Rickards allowed to practice law
November 13th, 2008 at 12:50 pm by David FarrarThe NZ Law Society has granted Clint Rickards a certificate of character, allowing him to become a lawyer.
I think this was the right decision, even though the instinctive reaction is against it.
Rickards at the end of the day was never found guilty in a courtroom. His behaviour did lead to him having to abandon his Police career – no mean thing for an Assistant Commissioner.
I doubt many people will want to use Rickards as their lawyer. And almost everyone will be aware of his past. But f he wants to practice law, and there are people willing to hire him, then the Law Society is correct not to stop that happening.
Tags: Clint Rickards, NZ Law Society
November 13th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Perhaps he can go into business with Chris Comeskey?
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
totally agree!
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
He might be able to eke out something of a cult following / cottage industry as defence counsel for rape trials…?
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
As much as i would have liked them to say no, I Agree. This really is the only correct outcome.
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
DPF: Rickards at the end of the day was never found guilty in a courtroom.
Which gives “certificate of character” a whole new meaning.
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Good lawyers will look askance. Just what does this do for their profession? Look, this is just another example of a PC society gone mad. The Law Society doesn’t have the wit or the balls to make a stand. Sad.
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
I think this is a good thing, Rickards should be allowed to practice law.
If he practices enough he might start getting it right.
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Fact: No convictions.
Perception: Violent and patriarchal. Egotistical, uncaring. Predatory.
I agree with Ross Miller. No one who followed these cases could say this guy is “fit and proper”.
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
While i don;t like it, its the right answer based on the facts of the case and the history etc.
perception is irrelevant to facts in this case, no matter how much people want perception to be all that matters.
however, just becuase he can be a lawyer, whos going to higher him?
I would be very surprised to see any firm hire him, and if he is on his own, who would willingly seek him out?
this is where perception and personal opinion can be used, and people should exercise that however they wish.
if he was in wellington, i certainly would not refer any clients to him (no idea if he does property law, but even so).
AL
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Ross – to be fair I suggest you read some of the decisions of the High Court when certificates of character have been refused. Basically if you seem to be on the straight and narrow going forward then they tend to let you in. I suspect the Law Society has just saved its members tens of thousands in ultimately fruitless High Court proceedings.
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Grendel…Wes thu hal!!! (Anglo saxon greeting)
The end results results of the cases were that there were not convictions.
Significant evidence was presented that Rickards was an unsavoury character with lots of examples of inappropriate behaviour. I propose that the is a spectrum of behaviour that would would be seen as not being that which would be done by a “fit and proper person”. Convicted rapist might be substantive proof that we have somebody that isn’t fit and proper. We don’t have that but we have a range of unsavoury acts and behaviours that while were insufficient to convict of the crime but ample to prove that he is not “fit and proper”.
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
He must have made hundreds of thousands for HAIG QC who defended his character even when it was apparent to all that it was indefensible. Perhaps he might be given a job with him out of gratitude.
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
It could be that the certificate of character is more about one’s integrity as a lawyer and less about one’s morality as a person.
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Congratulations to the Law Society for doing the right thing, although I would rather see Rickard’s still serving as a Police Officer.
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Oh yes! Rickards…
Law Society… decisions…
yawn…
not good character…
yawn…
outrage…
zzzzzzz
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
“DPF: Rickards at the end of the day was never found guilty in a courtroom.
Which gives “certificate of character” a whole new meaning.”
Look, we are talking about lawyers here.
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Seeing as lawyers rank just above MPs on the “most distrusted” ladder Rickards should make a really fine one.
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
What’s the difference between being a pig and lawyer?
A pig doesn’t get drunk and act like a lawyer.
I might have to reconsider this in light of the Rickards decision…
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
“I would be very surprised to see any firm hire him, ”
Brian Henry perhaps?
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
I go along with big bruv. Rickards has never been found guilty, and the character assasination was done by the prosecution. I’m sure we could find some people to assert that he is of good character. He might have been a bit wild as a yoof, but then some of us have done plenty in the past that we would not be proud of today.
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
“practice” as a verb is spelled “practise”
Not to say he won’t be working in a law practice.
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
This is bloody unbelievable, surely it’s a sick fucking joke?
