>> Read the story
This forum debate is now closed. Here is a selection of your views. Some views have been edited.
S. W
As a young woman in this country, I do not feel secure in the fact that I am able to call on the police to uphold matters of sexual violation or rape. These instances are not taken seriously. Several years ago while taking the bus, a group of young girls told me that one of their group was recently raped in the cells by a police officer. They said to me that I probably would not believe them, obviously a comment based on the types of responses they were used to, but they were intent on telling as many people as they could about what had happened. Over the years, similar incidents came to my attention. Last year my own sister took part in a trial against a police officer who had raped her. The jury in this case could not find, beyond reasonable doubt, not that there was no consent, but that the officer possibly did not believe that there was no consent. As in the case of Louise Nicholas, the verdict was not guilty. My sisters case, like others, was not published in the media. The Mt Maunganui convictions uphold a tradition of barbarity towards women. Therefore I would be reluctant to trust police to act with any sincerity in any similar situation.
Thomas
There should be a statute of limitations. I have no sympathy for someone who does not come forward--the thought that the woman was afraid of the cops is laughable. Two, the graffiti on the Christchurch courthouse is a hate crime and should be punished accordingly. The men were found not guilty and accusing them of rape is a sexist hate crime.
Jill Jenkins
Because of the vast amount of trauma a sexual victim goes through, it can take many years for them to be in a situation where they can adequately report such cases. Education in schools by the health system (not police) must educate people to collect some sort of evidence from their attack. If they were informed enough about this, they would do this automatically whatever their situation is and encouraged to report no matter what their suffering at the time is.
Deborah Fielding
Perhaps if there was a 10 year limit on legal proceedings, facts would be clearer and outcomes would be easier and more straight forward.
Jeremy
I believe NZ should have statute of limitations (of say 10 years) on all crimes except murder. What a waste of time and resources it has been, trying to revisit the latest 23 year old fiasco, where memory is poor and the possibility of evidence gone. In that case there has been so much mental damage done to families and witnesses, it has really not been worth the bother (except for being rather entertaining from the spectator point of view). I believe that if you cannot summon up enough courage, or gather enough evidence for a prosecution within 10 years, you should all just move on! Civil suits are different - in these cases, providing you are not using public monies (eg legal aid), I think people should have the right to choose what they do.
Reece Palmer
As the psychological harm can stay with the victim for life, so should the fear of possible conviction stay with the offender(s).
Noel Dodunski
I think a time limit of 10 years for sex offences would be fair.
Catherine O Sullivan
There is many an unsuitable climate for bringing forward information. Think of how the Bush Administration goes about their business. Their deeds are only starting to come out now and in 20 years.... These girls were young, impressionable and felt in some way responsible at the time for initially having feelings toward the offender. Its normal to feel stigmatised after such an experience. For justice, they would have to complain to the police, the same people that have violated them. For anyone let alone girls so young, what could be more harrowing? This is precisely what the self named chick magnets bank on. Their follow up tactics of threats if this occurred was insurance. There should never be a time limitation on these sorts of crimes.
Peter
This case is about the abuse of power by police, about them allegedly abusing their position to take advantage of a teenage girl. Rape is about power, not sex. I am sure even those readers who have engaged in group sex would agree that there is something pretty damn dark and dodgy about any group sex involving three older men tying up a teenage girl and violating her.
Shirley Goodwin
This case is a good reason to bring in a third possible verdict for trials; that of "not proven", where there is insufficient evidence for a conviction but a strong likelihood that the defendant did the crime. I think the police would be very unwise if they reinstated Clint Rickards. His is not an image the police should be promoting.
Maid Marion
It is totally unacceptable for any grown man in his position of protecting the vulnerable in society to take advantage of an obviously immature girl.
Roger Danieess
No. It may takes years for people to comes to terms with the ordeal.
Susan Perry
Yes. Otherwise there is no factual evidence available.
Lance Beste
Our system is based on the assumption of innocence until proven guilty. The jury should be aware of everything in order to make an informed decision. If it is acceptable to interrogate witnesses in every respect including character, then it is reasonable for this to apply to the defendant as well. The system trusts the jury to make the right decision and yet the system does not allow the jury to hear everything because it does not trust the jury to make an unbiased decision with certain information. You can not have it both ways. Let juries make decisions using all the information available. Let us make it fair for both sides. Too much is afforded the offender and not enough support is provided for the victim.
