I have been talking a lot about the prosecution of Clint Rickards, Bob Schollum and Brad Shipton for raping Louise Nicholas. But I’ve never taken the time to outline the entire story for overseas readers. My posts probably make even less sense now that I’ve deleted material, and to say why I’ve done so would break a suppression order. So I thought I’d summarise the case, particularly for overseas readers.
This post does not contain everything that I know about the case, since I have decided not to break suppression orders. This is also my opinion of the issues, so it’s starting point is that I believe what Louise Nicholas says. Sometimes I come to a different conclusion from the jury. Deal with it.
The rapists
Clint Rickards, Bob Shollum and Brad Shipton were all cops in Rotorua in the 1980s. During this time they used their power and their uniform to abuse young women. Louise Nicholas was one of those women. They raped her repeatedly. They would stop by her house and rape her. They raped her with a police baton.
People have posted to this blog about other abuses of power they observed by Rotorua police in the 1980s. People who worked with these men at the time have posted that they believe every word Louise Nicholas says. I find that so terifying, that lots of people knew what those men were like and didn’t say or do anything. They didn’t care about the women that were being hurt enough to stand up to those men. In the 1980s Louise Nicholas talked to a police officer, complained about what these men were doing to her, he took no action.
Louise Nicholas is not the only woman to be raped by Rotorua cops in the 1980s. She’s not the only women to talk about being raped by Rotorua cops in the 1980s. But she is the one who has been prepared to go public. She didn’t pursue name suppression, so the trial could be reported on openly.
She went to the police in the 1990s, she told a friend of hers who was also a cop and he encouraged her to go to the authorities. She did, the police reacted as you’d expect. They covered up for each other, they ensured that none of their buddies would go to jail (later one of those cops would make a death-bed confession to her brother, just for added drama). I believe that rape and abuse of power was so systemic that many cops would have a motive to cover up what Clint Rickards, Bob Schollum and Brad Shipton had done.
None of those men were charged; Brad Shipton and Bob Schollum left the police force, Clint Rickards rose through the ranks. By early this decade he was Assistant Commissioner of police, in charge of Auckland.
The Dominion Post (and I’m going to give them credit here, because I’m going to blast the media in a bit) did a good bit of investigative journalism in this case. Followed the whole story, found out about the systemic abuse of power in the Rotorua police. Louise Nicholas agreed to go on the record. You can find those articles here (warning the website owners don’t believe Louise Nicholas, but they do keep a very throrough record of the case).
Since then the case has been investigated by the police, and there is a commission of inquiry into police behaviour, that is due to report back in May.
The Trial
A couple of decades after the incidents happened Clint Rickards, Brad Shipton and Bob Schollum were put on trial for raping Louise Nicholas. On the first day of the trial Clint Rickards wore his police uniform, even though he was suspended. He obviously still uses his police uniform to get what he wants.
So many people call it ‘The Louise Nicholas trial’ – to many she was the person on trial. Even among people who believed her the language they would use was telling, people would talk about her defence lawyers, when of course she didn’t have a lawyer, because she wasn’t supposed to be on trial – it didn’t work out like that.
Some evidence in the trial was suppressed, so I don’t know everything that was discussed. I do know that the media did an appalling job of reporting on the trial. They focused on the salacious details, ignored any context, and implied that the trial as reported was the whole picture (you had to read quite carefully to even noticed that evidence was supprsed). The headline in the paper would read “Louise Nicholas Lies” and you’d have to read to the end of the first paragraph before it was clear that this was just what the defence were saying.
In the trial the fact that Louise Nicholas had told of being raped by other policemen, and that the verdict in the other trial had been ‘not guilty’ was considered relevant evidence. Even though such information is not supposed to be admissable. Even though information about the defendants past was considered irrelevant.
The jury deliberated for three days. After three days they came back with a not guilty verdict.
What Happened Next
I’ve written about waiting for the verdict, I’ve written about feeling like thousands of women were waiting with me. I didn’t realise how right I was.
The verdict came in on a Friday night. On the Saturday a group of women held a banner saying “Louise Nicholas We Believe You” at the police college open day. Then, on the Monday morning, they gave out leaflets at the railway station.
These leaflets were headed up “We Believe Louise Nicholas”, but they also contained some information that had been denied to the jury, breaking name suppression and opening up the possibility that these women would be charged with contempt of court.
It didn’t end there. Suddenly the media reporting of the trial, which had previously been focused on the Shipton family talking about how he had been harassed by police, were covering people who believed Louise Nicholas. Some people who recieved a leaflet typed them in, and sent them to everyone they know, these people sent them to everbody they knew. The women who had stood outside the railway station were not the only people who believed Louise Nicholas, they weren’t the only people who wanted to do something about it, and they weren’t the only people who were prepared to break the law to do so.