Vote:Anybody for abuse of power Dame S ?
The judiciary is a quagmire of double standards!!
November 13th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
# dad4justice (4380) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
November 13th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
This is bloody unbelievable, surely it’s a sick fucking joke?
Anybody for abuse of power Dame S ?
The judiciary is a quagmire of double standards!!
Where did the judiciary come into the act? They had nothing to do with this. It was the law society that decided he was fit to practise.
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Bharmer – the judiciary came into it because if the Law Society turns down an application for a certificate of good character an applicant can go to the High Court. Previous decisions tend to favour applicants.
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
My point was only that, so far, the judiciary have not been involved. I am not sure why dad4justice thinks this decision has anything to do with Dame S (presumably Sian Elias) or the judiciary.
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Anybody for judicial integrity? Oh well, at least the nasty chrome dome will be easy to spot in the circus court system!
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
All those who seek to deny Rickard’s his rights need to remember one thing.
The man was found NOT GUILTY, the jury chose to accept his version of events and not the version presented by a proven liar and a woman who is desperate to rewrite history.
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Is that right big bruv, why is he not a cop now?
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
“Rickards at the end of the day was never found guilty in a courtroom.”
Being found not guilty in court does not necessarily mean that someone is not guilty in fact.
Why don’t sharks eat lawyers?
Vote:Sharks practice professional courtesy.
November 13th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Look no one knows for sure if he did it or not, but from what we know, most people think he is guilty of at least being a bit dodgy.
I know we all have jokes about how dodgy lawyers & politicians are, but here’s proof of at least lawyers being dodgy for allowing him in, they should of let him take it to a high court, then at least they could say it wasn’t their decision.
At the very least I think they should of given it to him with conditions barring him from anything to do with sexual assault cases.
And saying he wasn’t found guilty is a cop out, there’s plenty of cases where people aren’t found guilty, but almost certainly did the crime. Its all about witness intimidation, which in this case seems like its gone on for years, and maybe is still ongoing.
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
D4J
“Is that right big bruv, why is he not a cop now?”
Are you for real?…the reason he is not a cop is because of PC and people like Helen Klark.
I am surprised at you D4J, as one who rails against PC you seem happy to support it in this case.
Lets be perfectly clear here, Rickard’s was found not guilty by a jury of his peers, that IS the end of the matter.
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
rolla
“At the very least I think they should of given it to him with conditions barring him from anything to do with sexual assault cases.”
Why?
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Significant evidence was presented that Rickards was an unsavoury character with lots of examples of inappropriate behaviour.
The key words being “was” (the events happened over twenty years ago) and the behaviour was inappropriate for a policeman, not a lawyer. Should you disagree, please explain how having sex in uniform with a woman on a car in a carpark makes him unfit to serve as a lawyer?
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
“Lets be perfectly clear here, Rickard’s was found not guilty by a jury of his peers, that IS the end of the matter.”
Many a jury has got it wrong before big bruv!
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
> Being found not guilty in court does not necessarily mean that someone is not guilty
And, equally, being found guilty does not necessarily mean that someone comitted the crime. We have a system where the accused is presumed innocent. It is up to the Crown to prove guilt. It did not do so in Rickards’ case; thus he must be presumed innocent.
We have heard a alot of speculation and innuendo but they are no substitute for facts. What I am surprised to hear is that Louise Nicholas wrote to the Law Society and demanded that his application be turned down. I was under the impression that after writing her book she had moved on and didn’t care what Rickards did with his life. It seems that she does care to the point of being obssessed with him.
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
The labour party is full of people who have never been found guilty in a courtroom.
Who wants to offer them all jobs?
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
D4J
“Many a jury has got it wrong before big bruv!”
Your continuing freedom proving that point.
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
In response to bharmer this has everything to do with the judiciary. When the matter first arose, I predicted that he had a 50% chance of being ‘accepted’ by the Law Society, and if they declined to support his application, a 80% chance of being ‘accepted’ by the High Court who has the final say on the matter. Where the High Court hears such applications they are heard in public and full reasons are given and it is incumbent on the Law Society to respect such criteria. The Court also ensures consistency between such applications and striking off / reinstatement cases.
