KEY POINTS:
A relative of one of the men yesterday cleared of indecent assault says the jurors knew the former policeman was already in jail for rape.
Brad Shipton's brother-in-law Chris Foot told Newstalk ZB: "Jury members approached our family last night, yesterday evening, and actually said that they did know.
"Bear in mind the jury members did approach us, we did not approach them."
Clint Rickards' lawyer John Haigh said the jury would have been aware of the convictions of two of the defendants but had withstood media pressure in reaching their verdict.
Last night a legal expert said juries should not be allowed to know about a person's previous convictions in order to ensure a fair trial.
Barrister Peter Winter, who specialises in criminal law and is the past president of the Criminal Bar Association of New Zealand, said: "No one in their right mind could believe that the jury didn't know about Shipton and Schollum's previous conviction," he said.
"If they did know [about previous convictions] they may be completely adversely influenced by the convictions and not the evidence in front of them.
"The whole issue is a fair trial. In relation to that, it's really important the jury focus on the evidence in front of them, not things that may have happened in the past, the circumstances of which are not known - just the convictions. There's a very strong chance they will focus on the convictions, not the actual evidence. That's the rationale behind it."
He said it was an excellent rule. "I think that without that, people will invariably believe if they are convicted, that they were convicted not on the evidence but on what may have happened in the past."
He said that could lead to people feeling they had been punished twice for something they might not have done. "So it's important to look at it from the perspective of the person who is accused as well as the overall picture," he said.
"It's a very sound rule. It's a rule that is long-standing and there's a lot of wisdom behind it. The whole point of the system is to be fair and to try and safeguard against wrongful convictions." He said it was important jurors were not prejudiced in any way when they considered a case in front of them.
"What they really need to concentrate on is the evidence that's put before them."
He said previous convictions were of importance in sentencing.
"If there has been a previous conviction for [a similar] type of offending, chances are the sentencing will be much more severe."
High-profile Auckland barrister Kit Toogood, QC, told NZPA there was nothing wrong with a jury being allowed to know defendants had previously been proved innocent, but not that they had been previously found guilty. "In the great majority of cases the fact that somebody has been convicted or acquitted on an earlier occasion is completely irrelevant.
"It happens more often that you'd think, but [other cases] just don't get the publicity.
"Each case must be judged on its own merits according to the interests of justice, but particularly the interests of justice so far as the accused are concerned.
"There's nothing about this that suggests the rules need to be reviewed."
Nor were similarities between the three cases involving Shipton and Schollum so compelling that a jury needed to know of the parallels, Mr Toogood said.
"If they were so similar that the similarities amounted to compelling and cogent evidence of guilt, then the court could have admitted them.
"There's a strict test for admitting that sort of evidence."
However, retired barrister and top criminal defence QC Kevin Ryan said it was time the law was changed to allow juries to be informed of an accused person's criminal past so they could properly evaluate the defendant's character.
"Too much is made about the protection of the accused and nothing about the defendant," he said.
"I feel the law needs to be changed. The jury should hear everything - not just part of the truth. The balancing act which the jury have to do means all matters should be put before the jury so they can evaluate the character of the accused.
"The two defendants in this case [Shipton and Schollum] were clearly savage.
"It's just a personal view and I have been criticised for this before."
- with NZPA and NEWSTALK ZB
