Judge ends secrecy over officers' rape testimony

By EUGENE BINGHAM

Previously secret documents reveal the three policemen accused of pack-raping Louise Nicholas have faced a courtroom grilling about the allegations.

Clint Rickards, Brad Shipton and Bob Schollum were called to give evidence under oath in a 1994 trial relating to separate sex claims against another policeman.

Mrs Nicholas had accused the officer of having sex with her and indecently assaulting her when she was a teenager. He was acquitted after three trials.

The evidence remained wrapped in secrecy until suppression orders were lifted yesterday after an application from the Dominion-Post newspaper, supported by the Herald.

Mr Rickards objected to having to answer the claims in court, but was told by the trial judge that it was quite proper that he should be called to the witness stand.

At the time of the trial he was a detective inspector in Invercargill.

Court transcripts show all three men denied raping Mrs Nicholas or violating her with a police baton, although they admitted having sex with her.

Mr Rickards said he had sex with Mrs Nicholas twice in about 1986, when she was an 18-year-old Rotorua BNZ bank teller. On one of those occasions another person was present.

But asked whether the sex was against her will or involved a police baton, he said: "That is certainly not true."

The jury was taken from the courtroom after Mr Rickards indicated he wanted to say something to the judge.

"I just find it astonishing at least six or seven years after this [incident] is alleged to have occurred that I have been called to court to explain to a judge and jury that I have had consensual sex with the victim," he said.

"I find it traumatic for myself, and it must also be for the victim as well. I have had consensual sex with the victim, which I have admitted to, and I find myself in the box having to explain myself."

Judge Michael Lance, QC, told Mr Rickards it was necessary that the evidence be given.

"The complainant [Mrs Nicholas] has given evidence that sexual activity occurred with a number of persons who were police officers in some circumstances of a non-consensual nature. The prosecution has elected to call yourself and other witnesses to give evidence of yours and their associations with her."

Judge Lance said he appreciated the sensitivity of Mr Rickards' situation, and imposed orders protecting his identity. "I will also be directing the jury that they should not discuss this matter once the trial has concluded."

When Mr Shipton was asked about what Mrs Nicholas had alleged, he said: "That allegation is a total lie. No such thing has ever occurred in my presence or to my knowledge."

Mr Schollum also admitted having sex with Mrs Nicholas several times.

But he denied her accusation that he had picked her up in a car and taken her to a police house where the three men raped her. "Definitely not," he said.

In the Auckland District Court yesterday, Judge Lance lifted the suppression orders on Mr Rickards, Mr Schollum, Mr Shipton and John Dewar, the former Detective Inspector who investigated Mrs Nicholas' complaint.

Lawyers for Mr Rickards, Mr Shipton and Mr Dewar did not oppose the application.

John Haigh, QC, for Mr Rickards said his client had nothing to hide.

Mr Haigh referred to a campaign to discredit Mr Rickards.

"Article after article and report after report on television" had been unbalanced.

Granting the application would "give us a chance", he said.

"Mr Rickards has nothing to hide and welcomes publication of this material ... It is already out there."

Stephen Barrowclough, appearing for Mr Schollum, opposed the application on the grounds that it would not be in the public interest or in the interests of justice.

Mr Schollum and others were the subject of a police investigation which might result in charges being laid.

Should charges be laid, publication would prejudice a fair trial, said Mr Barrowclough.

"There may be no charges. What then?"

Judge Lance said that if Mr Schollum was not named and Mr Rickards and Mr Shipton were, it would cause more media intensity over what had been held back.

"That is undesirable."