In my personal opinion the profession (and the judiciary) are a bit too lenient in this area, this being supported by DPF’s instincts.
In answer to dad4justice the approach is quite consistent even though on the surface it would appear that there are grave inconsistencies between cases, especially the case uppermost in dad4justice’s mind. As the latter is sub judice, it would be unwise to comment further.
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
> most people think he is guilty of at least being a bit dodgy.
Under which section of the Crimes Act is “being a bit dodgy” a criminal offence? If it were an offence, I suspect that many of our elected representatives would be serving time at her majestiy’s pleasure.
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
“It seems that she does care to the point of being obssessed with him.”
Normal behaviour Ross, from a VICTIM !!!
“Your continuing freedom proving that point.”
Vote:Would you say that to my face big bruv?
November 13th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
D4J
Yes, I may have to bend down a bit but the answer is still yes.
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Yeah right big blouse.
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
im surprised at you d4j.. i thought youd be in the bruv/dime camp.
there are many cops that have been chucked out for doing nothing!!
remember, in the PC world cops are superhuman!
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Dime
You might want to admit those who froth at the mouth into your camp but the bastards are not welcome in mine.
I have my quota of “challenged” people with Razork and Panda, I do not need any more thank you very much.
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
I’m with Dad4Justice on the Louise Nicholas thing. Her behaviour is normal for a victim.
“Not guilty” in the criminal system doesn’t mean innocent. It means couldn’t be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. With historical cases and little or no forensic evidence, there’s almost always reasonable doubt.
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
> Her behaviour is normal for a victim.
Presumably any behaviour would be “normal” for a victim. Maybe you could tell us what behaviour would be abnormal.
> With historical cases and little or no forensic evidence, there’s almost always reasonable doubt.
So you agree that juries should always acquit when there is reasonable doubt?
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
bruv.. ya lost me! i agree with you on this subject mate
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Ryan.
Why do people always trot that argument out? Our justice system is based on a principle of innocent until proven guilty, therefore not proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt = innocent.
How many of the anti-Clint commenters would like to have stuff they did as a 20 year old dragged up in a job interview 25 years later?
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
I think it does. It means the accused is innocent of the specific charge(s) made against them. It does not guarantee their innocence of other crimes. “Not guilty” should allow anyone the right to have their life back.
To accept post acquittal retribution from the general public who assess their version of the story agsinst their life standards is to invite anarchy.
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Just so I got this right, bent cops make good lawyers?
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
As much as I too would have liked them to say no, I Agree with their judgement, despite the fact that an excellent character assassination could be achieved, just as it was on Judaism in early 20th Century Germany!
If there is a solution to this FOR THE FUTURE it would be in the addition to jury verdicts of “Not Proven” as is the practise in Scotland. This is an interesting option, in that the jury are stating that they don’t believe the defendant is innocent, but they have not been convinced ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ of their guilt. It leaves the door open for a second trial, with new evidence allowed, and without double jeopardy applying. Quite a neat solution I think, what think you?
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
why is he a bent cop D4J? what was he found guilty of exactly?
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Rickards – not guilty is like saying Winston Peters has no case to answer, and Brian Henry was completely honest.
sorry – I dont buy any of them
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
dime, read the Tom Lewis book titled Cover Ups and Cop Outs.
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
I smell duplicity in standards here – Rickards has events 20 years historic used to bring criminal charges ,but Benson dope does not despit the fact that the protagnist in the Rickards case was a proved liar and previous false rape allegationist, whereas there were several witnesses to the BHP matter. That Rickards had sex with Louise Nicholas is probably undeniable so the issue is was it consensual or forced and clearly the jury did not find the accusers version sufficiently credible to bring a guilty verdict. Whilst Rickards behaviour casts doubt on his fitness for high office, by denying that people can & do change implies that Sue Bradford is also unfit for office in the light of what is it 70+ convictions – how many involving volence I wonder? Rickards has the right to earn a living but if anyone is prepared to hire him is in the courtr of public opinion as is BHP’s future.
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
I’m with Dad4Justice on the Louise Nicholas thing. Her behaviour is normal for a victim.