Carl Reynolds
So a legal expert says that juries should be kept ignorant of previous convictions of the accused lest it bias the accuseds ability to have a fair trial. Yes, it would be hard to avoid some bias. But that is the whole point mate! When a person commits a crime it shows that they have a predilection for committing crimes of that nature. Just ask the police: repeat offending is one of the biggest problems they face. Everybody has a right to a fair trial, but a fair trial is one in which the parties previous convictions are brought to light as character evidence in exactly the same way that every other aspect of their character is scrutinised. To do otherwise does not make the trial fairer - rather, it biases it against the innocent.
Name withheld
Absolutely not. You cannot put a time limit on this. Many child abuse issues often do not become an external issue until the (usually) woman is in her forties or fifties.The damage has been done, though, and affected that woman all her life. There is plenty of research to show that it is not until an older age that the woman feels confident enough to deal with the issues involved. I personally was "groomed" by a male family member only several years older than I, from the time I was six until regular sexual abuse occurred most school holidays from 11 years until 15. This was in the 1950s, and though I asked for help, and would also have been seen (by today's standards) to have been "acting out" sexually. Then I was treated as bad and mad and this has coloured my familys perception of me all these years. I never was bad, nor mad, just sexually abused, and no-one believed me. It was not until I was confronted by events and occurrences that brought the whole issue out into the open (and spent several years in various therapy, and recovering from severe health issues), that the matter has been resolved to the poibt I can accept I did nothing wrong. And I am not alone, either. In January my best friend confronted her abuser, in front of a mutual sibling. The abuse occurred in our childhoods - and we are in our early 60s. While my abuser is now deceased, and my friend is too ill to take a case, please do not put a time limit on the investigation of sex complaints. That would be a further abuse of abused women
Name withheld
Their actions do not reflect our nations conduct as a whole. If anything it reflects that of police conduct. Yes, true, these men should be role models of the upstanding New Zealand citizen. I question policemen being role models by any means.
Margaret
The power dynamics involved make it unlikely a woman or child will come forward straight away. The perpetrator will (usually) go on to commit further offences and it is in the best interests of women and children that there is justice brought upon the men regardless of how many years have passed. It is unacceptable that a woman/ child could be intimidated into not speaking out for just long enough so that a perpetrator is able to carry on with his sickening practices. The rights of women and children must be in the forefront, not those of the men abusing them. When will NZ get serious about the protection of women and children? The good men in society must step up and fight this battle head on in the interests of their mothers, sisters, and daughters.
Lea
There should be no time restriction when it comes to prosecuting perpetrators of violent crimes committed against individuals. Time does not heal all wounds. Criminals need to be held accountable for their actions. Allowing a time bar would make a mockery of true justice.
CT
In regard to police officers who receive full pay during a criminal investigation, I think it is wrong. They should get not salary at all. $600,000 pay out to a guy who is not working for it is not right. He also got a university education during this time and a car. He should not get his job back, and he gives the police department a bad name.
Woman
Ron Harsant:there were reasons as to why she has not spoken out earlier. You are a man and you quite possibly can not relate to how this woman felt. Think about your daughter? wife? sister? in this situation. Unfortunately women are targets of sick men.
Mark
No way should this guy be let back on the force let alone as a commander of Auckland. He openly admits he is friends with convicted rapists. God help us all if these scum bags are a measure of our current police officers, I suspect they are however.
Miles Reeve
Yes, most certainly. There should be a limited time for complaints to be laid of this nature. The present situation is bizarre. Any man having casual sex with a woman at the moment spends the rest of his life wondering whether he will be accused of rape sometime in the future.
KC
As Deb said I can imagine going through a trial is traumatic for the victim. However in this case Clint Rickards is the victim! He has been wrongly accused of a vicious crime he did not commit! Regardless of what rulings the courts have given he is still being treated as guilty by certain sections of society and the media. He is an innocent man. How would you feel if you were wrongly accused of such a crime?
