New Nicholas perjury claim

John Dewar. Photo / Sarah Ivey

Fresh doubts have been raised about crucial evidence used to convict the former top cop serving four-and-a-half years behind bars for covering up Louise Nicholas' original rape allegations.

A 1995 Listener article by respected journalist Denis Welch has prompted questions about key statements made by Nicholas at last year's trial of former Rotorua CIB head John Dewar, who was convicted on charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice.

Dewar has filed a second perjury complaint against Nicholas with police from Kaitoke Prison, in which he points to contradictions between what she supposedly told Welch in 1995 and what she told the jury at Dewar's trial last year.

The platform of Dewar's defence last year was that Nicholas had never told him of her rape allegations against former Assistant Police Commissioner Clint Rickards and former cops Brad Shipton and Bob Schollum.

In the 1995 article, Welch reported Nicholas saying: "There is no way Dewar could have known about the allegations against these three men because I didn't go into specifics about it. I would not tell him about it."

However, under cross-examination at the Dewar trial last October, Nicholas made a contradictory statement - denying first making the comments and then claiming she had never spoken to Welch.

Welch - the magazine's former deputy editor - told the Herald on Sunday he had spoken to Nicholas by telephone for the article, and was prepared to furnish his interview notes to corroborate his story. He said he had expected to appear as a defence witness at Dewar's trial last year, but for some reason was not called.

Welch was unsure why, but thought Dewar's defence team may have believed they had a sufficiently strong case without him.

The article raises questions about the most crucial aspect of the Crown's case against Dewar - whether or not Nicholas told him about the rape allegations.

If a police investigation finds Nicholas lied under oath, it could raise serious questions about the integrity of the Crown case against not only Dewar, but also against Shipton, Schollum and Rickards.

However, Nicholas told the Herald on Sunday she stood behind everything she had said and did not believe there was any substance to the appeal or the fresh perjury complaint.

"I went to court, I told the truth and the jury came back with guilty verdicts. I have now moved on," she said.

A spokesman at Police National Headquarters said police had no comment to make about the Dewar complaint because the matter was still "an active investigation".

Both perjury complaints are being handled by Detective Superintendent Rod Drew.

In his written complaint to police, Dewar said Nicholas was clearly wrong in saying she had not spoken to Welch. There was no way she could be "mistaken or confused" about this.

"Nicholas knew that she had been interviewed by Welch, but it was not in her interests to acknowledge the fact," said Dewar.

It was his view that each time Nicholas changed her story it was because there was a "benefit or advantage to be gained by her".

"To speculate that Nicholas could be perplexed, perhaps the result of a poor memory or confused state, would be utterly incongruous and erroneous," he said.

Dewar's lawyer, Giles Brant, said the Listener article raised issues about Nicholas' credibility that went to the heart of the case against his client.

Dewar comes up for parole next year.