Her evidence on the other hand has a number of problems. She claimed to have been raped by Maoris on horseback. She has admitted this was not so and does not know why she made it. She also claims to have met one of the trio at an address which he didn’t live at until after the alleged rape. Given these and other problems, the issue is not the lack of corroborating evidence but the issue of witness credibility (i.e. did she believe to have happen actually happen?)
With historical cases and little or no forensic evidence, there’s almost always reasonable doubt.
Tell that to Peter Stewart.
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Rickards has events 20 years historic used to bring criminal charges ,but Benson dope does not despit the fact that the protagnist in the Rickards case was a proved liar and previous false rape allegationist, whereas there were several witnesses to the BHP matter.
What Benson Pope was accused of however was nothing more than a case of assault which the police would normally deal with by a good talking to. What Benson Pope did to make the affair serious was to deny in Parliament that the event had ever happened.
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
metcalph, speaking of Peter Stewart, isn’t he appealing his case? The law society has made this Rickdick decision without any appeal rights. Ouch that hurt the corrupt judiciary!
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Why do people always trot that argument out? Our justice system is based on a principle of innocent until proven guilty, therefore not proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt = innocent.
Rakaia,
Our justice system is based on a principle of the state not being able to lock you up unless it has been unable, with all the resources available to it, to prove your guilt beyond reasonable doubt. That’s why you get found “not guilty” rather than getting found “innocent”. The state has greater resources than the individual, so the justice system is weighted towards freedom of individuals, but that weighting should not be mistaken for innocence.
How many of the anti-Clint commenters would like to have stuff they did as a 20 year old dragged up in a job interview 25 years later?
I wasn’t commenting on that, though I’m not inclined to refer to rape as “stuff someone did when they were young and silly”.
Personally, I think the Law Society did the only thing they could do. My point was simply that “not guilty” does not mean innocent. It means “unable to be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law”.
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Dave Strings, I am not so convinced that a “Not Proven” verdict is the way to go. For a start it might not bring closure. It runs the risk of police re-prosecuting the accused until they get the “correct” result. Second, in the Rickards case the jury might not have reached a “Not Proven” verdict. Indeed, the jury might have genuinely believed that Rickards was innocent. There is a case, I believe, for juries to be able to say whether on the balance of probabilities they believe the accused is innocent, but under the present law the accused is presumed innocent when acquitted.
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
I have read all the above and all I can say is that in my experience any balding men who spend every morning standing in front of their mirrors shaving and polishing their domes have got to be a bit bent and very dodgy.
Vote:(Disclaimer): I say this as a balding man.
November 13th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
The hypocrisy of the entire legal profession is plain for all to see. They should be doyens of our society, but instead, the profession is riddled with rogues and vagabonds. Thats a shame, because the majority of its members are of course, good people. Dwell on this point for a moment … It is conceivably possible that Rickard’s admission to the bar, could one day see him appointed to the bench.
There is no doubt that Rickards has brought the police force into disrepute, so his appointment to the bar will undoubtedly further lower, the confidence of the people in the profession, and so it follows… the courts.
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
metcalph, speaking of Peter Stewart, isn’t he appealing his case?
Lost the appeal.
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
How can a pig be clever enough to become a lawyer?
In my ten year career as a defence lawyer, I met about one cop that I considered would make a good lawyer.
So, his career maybe limited anyway, even without the sticking shit.
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
# dad4justice (4388) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 1 Says:
November 13th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
The law society has made this Rickdick decision without any appeal rights. Ouch that hurt the corrupt judiciary!
I am still baffled as to why the judges (=judiciary) are getting blamed for something in which they have yet to be involved.
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
bharmer:
Vote:They’re all the same, these law folk. Never done a day’s work in their lives. Think they’re so smart, with all their book-learnin’ and stuff. Bunch of shysters, the lot of ‘em. Etc etc etc..
November 13th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Completely wrong decision.
Corrupt Police did not bring 11 internal disciplinary charges against suspended Assistant Police Commissioner Clint Rickards. It was a matter for the High Court to decide.
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Okay, Rickards is not legally guilty of anything.
Whatever happened with Louise Nicholas was not found by the courts, beyond reasonable doubt, to be rape.