William Warwick
The prosecution was obviously not able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they did it, As simple as that. The decision that the previous charges should not have been made available to the jury was in my mind correct, I do not believe that something you have done in the past and have been punished for by the system should be made available as evidence against you again, You can not punish people twice for the same thing.
Rhea
There should be no time limit. We still feel strongly about war crimes trials, and they may be decades after the event. If there is a time limit then what would stop offenders intimidating victims into not reporting crimes until the time limit is over? Who were these women meant to report the rape to, the police? Justice is meant to be justice.
Annette
The majority of sex crime victims are very young including infants. Therefore they are reliant on the adults around them, who are often connected in some way to the offender to report these crimes. In many cases telling someone what has happened is particularly scary and risks not being listened to or taken seriously. This is pertinent in the recent cases of police officers committing repeated sex offences on young teenage girls... No there should be no time limit. The collection and reliance on DNA in these situations is irrelevant.
Phillips
The suggestion of time limits is absolutely ridiculous. A.Justice must be served. b.We might see an increase in homicide. I mean why wait to see if someone finally has the guts to finally accuse you.The support of such an idea makes me think there is something to hide.
Ron Harsant
There should be a time limit of two years. After that the true facts are lost and it would be more possible to have been made up for other reasons and not true if you wait that long.
Rhea
There should be no time limit. We still feel strongly about war crimes trials, and they may be decades after the event. If there is a time limit then what would stop offenders intimidating victims into not reporting crimes until the time limit is over? Who were these women meant to report the rape to, the police? Justice is meant to be justice.
Annette
The majority of sex crime victims are very young including infants. Therefore they are reliant on the adults around them, who are often connected in some way to the offender to report these crimes. In many cases telling someone what has happened is particularly scary and risks not being listened to or taken seriously. This is pertinent in the recent cases of police officers committing repeated sex offences on young teenage girls... No there should be no time limit. The collection and reliance on DNA in these situations is irrelevant.
Phillips
The suggestion of time limits is absolutely ridiculous. A.Justice must be served. b.We might see an increase in homicide. I mean why wait to see if someone finally has the guts to finally accuse you.The support of such an idea makes me think there is something to hide.
Ron Harsant
There should be a time limit of two years. After that the true facts are lost and it would be more possible to have been made up for other reasons and not true if you wait that long.
Deb
There should be no time limit imposed on reporting sexual abuse, you have to understand that abuse is horribly traumatic and it is very hard to talk about it to people you trust, let alone to perfect strangers. Going through a court case is a horrific process(I know). Abuse victims need to be able to take their time in dealing with what has happened to them, before they can go through the process of lodging the complaint, statements, court, etc.You really can not understand what it is like until you have been through it yourself.
NeillR
Perhaps the question that should be asked is how do the jury feel now regarding the verdict(s), knowing that guys have been convicted for a similar offence.
Mike
I have a friend who is at the moment getting charged for something he did not do. I have in the past been charged with offences I had nothing to do with pleaded not guilty but the police who are a law to themselves continued to use other police to carry these charges through.
Matthew Brown
Juries should know about previous convictions. It would be an extra deterrent to committing serious crime. Every person would obviously get at least one fair trial, which is all a rapist deserves.
Sonia
I think that if the jury is not allowed to know about previous convictions, then on the same note the defence should not be able to portray the victim as a "slut", or as being promiscuous (even if she/he is, it does not mean they can not get raped). It is a bit unfair really. I mean I understand and respect the right to a fair trial, but it needs to be fair on the victim too.
Joanne Laing-Smith
No way. There should be no time limit on charges for a sex attack. The victim has to live with it forever. .
C.Digby
If the defence can bring up the background of the woman, why then can the prosecution not bring up the defendants background, including their convictions?
Alice Owen
This is another example where rape trials are clearly about deciding the credibility of the plaintiff and not about revealing the pattern or recurring rape and abuse by the defendants. What kind of stupid jury believes that just because a woman screams and no one hears her, then it did not happen? I refer to the case of the woman who was killed in a Glen Innes Park. People heard her screams and did nothing and only after she was found the next day they remembered the event. In other words, people may have heard the defendants screams and not come forward.