I don’t want to particularly talk about supression laws. There has been a lot of discussion about suppression laws. To me this seems like a way to avoid talking about rape, the systemic abuse of power, and the ways in which these men used their power to avoid consequences for their actions. I do want to pay tribute to the amount that ordinary women, and men, hate rape. How they see that justice hasn’t been served, and how they’re prepared to fight back. How many people have been prepared to ignore the law if they don’t believe it delivers justice.
What Now?
I don’t know what’s going to happen next, and what I do know I can’t talk about. But there are things that you can do about this case.
You can send Louise Nicholas your support. If you e-mail me at capitalismbad@gmail.com, I will forward all messages to her. Or you can fax her messages of support by fax c/o Brent Stanaway, Crown Prosecutor, (643) 366 7474 (just 03 if you live in New Zealand).
You can write about this on your blog. Because these issues are not just relevant to New Zealand, rape and abuse of power by police is a problem all over the world (if you want to know more I do recommend this archive, even though I disagree with those who run it).
The women who are gave out leaflets are collecting money for their legal defence. I don’t think they have the ability to collect overseas donations at this stage, but if you live in New Zealand you can deposit money into their bank account 389005005641800 through internet banking (although if anyone out there would be willing to collect money through paypal on their behalf I’m sure they’d appreciate it, e-mail womenagainstrape@hotmail.com). Louise Nicholas also needs money to pay for her expenses. She had to take three weeks off work (as did her husband), and they lived in Auckland and paid for the hotels. E-mail me if you want to know how to contribute to that (a private individual is collecting, and I don’t feel comfortable publishing her details on-line).
Finally I’d like to quote from an e-mail sent out by Women Against Rape today:
What can men do?
Many women working on rape issues are not comfortable with mixed groups, for obvious reasons. However, there are other men who share your concerns and men can also do all the things listed above to organise against rape. The power you hold in our society means that you can often challenge other men about their attitudes towards sex and consent.
If other men valued women’s rights to their own bodies and defined consent as something more than not fighting back, Clint Rickards, Bob Schollum and Brad Shipton would not have got away with what they did.
Most importantly, ensure that all sex you have is not just consensual, but mutual.
Comment Policy: This thread is for feminists, pro-feminist and feminist sympathisers.
Also posted at my blog
Pingback: feminist blogs
I’ve emailed you, Maia. Thanks for passing on the info.
I too was furious about the media coverage of the trial, particularly the ever-present “Louise Nicholas’ rape trial” headline. God, that got my goat.
The NZ media really do a shoddy job. I’m spitting tacks again over tonight’s “murdered prostitute” headlines. How many times are they going to call her a prostitute before she becomes a murdered woman? It’s f-ing disgusting and an attempt at sensationalism that sends some damning messages about how much value the public should give the life of someone who’s “only a whore.” (Saying that, I’m very relieved at the sentencing.)
Thankfully, there’s at least one case where allegations of rape by a police officer was taken seriously and which led to a conviction.
What happens next? The next trial, as per New Zealand press reports over the last couple of days.
Shipton, Schollum and Rickards are now to stand trial for yet another rape.
I want so badly for this trial to have a publicly just outcome, and for no more suppression orders protecting grown men from the truth of their own actions. Of course they are rapists. I have nothing but admiration and empathy for the women who protested the verdict, and of course for Louise.
Ok where to start. louise i certainly believe you, those men should now be in jail for what they did, end of story.
they make me ashamed to be a new zealander, how dare our society allow men like them to walk freely amongst us.
How dare our court system keep information like this from us, i agree every one needs a fair trial but did louise get hers? we will never know.
be strong louise, they will get theirs eventually.
“How dare our court system keep information like this from us, i agree every one needs a fair trial but did louise get hers?”
She wasn’t on trial
She shouldn’t have been on trial, but the media had other ideas.
I think Graeme’s point was that Louise also had the right to a trial, as the long overdue way to address the significant wrongs done to her. Sadly, justice failed her. NZ still has a long road ahead.
I’m hoping that justice is done this time around for all three. How awful is it that everyone bloody well knows these men abused their power to repeatedly commit sexual attacks, but that a survivor has to go through so much pain and public judgement, just to tell the truth?
The problems re prosecuting rogue police officers are due to their ability to use their power, past and present, to exert influence over those who come within their milieu. Those influenced are emergency service workers, both volunteer and professional, local newspapers, rugby clubs, law firms.