He was still invoved, by his own admission, in numerous group sex activities that also involved two now convicted rapists (Shipton and Schollum).
Is he really a person of “good character” who should be admitted to the bar?
Maybe though, the Law Society has got it right, and we should look forward. I really don’t know on this one, and understand how difficult the law Society’s decision may have been.
Personally, I think they got it wrong!
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Is he really a person of “good character” who should be admitted to the bar?
Like it or not, participating in group sex twenty odd years ago is not relevant to the issue of his good character today. What the Law Society was looking for was ongoing association with disreputable characters (above and beyond their professional duties), general honesty and the like. Case in point, Karen Soich an entertainment lawyer was caught in bed with one of the Mr Asia drug syndicate when the police busted them. When she tried for admission to the bar the first time around, she was still seeing a drug dealer. She was refused admission to the bar. BUT she stopped seeing him, cleaned up her act and is now a practicing lawyer.
So if you continue to insist that Mr Rickards can never have the good character to be a lawyer based on something that was wholely legal twenty odd years ago and still is today, then you going to have fucking few lawyers in this country. So why don’t you pull your head out of your arse and fess up that your puritanical moralizing about his erstwhile activities have no bearing on his ability to be a lawyer today.
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
I didn’t think they would reject his application based on the court case decisions but thought his reaction and comments after his acquittal could have counted against him. Stating that his good mates Bob Schollum and Brad Shipton should not have been in jail for rape was an injudicious outburst which I suspect would be frowned upon if he was a lawyer. His saving grace may well have been that he wasn’t and that there was some recognition by the Law Society of his emotional state at the time.
Vote:I certainly wouldn’t be looking to hire him but can’t think why he shouldn’t be allowed to practise.
November 13th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Does anyone know what David Benson-Peep is going to do for a job?
I would be much concerned about him teaching school girls than Richard practicing as a lawyer. How great is the risk that he is going to try and bonk a client on his desk? I would say it is a lot less than that proven deviant perving on young girls again.
Vote:November 13th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Stating that his good mates Bob Schollum and Brad Shipton should not have been in jail for rape was an injudicious outburst which I suspect would be frowned upon if he was a lawyer.
If saying that somebody convicted by a jury shouldn’t have been means that person are unfit to be a lawyer then you are going to have problems with your appeal if a jury ever convicts you. “M’lords, the jury erred when they convicted my clien-” BZZZT! “professional misconduct! Strike him off!”. If you still don’t get it, having an emotional outburst is not and has never been a criterion for good character. Otherwise Christopher Harder would have never been able to practice.
Vote:November 14th, 2008 at 12:39 am
Murray says on November 13th, 2008 at 3:12 pm:
Owen Glenn doesn’t as Mike Williams found out.
Vote:November 14th, 2008 at 8:31 am
Just as nosey Joe Bloggs I went to hear the Louise Nicolas trial – to see these beasts go down big time!!!
After a few days into the trial any intelligent person would have known that there was no evidence of any crime. The evidence was overwhelming and the Police at the trial had fear written all over their faces as they heard the overwhelming evidence.
The media made so much of the time it took to deliberate but the fact was so many charges against 3 people meant each charge took time. 60 charges all up from memory ie 20 each. ALL NOT GULITY because the evidence was overwhelming. The foreman of the jury ( a wee young lady) made 60? very LOUD and decisive NOT Guilty calls – it was deafening. You had to be there!!!! I was ashamed that I had ever judged these men, especially Rickards.
These guys were young and behaved immorally. We judged them in today’s world yet today we see an immoral lifestyle that makes the group sex thing seem mild. Rickards is innocent and human. Don’t know many 23 year old men who would turn down a BJ if it was offered.
What the public never saw in the court was that the event (rape/group sex) never happened. The admission of consensual sex was related to other occasions but was all spun out as though it was together.
Most of us have skellies in our wardrobes I am sure – we just are lucky the media and self promoting parasites don’t find out.
I say good luck to Clint Rickards and thank god for the law Societies commonsense and sense of fairness.
Do you all realise louise Nicholas did not get raped – the court proved that. The court proved she was not a victim – She was a victim of her own shocking loose behaviour.
