KEY POINTS:
In his heart, Clint Rickards must know he will not get his job back. It is not enough that, for the second time, he and two former police officers, Brad Shipton and Bob Schollum, have been found not guilty of historical sexual offending charges.
The moral authority demanded
of an assistant police commissioner has been shattered during these proceedings. In a way, his tirade outside the court, when he denounced the police investigation into the cases and defiantly proclaimed his continued friendship with Shipton and Schollum, despite their rape convictions, acknowledged as much, as well as exacerbating his alienation.
Mr Rickards will probably fight vigorously for reinstatement, but it cannot happen. New Zealanders expect impressive standards of integrity and fairness from their police. The higher the rank, the higher, quite rightly, is the expectation. Mr Rickards' sexual conduct, especially towards Louise Nicholas, failed to meet those standards. A vulnerable teenager was treated in a manner poles apart from that expected of an officer tasked with serving and protecting the public.
Justice Tony Randerson urged the jurors in the Louise Nicholas trial not to judge the morality of what the three police officers had done. That is not a position those who decide Mr Rickards' future can contemplate. His reputation has been shredded, and there is no place for him in the upper echelons of the police. The most logical outcome is that he will secure a payout, as unpalatable as that prospect will be to many members of the public.
Many of those same people will now also be pondering how the three men could have been found completely innocent in two major trials, despite the resources and charges arrayed against them. In the Louise Nicholas case, they were acquitted of 20 charges, including alleged rape, sexual violation and indecent assault, which were said to have occurred between 1985 and 1986 in Rotorua.
In the just-concluded case, they were cleared of charges of indecent assault and kidnapping a 16-year-old girl in the same city between November 1983 and August 1984.
Louise Nicholas' allegations surfaced in January 2004. A police inquiry took 14 months before the three men were charged. To some degree, the Crown Law Office's decision to proceed in that instance was understandable. Louise Nicholas had made unprecedented public allegations and there was considerable pressure to act. Whatever the doubts about the durability of the evidence so long after the alleged offences, there was also the knowledge that court cases can throw up odd twists, turns and conclusions. Nonetheless, the jury agreed with the contention of Mr Rickards' lawyer, John Haigh, QC, that the case against his client was "at best, built on straw".
The rationale for the just-completed trial is far less compelling. Paul Mabey, QC, on behalf of Schollum, spoke of too many "inconsistencies and convenient memories" in evidence given by the complainant. This view was accepted by the jury, this time in relatively quick order. Again, there was nothing to show for a lot of effort and resources. In this instance, it is highly doubtful that the prosecution should have been brought.
If nothing else, the public furore sparked by the trials serves to remind the police that society expects better of them. In the first trial, Mr Rickards admitted to feeling embarrassed to be in court explaining his conduct towards Louise Nicholas. At that moment, no matter what the verdict in that or any subsequent case, his police career became untenable. He was effectively admitting that he had brought the police into disrepute. Police credibility, therefore, also became an issue. Safeguarding that demands a recognition that Mr Rickards' personal qualities fall far short of those expected of a high-ranking police officer.
