs Nicholas was an attention-seeker who wanted someone to blame for a past she was ashamed of.

Rickards and two former policemen, Brad Shipton and Bob Schollum, face 20 historic charges of rape, indecent assault and sexual violation brought against them by Mrs Nicholas.

All three denied the charges but have previously said they had consensual sex with her in Rotorua in the mid-1980s.

Mr Haigh asked the jury in the High Court at Auckland not to reject a critical piece of evidence that he said proved Mrs Nicholas was lying.

She alleged Rickards and Shipton visited her flat uninvited for sex between six and 12 times from September 1985 to December 1986. She said in her evidence at the beginning of the three-week trial the two accused came to her Corlett Street flat during the day when her two flatmates were not home.

Mr Haigh referred to contradictory evidence given by Mrs Nicholas's flatmate who said it was Shipton and Schollum who came around for sex and Mrs Nicholas "certainly wasn't saying no".

Mrs Nicholas said during cross-examination that her flatmate's recollection was mistaken.

Mr Haigh said if there was ever a case which needed the highest standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, this was it.

Lawyers for the other two men were also expected to give their closing submissions today before the jury of seven women and five men.

Justice Tony Randerson was expected to sum up tomorrow before sending the jury out to consider its verdicts.

Nicholas' evidence 'chilling'

2006-03-28T05:49:00.000-08:00

NZ Herald
Nicholas' evidence 'chilling'
28.03.06
By Nicola Boyes

The jury in the Louise Nicholas rape case has been urged by the Crown to remember the anguish and pain in the voice of Mrs Nicholas when she gave evidence against the three defendants last week.

Assistant Police Commissioner Clint Rickards, 45, and former police officers Brad Shipton, 47, and Bob Schollum, 53, face 20 charges among them including the alleged rape, indecent assault and sexual violation of Louise Nicholas between 1985 and 1986.

In his closing statement to the High Court jury, Crown prosecutor Brent Stanaway said that while the accused men said Mrs Nicholas was a liar and a serial false accuser of police officers, the Crown argued that at the time of the alleged incidents, she was an unfortunate teenager ill-equipped to deal with the predatory advances of the three men.

The Crown case hinged on Mrs Nicholas' testimony, which he described as "compelling and at times chilling".

"She was not an eloquent, cultured or educated person. "She has a nuggety and down-to- earth personality and turn of phrase. "That was no performance. That was a woman, in my submission, who had waited 20 years to face these three men in court and tell a jury what they had done to her."

He said the accused had traded on an "imbalance of power" and Mrs Nicholas had found it too hard to make a complaint. "Louise Nicholas was effectively playdough in the accused's hands."

Defence suggestions that she was somehow revisiting a past she was embarrassed by were "untenable", he said, questioning why Mrs Nicholas would put herself through a trial and maintain her stance for 20 years. "It just doesn't wash."

He said she might be mistaken in aspects, but the core of her recollections was consistent and had been since the allegations arose.

Defence suggestions that Mrs Nicholas had enjoyed media attention over the past two and half years were also denied.

Mr Stanaway told the jurors they should be unimpressed with Rickards' "extraordinary reluctance and dogmatic performance" when he gave evidence in his defence last week.

Mr Stanaway said Rickards' "mantras or chants" denying the allegations against him and repeatedly saying "Louise Nicholas is lying" were not the responses of a credible witness.

Picton resident Kerrianne Best, who was matron of honour at the wedding of Mrs Nicholas' brother in February 1993, was called to give evidence for Schollum yesterday before the defence finished its case.

She told his lawyer, Paul Mabey, QC, that she had seen Mrs Nicholas and Schollum laughing at the reception and Mrs Nicholas had pulled up her skirt showing Schollum the lacy top of her stockings.

Lawyers for the three defendants will give their own closing statements to the jury today, and Justice Tony Randerson is expected to sum up the case tomorrow.