There is no justice in this life and if there is in the next she will certainly need your support.
What a surprising unintelligent lot you are if you judge Rickards in this way. Look into your own lives at 23 and see if you may have made a few bad decisons.
As for Winston – we saw the evidence ( nothing was suppressed ) – and he is gone gone gone.
Vote:November 14th, 2008 at 9:40 am
The court was asked to rule on the accused’s guilt. The court found there was not sufficient evidence to find the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
The court was not asked to rule on Louise Nicholas’ guilt or innocence or whether she was raped or not. Watch your words happy-jacko.
Vote:November 14th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Madeleine,
What you say is correct. However, the court did hear that Louise had made a previous false allegation of rape. I don’t believe she was able to explain why she made this allegation. She had also previously made rape allegations against other cops besides Rickards et al. I think in all she has alleged that 7 cops raped her at various times.
The court also heard that Rickards et al had sex with Louise’s flamate. I suggest that police would have been very happy if the flatmate had also made allegations of rape. No doubt police encouraged the flatmate to make such allegations, possibly offering her money or other inducements. However, the flatmate’s evidence suggested that the sex was consensual. This evidence, in my opinion, raises major concerns about Louise’s reliability as a witness.
Vote:November 14th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
“D4J
“Is that right big bruv, why is he not a cop now?”
Are you for real?…the reason he is not a cop is because of PC and people like Helen Klark.
I am surprised at you D4J, as one who rails against PC you seem happy to support it in this case.
Lets be perfectly clear here, Rickard’s was found not guilty by a jury of his peers, that IS the end of the matter.”
Hear, Hear!!!!!!
What I see in this situation is OJ Simpson all over again.
maori will want to use his services but won’t be able to afford him. …… catch 22.
In the long run, justice will be served.
Que sera sera.
Ignorance just can’t wait for it to happen.
where’s OJ now??
Vote:November 14th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
wikiriwhis business. you say; “Are you for real?…the reason he is not a cop is because of PC and people like Helen Klark”
Vote:This is not about PC and it not about whom Clark likes or not. Neither is it about whether Nicholas is a hangi pants, or a fruitloop.
The fact remains Rickard, as a cop was taking advantage of YOUNG GIRLS in MY time.
It’s not consequential whether he becomes a lawyer or not – (because both Winston Peters and Brian Henry are still both lawyers).
What is consequential is to me is;
1. He was a taxpayer-funded cop in work time when this happened.
2. The LS gave him a license on the basis that the high court would have overturned their decision had they not. Having the courage of ones convictions did not play a part in the LS decision and standards will only decline on that basis.
November 14th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
If that pig done that to my daughter then I’ll smash the prick. Bent pigs run amuck when they’re NOT accountable to anybody!
Vote:November 14th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
You’ve spoken only sense on this d4j……even the outrageous comments!!!LOL
Vote:November 14th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
The fact remains Rickard, as a cop was taking advantage of YOUNG GIRLS in MY time.
Louise was seventeen at the time whereas Clint was twenty-three. The age of consent is sixteen. Can you get a grip on yourself?
1. He was a taxpayer-funded cop in work time when this happened.
I’ve never heard of a non taxpayer funded cop. Do you think that because all cops receive taxpayer funds as the source of their income they should refrain from doing consuming alcohol, looking at porn or eating donuts? How about this: the Police Commissioner had a house and a video player which was paid for out of TAXPAYER FUNDS. He had a party in which a BEASTIALITY VIDEO was played. Should we hang him? Or should you take a cold shower instead.
2. The LS gave him a license on the basis that the high court would have overturned their decision had they not. Having the courage of ones convictions did not play a part in the LS decision and standards will only decline on that basis.
The Law Society has no convictions to be brave about in this instance. They judge him by the same criteria for which they have judged all applicants and saw that there was nothing that could reasonably be used to deny him entrance to the bar.
Vote:November 15th, 2008 at 8:17 am
Given the seriousness of the allegations, rape, perjury, false allegations, etc. it is very important and integral to the presumption of innocence that discussion of this topic is carefully framed. Further it is not fair on David to carelessly make statements that could legally jeopardise him and his blog.