In small rural communities some have unholy alliances with the local Gangs. Back in the 80s and 90s in areas like Murapara and Kaitaia vegetation worth $300 an ounce was a powerful temptation to cops in lonely areas where they could run informers and appear to be heroes swinging from helicopters! OK so one of them or more get really out of hand and start raping women using their own power bases, police stations, police houses etc. None of the ‘good cops’ and there are many of them feel able to do anything. Now the bullying has spread to Judges, Prosecutors etc and we have these terrible travesties of justice. SPEAK OUT ALL THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN BULLIED. Have some courage. They will only be defeated by EXPOSURE
I totally agree with your points Observer – but where to start – and who will HELP ??
In my honest opinion there is no justice available for current objectors who may have once been healthy professionals – and then were assaulted everywhichway for trying to make a difference – either in the life of a kiwi victim or in the job or in the community!!!
So I still am concerned that there is NO where to go as this horiffic type of bullying and abuse which evolves from all sorts of codes &/or rank closing and repeated revictimisation strategies – I call it gaslighting or deathmaking now :(
This happens in my honest opinion as aside from those who may try to help others and end up suffering devastation themselves … these other professionals may then turn a blind eye and stay silent & are now possibly also being influenced by some of the weaknesses and politics behind the so-called whistleblowing legislation which is operating in NZ etc
Anyways FYI
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3681337a10,00.html
Women fail to report rapes
27 May 2006
By YVONNE MARTIN
The negative attitudes of police officers towards rape complaints and fears of a bruising court trial are putting women off reporting rape.
Police have recognised that women not using the criminal justice system is a major concern and are setting up a specialist squad to deal with rape cases in a bid to improve their image.
The initiative comes as the Commission of Inquiry into police conduct, investigating the handling of the Louise Nicholas case and other matters, is extended for the fourth time until September 30.
Prime Minister Helen Clark announced the inquiry in February 2004 and it was due to report next week.
A spokesman for Internal Affairs Minister Rick Barker said the latest extension was granted to ensure the report was “robust” and complete.
A special report by The Weekend Press, published in today’s Mainlander, has found that women are avoiding and dropping out of the criminal justice system at phenomenally high rates.
Support groups estimate that only one in 10 rapes is notified, and only a fraction go to court.
Victoria University criminologist Dr Jan Jordan said the doubting attitudes of officers dealing with women reporting rape complaints were a factor in the high rates of attrition.
Jordan, who has done extensive research on rape and police practices, said a culture of disbelief runs through the force, tainting how it deals with complaints.
Officers trained as sexual-assault investigators have told her that they believe up to 80 per cent of rape complaints police receive are false.
“If the expectation is there that, chances are, a complaint is more likely to be false than true, that is going to be conveyed non-verbally, even if not verbally, to any complainant coming in,” said Jordan.
“Some of the police will say, `We are not going to say that to her’, but there are other ways that that scepticism gets conveyed ““ by their body language, the stance, the way in which they ask the questions and what they ask.”
Nicholas struggled to get her rape complaint from the 1980s actioned, but her case was more complex than most as the allegations were against police officers.
Assistant Police Commissioner Clint Rickards and former policemen Brad Shipton and Bob Schollum were acquitted in March of charges of raping her.
But a second woman has emerged with historic sexual-abuse allegations from the 1980s against the same men, and they will stand trial again.
The police’s new national co-ordinator of adult sexual assault and child abuse, Detective Senior Sergeant Neil Holden, did not dispute Jordan’s findings.
He agreed police had to be seen as more receptive and approachable to encourage women to report sexual assaults.
“We need to tidy it up to say we are really addressing the matter, we are wanting to make it a lot better, so bring more work to us,” he said.
“We need to make sure our processes are very clear, very transparent ““ there is no secrecy behind them.”
Holden also hoped the sexual-assaults investigation unit about to be launched in Auckland would set a new standard of professionalism. A sergeant and four detectives would work alongside community agencies.
Dr Kim McGregor, director of Rape Prevention Education (formerly Rape Crisis Auckland), said her group had pushed for years for a full-time, ring-fenced squad, similar to those investigating child abuse.
“I have worked in this field for 20 years. While there has been some changes made over that time, in practice not very much has changed for survivors of sexual violence,” she said.
Daniel Rae, one of two activists involved in last month’s Christchurch rally in support of Nicholas, has been questioned by police over the distribution of pamphlets containing suppressed information about the case.
Rae gave a statement and said police indicated they would be laying charges in relation to the alleged breach of suppression. He would fight any charges.
You’ve hit on a hot button issue for me. Namely, police as an institution are corrupt. Yes, there are plenty of good ones out there (a majority, probably,) but that’s not the point, specific crimes they commit aren’t the point – none of that is the point. The broader point is, we pay people to ignore us, abuse us, cover for each other even when they obviously shouldn’t, harass us while somehow leaving real criminals free to do whatever they want, and so on. Even “good” cops tend to cover for obvious “mistakes” made by their peers, which is the opposite of what SHOULD happen. Ask yourself why a police chief in New Orleans is still providing cover for a couple of guys who apparently shot a man in the back. That’s “Cop America” for you.
If these cops are rapists (and I’m among those who don’t take sides in such things even if I know people who are involved simply because I actually believe in our courts,) then I hope they rot, but they’re just one tiny corner of a problem the size of our society itself.
Nyk
I would rather remain nameless to protect my immediate family.
Three years ago I was always quizzed on how to spell my last name (Schollum), now no one asks me, as I am obviously related to the accused rapist.
This has been a trying time for our family. Especially since Bob (dispite how the media has portrayed him) is a lovely, charming man – a man with a young family and a distraught wife.
I have a unique perspective on this case … while I am a family member and obligated to stand by Bob’s side I have also been sexually assaulted in the past (by someone outside my family) and endured the horror of a trial… only to have the defendant (who I knew to be gulity) found “not guilty”
While I am glad for Bob’s wife and children that he was found not guilty I am also saddened that he was not prosecuted. I am privy to the information that has been suppressed and believe that whether he did to Louise what she claims (with full understanding of his actions at the time) or not, he does have things to be sorry for… debts to pay.
I honestly believe that Bob is not the man he was in the 1980’s, but at the same time this cannot be used to excuse him from the “sins” he has committed.
I can only hope that Louise finds a way to move on as I have … and know that he will pay in some way, even if it is not now and obviously linked with what he did to her.
Louise… I feel for you… I am sorry that you have had to go through this
Thanks for posting threads on this NZ case.
I had the following posted on my site. I don’t know who wrote it, but I found it very disturbing in its content.
I attended much of the actual trial as a law student. I regard myself as leaning somewhat towards feminist (or at least post-feminist) beliefs, but I also try and take a balanced view and hear both sides. Having seen what the actual jury saw, keeping in mind how much was suppressed from them, or inadmissable as evidence, the jury came back with the right judgment, based on the information they had. That is, they could only make a judgment based on the evidence presented in the court.
NOT GUILTY DOES NOT MEAN INNOCENT. I don’t think any of the jury regarded these accused men as “innocent” of the charges. But the turning point for the actual court trial was probably the testimony of Louise’s flatmate – I won’t go into all the salatious details, but it included her own relationship / involvement in group sexual acts with those involved in the trial and Louise. She came across credibly, and it threw some ambiguity into the account of what occurred. This, plus the lack of hard evidence led to the jury being unable to find guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.
There has been this dialogue of “we believe you Louise”, and that is quite right, I too believe that violent sexual and non-consentual acts were perpetrated on Louise, having sat in on the trial and knowing other surrounding facts. But the difficulty however is the burden of proof, and it becomes more and more difficult over time, with people’s memory fogging on issues, with people who might have heard noises or been privy to some kind of witness in-sight having moved away or died or whatever. The jury can’t find a person guilty just because they feel sure in their gut that they did it. I think there was more evidence that could have swayed the jury to be able to find the parties guilty if it had been produced, but for whatever reason, information was suppressed from the jury or was not admissable, and I’m sure there were other people who knew more about the case and were witness to elements of it, but have not come forward.
I don’t know all the ins and outs of the supression – I know some of the info of other cases, which could not be in the field of the jury. But in addition to this, some of the evidence was inadmissable just because of the hearsay rule.
The sad thing in this case was that plainly there are other people out there – another man or men who were in that room, who were friends with the accused, who know what went on and were fellow perpetrators, and others who know what went on, who have not come forward. The men accused will know who the other men were, they won’t say, of course. Firstly they’d be putting their mates in the mud, and secondly there is the risk that the person in that situation might confess and evidence the guilt of the others.
I hope Louise won’t think that the jury’s finding of “not guilty” means that they didn’t believe her, that she was violently and sexually assaulted.
I hope Louise won’t think that the jury’s finding of “not guilty” means that the jury regarded the accused men as innocent.
