KEY POINTS:
Justice Young's sentencing notes
The Mt Maunganui rape case involved Robert Schollum, Bradley Shipton, Peter McNamara and Warren Hales. The rape of the complainant, then 20, was in January 1989.
The four men were found guilty of raping the woman in July 2005.
Shipton was sentenced to
8 1/2 years in jail for two counts of rape, three years for unlawful sexual connection and three years for unlawful detention, to be served concurrently.
Schollum was sentenced to eight years for rape, four years for unlawful sexual connection and three years for unlawful detention, to be served concurrently.
McNamara got seven years for rape and three years concurrent for unlawful detention. Hales appealed and was granted a retrial but instead pleaded guilty to abduction and got an 18-month jail sentence.
This is an edited version of Justice Ron Young's sentencing notes of August 5, 2005.
The Facts
The complainant in 1989 was a young woman of 20 employed by a radio station as a promotions manager. During the Christmas break she worked at the beach at Mt Maunganui promoting her radio station and met you, Shipton, and you, Schollum, who, as part of your police duties, visited her workplace, a caravan. She got to know you both on a casual basis. You were both considerably older than her. You, McNamara, were one of the head lifeguards at Mt Maunganui that year, and you, Hales, one of the lifeguards. The complainant came into contact with you, McNamara, and one evening asked you if you could see if Shipton was interested in a lunch date with her. I am satisfied that you, McNamara, Shipton and Schollum, planned to use this young woman's interest in Shipton to get her to the Tay St Tower and rape her. These events were clearly pre-planned by the three of you, at least. It involved one of you taking a mattress down to the Tay St Tower. It involved you, McNamara, spreading the word that consensual group sex was going to take place. It involved you, Shipton and Schollum, arranging to be at the tower at a prearranged time with McNamara. The young woman was taken down the beach by you, McNamara. She thought she was going to meet Shipton and then go off to lunch. You knew you were taking her to the tower to be sexually violated. I accept in all probability that you, Hales, did not know when invited to the tower by McNamara that the complainant was to be raped.
The complainant described in her evidence the terror she felt on realising what was to happen to her. She understandably said, beyond rape, which she knew was inevitable, that she had no idea what was going to happen to her that day.
You, Hales, were also present, although on the veranda, while she was handcuffed, raped and sexually violated by you, McNamara, Shipton, Schollum and another. You then had the chance to intervene. Even though you were young, at 18 you knew what was happening was terribly wrong. Each of you raped this defenceless woman, as did a fifth man. It was a pack rape in the worst sense. She was, in her words, treated by you like a "piece of meat". After the rape you, Shipton and Schollum, visited the complainant at the caravan and you, Shipton, visited her at the motel. She understood (and I understand) the message she was being given by you. You were the police. There would be no complaint. Your intimidation worked. She did not complain. Her life changed, her personality changed, she paid a high price for your brutality, but eventually she had the courage to come forward and complain. You, Shipton and Schollum, were corrupt police officers. You used the authority the community entrusted in you to do right. Your arrogance knew no bounds. You were confident you could commit a serious crime and get away with it because you were policemen. These were deeply disgraceful acts.
Crown Submissions
The Crown submits that the following are aggravating features:
1. The premeditation.
2. What is described as a "pack rape"- five men each physically present, each raping and sexually abusing the complainant.
3. The restraint by handcuffs and presence.
4. The positions of authority and public responsibility held by you. They submit the fact that you, Shipton and Schollum, were policemen involved in a serious abuse of power.
5. They point out that you, Shipton and Schollum, had additional counts of sexual violation and you, Shipton, an extra rape.
6. They also submit that your visit, Shipton, afterwards to intimidate the complainant successfully ensured she did not then go to the police.
Summary of Submissions
I turn now to submissions made on your behalf.
Schollum: Your counsel submits that the restraint by handcuffs and the restraint by physical presence are really inherent in pack rape situations, but in any event submits that the rejection of the baton count by the jury means I should conclude that the jury rejected the evidence relating to the handcuffs. In my view, there is no connection between the jury's verdict on the baton charge and the complainant's evidence with respect to the use of handcuffs. Evidence that the handcuffs were used was not required to be established as an element of the charges. It related in part to credibility. Essentially, the jury accepted the evidence of the complainant. I am also satisfied that handcuffs were used to restrain her.
I reject the proposition by [defence counsel] Mr Mabey that your status as a policeman was not an aggravating feature. You and Shipton used your positions as policemen, and the respect such persons are held in in the community, to facilitate this offence.
I also reject the suggestion that the sexual violation by you, Schollum, using your fingers, is not an aggravating feature. It is. It is an additional sexual violation described as brutal by the complainant.
Shipton: Mr Nabney, on behalf of Shipton, accepted that premeditation and a number of persons present were aggravating features. He resists the submission by the Crown that restraint by handcuffs and the fact that you were in a position of authority were aggravating features. I have dealt with those elsewhere and I reject that submission.
I accept that the concept of it being a pack rape in that each of the accused were jointly present are one and not two aggravating features. For reasons I have given I reject the submission that there was not an abuse of public authority and public trust here.
Intimidation. I also reject the submission that your visit to the complainant was not meant to be intimidation. In my view, it was.