So Ross if you have read the transcripts or were witness to the proceedings then you may fairly form an opinion that a witnesses evidence did not seem credible but that is a far cry from Happy-Jackos’ assertion that the court made a ruling against the accuser, which it patently did not. Nicholas has not been tried so we must presume her innocence of making false allegations or committing perjury just as we must also for Rickards who was tried and found not guilty.
Now of course they can’t both be telling the truth, that would be logically absurd (as I posted in Rickards, Nicholas and Flaws in the Adversarial System) but such is the nature of the adversarial system and the presumption of innocence and unless you want to move to a presumption of guilt (or trial by media and blog comments) you have to respect it and presume both innocent, as uneasily as that sits, and comment on your observations and thoughts from there.
As for me, I have heard bits and pieces of the case, I have spoken to people who were there and I have read bits of the transcripts but I know enough about the law, and especially the adverserial system where the lawyers control what comes out and what does not and how it comes accross (don’t get me started on how the media report cases), to know that I cannot have an opinion and that I must presume the innocence of both despite conceding that there appear to be flaws on both sides that do raise doubts and perhaps speak to what probably happened; however, probable is not certain so I withold judgement and respect that of the court’s.
Vote:November 15th, 2008 at 8:21 am
Lawyers are filth. For example, one of the dickheads in a recent sicko case said that putting a young toddler in a clothes drier was not malice? Go figure, lawyers are lying dirty scum. The bent pig will fit in real well.
Vote:November 15th, 2008 at 9:33 am
“Lawyers are filth”
Does that include the ones who have defended you?
Vote:November 15th, 2008 at 9:44 am
Sorry Metcalf. You may believe young and impressionable 17-year-old girls are fair game, and that’s your choice – I don’t, and particularly where it’s several cops taking advantage of her age and intelligence.
Likewise if you believe its appropriate behaviour for police commissioners to be getting their jollies on bestiality videos that’s also your choice. Personally I don’t think that’s the kind of people we need upholding the law in our community but if they’re not doing it in tax payer time then so what
Additionally, the acquittal of a criminal charge does not necessarily mean the person is of good or appropriate character for further positions of trust.
Vote:If you do I’d like to know if you’d be comfortable putting your kids into say a childcare center run by Chris Kahui and Macsyna King? ……. thought not!
November 15th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Sorry Metcalf. You may believe young and impressionable 17-year-old girls are fair game, and that’s your choice – I don’t,
One I never said they were fair game. Two there is nothing legally wrong with sleeping with a seventeen year old. Moreover if you are not meant to sleep around with impressionable people then how do you test for that? Ask them if they will sleep with you and if they say “yes”, they are impressionable and so you should not have sex with them? Sexual antics committed twenty years ago can’t be used to disqualify somebody for good character today. What part of this do you not understand?
and particularly where it’s several cops taking advantage of her age and intelligence.
Three is not “several” the last time I looked and you are the first person I’ve seen to imply that Louise is or was stupid.
Likewise if you believe its appropriate behaviour for police commissioners to be getting their jollies on bestiality videos that’s also your choice.
Once again that’s something I never said so go back to remedial reading school.
Personally I don’t think that’s the kind of people we need upholding the law in our community but if they’re not doing it in tax payer time then so what
Except that Clint Rickards wasn’t sleeping with Louise on tax-payer time.
Additionally, the acquittal of a criminal charge does not necessarily mean the person is of good or appropriate character for further positions of trust.
Except that the incidents happened over twenty years ago, were investigated by the PCA and Clint was counselled as a result. In addition Clint has admitted that he was wrong to do what he did, primarily because he had a wife and child at the time.
If you do I’d like to know if you’d be comfortable putting your kids into say a childcare center run by Chris Kahui and Macsyna King? ……. thought not!
I shan’t be placing my kids in your care given the demonstrated low level of intellect and ethics you’ve displayed in this post.
Vote:November 15th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
One; I never offered to look after your kids you fucken jerk
Vote:November 16th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Well time will tell if the rel truth comes out about the crappy policing that could not get a conviction based onthe fact the Police got it wrong about Rickards. Too many parts of the Nicholas /Kitchen story dont add up but I am sure we will find this all out in the future. When karma bites back.
Vote: