KEY POINTS:
Lawyer Gary Gotlieb made some extraordinarily harsh criticisms of police practices and perceptions after his client, former Warriors and Kiwis league player Tea Ropati, was found not guilty of six sex charges. The law, he said, had become "so bloody PC" and "so anti-male it's not funny". For good measure, he complained that the pursuit of Mr Ropati had been all about the police adult sexual abuse unit trying to make a name for itself by claiming a celebrity scalp.
Mr Gotlieb's bottom line was that his client should not have been prosecuted. It is not a view that stands up to scrutiny. Nor, indeed, do any of his other claims. The police, themselves, acknowledge that, in the wake of the Louise Nicholas trials, there is much attention on their handling of rape allegations. This creates the danger that, as a precautionary measure, they will seek to have all such allegations examined by the courts. At the very worst, extreme sensitivity could lead to cases based on the flimsiest of evidence being advanced. There is nothing, however, to suggest that was so in this example.
A complaint initially dealt with by the on-duty crime squad in June 2006 was passed to the newly established sexual assault team. It seems unlikely that members of this squad regarded Mr Ropati in terms of proving themselves. Just as conceivably, they could have recognised the danger to their reputations and the team's fledgling status if the case failed. They might also have considered the public outcry had no further action been taken and Mr Ropati's accuser then made her allegations public.
Duly, the police decided to prosecute, leaving the final judgment to the seven men and five women on an Auckland District Court jury. Subsequent events confirm this was not as ill-conceived as Mr Gotlieb suggests. The jury found the prosecution evidence compelling enough to deliberate for nearly 12 hours. Its members also returned to the court to ask several questions, an unlikely occurrence if the case had been clear-cut. The difficulty of their exercise was illustrated by the statements released by the two main protagonists after the verdict. Mr Ropati said that he had "never doubted that I would be found innocent of all charges. I have been honest and up-front at all times with everyone concerned". His accuser was equally adamant. "While I am devastated by the verdict I have no regrets about coming forward and would still encourage any woman who endures this type of experience to do so".
Rape cases often hinge on the degree of consent and, by their nature, are difficult to prove. The cases involving Mrs Nicholas illustrated this, even allowing in her case for questions about the durability of evidence. It, therefore, seems incomprehensible for Mr Gotlieb to say that in the 38 years he has been working on rape trials, he has seen the law go "so anti-male it's not funny". The outcome of most recent high-profile trials suggests otherwise, and serves only to confirm that sexual violation remains an area of great difficulty for juries.
Certainly, there are lessons to be learned from this trial. Mr Ropati's reputation has been severely tarnished even though he was acquitted. That should give pause to men who find themselves in similar circumstances. Further, the prosecution case suffered because of the intoxicated state of Mr Ropati's accuser. There is a message there for women.
None of this, however, bears on the criticisms of Mr Gotlieb, who seems to covet a world of black and white. Unfortunately, in matters of sexual violation, even more than life in general, that is rarely the case.