Belinda
No time limits. Logic speaks here; and it really needs to be black or white, wrong or right. It is that simple. Currently, the defender is innocent until proven guilty. Proposition: Swing it to the victim is a victim until proven otherwise. Anyone can be a victim. Everyone deals with tragedy differently and that has to be respected. I got another great idea thats off topic: how about making everyone apply to have a baby, where the dept comes around and checks they have got a suitable home, parents are financially stable & secure (not necessarily loaded!), and sign and vow to be by babysside throughout life, just how the police do when one applies for a gun licence! This would surely put a stop to those dear children that are dragged up in poor homes where the parents dont' give a toss and the kids end up on the streets living a life of crime, stretching resources etc.
Helen
Our legal system must be changed to give rape complainants a better chance of getting justice. Other countries do not use our adversarial system where the rape complainant is cross examined on their past while the defendants past can be suppressed. If there had been a time limit on complaints, those in this case previously found guilty of a very similar crime, would have got off scot free for that crime as well.
Family Man
It is virtually impossible to remember exactly what one was doing on a particular day or month ten or more years ago. Indeed many would have worse memory capabilities. Does not mean they are guilty, yet they are likely to be unable to recall events well enough to be plausible in court. Having been accused falsely twice myself, I can not accept that if a person has been accused or prosecuted twice, then they can be regarded as guilty of any third incident that might arise. I was never guilty of even imagining the nasty things people said of me. So there is no other option than to try the accused on the facts each and every time. If the proof is there, they should be found guilty hopefully. There is more chance of the events being clearer if they are recent. Hence I feel that complaints should be launched within a week of the alleged offence. I presume the victim will feel assaulted from the very instant genuine cases occur. So why wait? Yeah, I know some would say that so me victims can not get away from the offender, but is that true?. I think not. These days the world is bristling with agencies eager to help all women and children. The ones not covered are male victims and the children who rely upon men for their safety. So far these have not mattered in this discussion, so I presume they will continue to not matter.
Hans Zuur
Yes, most definitely. There should be a time limit on accusing somebody for rape. I think 10 years would be a good cut off point, as otherwise it becomes a case of, "he said, she said", and the personal (selective) memory can not be backed up anymore with solid evidence.
T Dare
There should not be a time limit. In cases where there has been a gross imbalance of power where the victim felt they had nowhere to go to complain at the time, it is important to leave the door open. Also in cases where victims may be suffering from post-traumatic stress.
C Crook
There definitely needs to be a limit. If a plaintiff waits 25 years or more, then the chances of the reason behind the complaint being genuine reduces dramatically. The likelihood of good evidence on a case being available is low and the case turns into one word against another, with the problem being that in some circles of society, suspicion is guilt - even if proven otherwise. Judges need to decide whether an old case should be heard on an overview of the case and if evidence can be argued on more points than just someone suggests something happened.
Kevin A.
Why if you are up for drunk in charge, for example, the person who is to decide guilt or innocence sees your past record but for violent/sexual crime they are not allowed to know?
H E Ellison
When solicitors for the accused are permitted to reveal all sorts of information about a plaintiffs past; it seems only fair that the plaintiffs solicitor should be allowed to reveal the previous convictions of the accused for the same type of offence.
Roger Birch
Yes, of course there should be a time constraint on these. After a few years who can prove or even remember where they were on any particular day? Thus it all comes down to: she says, he says. Justice is rarely well served accordingly.
Dean
There should be no time limit. DNA is the smoking gun. Crimes 20 years older or more in the future will now be cracked and solved in the future with regard to DNA testing. The police have on their database 50 per cent of the current prison population their DNA fingerprint. The technology is getting better and better. NZ has been congratulated by law enforcement agencies around the world for their stance to get DNA from petty crimes. The police have found career criminals move up from burglaries to more violent crimes like rape and murder. I am sure those 2 rapists only got caught because the forensic evidence was able to put them away. There should be no statue of limitations.
David Owen
While Messrs. Shipton and Schollum were deservedly given name-suppression pending further trial(s) , is there any record of other serving criminals having been given the same treatment when brought before the court for further prosecutions? While the circumstances of these two are disgraceful , they and others in the community have every right to be tried under the same conditions and without predjudicing judge or jury . And since they are , apparently , still serving prison sentences , how were they able to walk freely from the court outside of the sittings and not be transported to and from by Corrections staff ?
Wendy Gillespie
Without physical evidence / DNA evidence then no prosecution should proceed after a 10 year period. At that point the whole things comes down to hearsay. The only exception to this would be the likes of the Louise Nicholls case where there was a history of her trying to press charges and having the police continually not act.
Jason
In this latest case, surely it is absolutely relevant for the jury to know and consider that two of these men have been found guilty of kidnapping, handcuffing and violating a women with a foreign object before. I am disgusted by a justice system that protects such people while making liars out of their victims.
S Mohanakrishnan
A sex crime is the most violent form of invasion of privacy and is worse than murder because the victim is left to live with the consequences. However in their own interests, the victims would benefit by reporting the crime as soon as they are able to do so, so evidence can be collected and prosecution can be started early to resolve the case soonest. Having a time limitation for reporting and investigating such claims, may on the face of it appear unjust to the victims. However mandating such a limitaion clause is not a bad idea, because this would also compel victims to report such cases soon. Furthermore, this would give a chance to the accused to be either convicted or cleared of the charges (under due process of law) and would let them get on with their lives, one way or other. If they are guilty, then society would benefit by their early prosecution and conviction and sentencing. If not, they wont have to be surprised much later in their lives by such accusations, which may affect them and their families differently at a different stage in their lives. So yes, having a very reasonable limitation period for reporting, investigating and prosecuting such sex crimes would benefit the society and the Courts.
Jo
When considering if someone is guilty or not, one goes on the evidence produced by the lawyers for both sides and the evidence of witnesses etc. It really is a subjective matter because in the most part relies on deciding which side is more believable! If, as widely supposed juries are made up of members of society called upon to "judge" the characters of those on trial, and members of juries have had their characters judged by the lawyers on the day, of course, not withstanding making judgements based on evidence present, how can one make sound moral judgement on evidence presented in a trial when the law is designed to withhold evidence that may or may not be relevant. It seems to me if one is a victim in any crime, it now seems to be the norm to prove you are a victim rather than prove the perpetrator is indeed guilty or not guilty. Surely this evidence should all be collated before trial? If there is no reason to believe there has been a victim why have a trial? Therefore, on assuming there is a victim in this case the evidence of previous wrongdoings (based on the same type of crime) should be presented because it clearly shows a character type running through these so called upstanding members (read police) of society. Whilst it is argued that people can change their character ie reform, this surely can only be the case when caught and punished for these crimes.
Johanna Hood
Sexual violence can so injure a persons state of well being that the recovery process can be very lengthy. With the current justice system protecting accused more than the victims to go immediately into a rape case after having experienced rape could generate a lifetime of mental health issues. The current system does not have any focus on the protection of victims. It is focussed on ensuring people get a "fair" trial and are innocent until proven guilty. This implies that a victim is lying until they can prove in court that the rapist is guilty. This is generally too much for a rape victim to have to deal with when their own person has been violated to such a degree. This is why so few rape victims go to the justice system for help. They just experience further violation and no protection.
Murray Morgan
It is my belief that there should be a time limit. Reliance on the ability of witnesses to recall relevant material after lengthy periods is fraught with risks, as has been shown in many instances. A time limit could be five years after the alleged incident/s or in the case of minors, five years after the alleged victim reaches the legal adult age (17 years).
Paula Weir
I absolutely believe that there should be a statute of limitations on sexual abuse claims.Historical claims are hard to defend, hard for a jury to make a decision on that is not controversial, and make it easier for a woman with regrets over past sexually immoral behaviour or wanting to get revenge to move false charges through the court system that are destructive to so many people. Current cases have highlighted the problems involved with historical claims and the huge costs to the taxpayer as often witnesses have moved on and so require extra efforts in locating. Other countries have set time limits it seems we are well behind the times in this respect.
Harry
There should be a limit on historical sex claims.
>> There is another forum thread related to the case here
