Nicholas rape trial outcome discussion

[MSTRS:Me]

Don't judge me by the actions of Mr Rickards.

But we will tho....you both wear/wore the uniform & stand/stood for law & decency. In Rickards's case it was a sham (at least the decency part - and the other thread on this subject had lots of references to the attitude displayed by Rickards at the time of the events) and as such reflects on all cops.

[MisterD]

She isn't the one going to jail if convicted and there have been many of these types of complaints made in absolute malice. It is right to question the accussers integrity and credibility. However it isn't right or fair to judge an accussed person based on past action that are unrelated to the current matter they are accussed of, even if those past actions are of a similar nature.

I disagree Spud, it's hard enough for a lot of women to even go and make a complaint, without having this additional gauntlet to run in court.

[spudchucka]

And why is that??

Say someone is serving time for a similar offence, and they are out on day leave from the klink (or whatever), commit the exact same thing again, only to go to court and have it suppressed?
What sort of joke is the law if you are unable to indentify a dangerous pattern of offences, are powerless to show this "evidence of historic offending" and put the said scumbag off the streets for a few years?
Sheesh!

If you get caught speedong today does that automatically make you guilty of speeding tomorrow?

Cases before the courts have to be judged on the facts pertaing to that case only. There are a few exceptions to the rule but it is a basic function of the justice system that won't change.

[spudchucka]

But we will tho....you both wear/wore the uniform & stand/stood for law & decency. In Rickards's case it was a sham (at least the decency part - and the other thread on this subject had lots of references to the attitude displayed by Rickards at the time of the events) and as such reflects on all cops.

I realise that he has tarnished the public opinion of all police and to a degree I accept that. However I have never raped anyone and I have never been into any kinky threesome type pervy nonsense either. So don't judge me as a person because of his poor behaviour as a police officer.

[MSTRS:Me]

I disagree Spud, it's hard enough for a lot of women to even go and make a complaint, without having this additional gauntlet to run in court.

And with the Defense having the right to utilise character witnesses etc in an effort to discredit a rape victim's credibilty, then the playing field is stacked towards acquitall?

[spudchucka]

I disagree Spud, it's hard enough for a lot of women to even go and make a complaint, without having this additional gauntlet to run in court.

Yep, it might seem unfair but so is making false allegations of rape. The complainants credibility must be tested. Or are we to believe every woman that cries rape based solely on her testimony, after all we are all potential rapists, aren't we?

[Blairos]

If you get caught speedong today does that automatically make you guilty of speeding tomorrow?

No, but if you are a habitual speeder, and get hauled before the courts for that reason, then its fair to have that information made available, in order to allow a proper picture to be painted...

Dont they read out lists of previous DIC convictions in open court if there is no jury present? (just the presiding judge)

[spudchucka]

And with the Defense having the right to utilise character witnesses etc in an effort to discredit a rape victim's credibilty, then the playing field is stacked towards acquitall?

A mate of mine caught a rapist red handed, (red penised???) on top of the woman in bushes, she was screaming. There was good physical evidence, (DNA, torn clothing etc) plus his evidence as a witness to the offending (he was a cop on duty at the time). The jury acquitted the guy because the woman was heavily intoxicated at the time and they could not be certain that her statement that she hadn't given consent wasn't made up by her afterwards.

And the guy did have previous convictions for rape.

You have to ask yourself why you bother sometimes?

[MSTRS:Me]

I realise that he has tarnished the public opinion of all police and to a degree I accept that. However I have never raped anyone and I have never been into any kinky threesome type pervy nonsense either. So don't judge me as a person because of his poor behaviour as a police officer.

Personally I would take you as I found you (we met at Manfield IIRC) but being of the cynical sort, I would be quick to believe that you have the potential to abuse the power of your position as those 3 did. I'm sure you are a fine chap and actions/deeds speak louder than words.

[MisterD]

Yep, it might seem unfair but so is making false allegations of rape. The complainants credibility must be tested. Or are we to believe every woman that cries rape based solely on her testimony, after all we are all potential rapists, aren't we?

Agreeing with you there on every point. It's unfair and so are any false allegations made, that's why I would say we need everything lined up to encourage women to report whilst there is still a good chance of firm physical evidence to back up the accusation.

If it comes down to one person's word versus another then I would hope the police would gently say to the complainant "Sorry, there's just not enough evidence to proceed".

[MSTRS:Me]

A mate of mine caught a rapist red handed, (red penised???) on top of the woman in bushes, she was screaming. There was good physical evidence, (DNA, torn clothing etc) plus his evidence as a witness to the offending (he was a cop on duty at the time). The jury acquitted the guy because the woman was heavily intoxicated at the time and they could not be certain that her statement that she hadn't given consent wasn't made up by her afterwards.

And the guy did have previous convictions for rape.

You have to ask yourself why you bother sometimes?

This is the law but it certainly ain't justice.

[Streetwise]

Dosnt matter anymore anyway as the info has been released at wellington railway station this afternoon, Someone has handed out info on the officers and info on the case.

[spudchucka]

No, but if you are a habitual speeder, and get hauled before the courts for that reason, then its fair to have that information made available, in order to allow a proper picture to be painted...

Dont they read out lists of previous DIC convictions in open court if there is no jury present? (just the presiding judge)

It isn't permitted to use past offending as evidence of new offending. Once convicted of a new offence the history of past offending is considered in sentencing. It cannot be used to establish guilt of new offending, which is a pity sometimes but thems the rules and we have to stick to them.

[spudchucka]

Personally I would take you as I found you (we met at Manfield IIRC) but being of the cynical sort, I would be quick to believe that you have the potential to abuse the power of your position as those 3 did. I'm sure you are a fine chap and actions/deeds speak louder than words.

Thanks for the vote of confidence, I think??

Yeah, we did meet briefly at Manfeild some time ago now.

[Hitcher]

Dosnt matter anymore anyway as the info has been released at wellington railway station this afternoon, Someone has handed out info on the officers and info on the case.

The Court suppression orders are still in place. The wee dears who took the law into their own hands this morning are clearly in Contempt of Court and will, no doubt, be dealt with accordingly. By their actions they may have reduced considerably the chance of a "clean jury" being found for subsequent cases.