The situation in a court case is like attempting a pole jump, you have to push right up and over the threshold of “guilty beyond all reasonable doubt” on the specific charges and their wording, and based strictly on the evidence put to the court. It is possible to pole-jump very convincingly, but miss that high threshold required in the court of law. You still have the respect of the by-standers, and we know the huge hurdle you had to attempt to get over, with the time that has passed and lack of hard evidence.
I think it is so tragic that the matter was not properly dealt with at the time that it happened. It is so difficult with the passing of all those years to make out a case based predominantly on “she said” – “he said”. Or rather “they said”. And in fact, mostly there was very little “he said” because no accused is forced to take the stand, to be cross-examined.
I don’t agree with all the criticism of the media, during the court case. There was some bias towards one party at times, and at other times to the other party. But for the mostpart, they were reflecting the guage of where the dial was weighing towards the jury returning a guilty or not-guilty verdict on the charges. Not whether they personally believed Louise, but rather an impartial view of whether the court case was panning out for a guilty judgment or not.
They reflected on turning points which seemed to shift where the judgment would go, such as reflecting the flatmate’s testimony and its difficulty to the case. They were not able to print information that was suppressed, and they worked hard to try and shift suppression orders when they regarded them as inappropriate. Some of the suppression orders were fairly put in place by the judge to ensure a fair trial which is universal to all cases, which has to be applied, not just with this trial but every trial. Other aspects of the suppression orders seemed more debatable.
It’s easy to see things in black and white, that the media were arseholes, that the accused should have been found guilty, but the real life situation is much more grey.
Suspended Assistant Police Commissioner Clint Rickards is guilty of rape and ther is at lest 5 more line Clint Rickards up for their day in court.
Clint Rickards should be sacked.
Most women in this country now work for quite low wages and are big taxation contributors to his large pay packet.
Why should the women of NZ fund a likely rapists pay. In fact the women of NZ need to stress to the police that as a large group of taxpayers they expect better service for rape claims in general. We are paying these guys. We should be getting some service for our hard earned cash.
I believe Clint Rickards is a disgusting so called “role model” for our upcoming generation. I personally will never trust the Police again and find it absolutely unbelievable that the law can be so “blind”. I am disgusted.
If we can find out who exactly, is in charge of wanting Rickards to be reinstated in the police force (and in possibly an even higher place I might add), and take a close look at their background and motives, and their past dealings with Rickards, and not leave them anonymously speaking/acting. We would begin to get somewhere.
Thanks for this informative article. What anonymous wrote on the 21/01/2007 is a balanced view of the judicial system played out in Westminster systems. I am a police officer who has been in the situation where you believe and can empathize with the victim – but the jury can be fickle and while you believe your case may be strong it may not always go according to plan.
It sounds like the issue revolved around consent and not as to whether the events took place.
I think what is of greater concern is the abuse of power by person(s) in authority. Those that should be trusted implicitly by the public to discharge their duties honestly and without fear or favour.
The position brings with it moral responsibilities. Such conduct irrespective of whether it constituted rape or not and arguments about whether consent was appropriately obtained should not even enter the equation.
The conduct was morally reprehensible and should have been dealt with immediately in the strongest possible terms.
New Zealand has the fortune of having dedicated hard working police officers whose job will be made much more difficult. The victims of rape will have some difficulty in trusting police to do the right thing. For those involved in this debacle that is a capital offence.
I believe that New Zealand should like the states in Australia have Police Ethical Standards Units and independent Crime and Misconduct organisations.
I hate to say it but this is official police corruption. Corruption does not necessarily involve the more common theme of bribes but extends to serious misconduct… that conduct which brings the police service into disrepute.
Police are not above the law and the conduct while they wear the blue suit must in all aspects of their life be beyond reproach.
I congratulate ms Nichols on behalf of police from around the world on having the intestinal fortitude to come forward. Her stance in spite of the fact that no conviction was recorded has put on public record misconduct that should not be tolerated.
It’s a pity that her avenue in civil proceedings will be limited. In any other country she would have had the opportunity to commence civil proceedings, the burden of proof of which is on the balance of probabilty and not beyond reasonable doubt…sometimes confused with beyond all doubt.
No doubt the matter has not been finalised and I look forward to seeing Mr Rickards et al meet their armegedon. Keep us posted !!!
In response to ‘truth’ saying Police are not above the law. I have met police who think that they are, as the law applies to civilians, and they (possibly) are not civilians; and besides that you need to first find an honest, respectable, courageous officer who is willing to be involved in the case before it can be brought to court. And then, chances are , from looking at many who did try to stop police corruption, they will end up losing their job because of it.
Who is responsible for organising a change in this situation, where only the decent police lose there jobs?