MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Nicholas case leaflet referred to police

Filed under: General — triassic @ 11:38 pm Mon 3rd April 2006

A leaflet about the Louise Nicholas rape trial, circulated in Wellington today, has been referred to the Solicitor-General and the police.

The leaflet was handed out by women at Wellington railway station and referred to matters suppressed at the trial at which one serving and two former police officers were found not guilty of a variety of sexual offences against Mrs Nicholas in Rotorua 20 years ago.

The accused men were Assistant Commissioner Clint Rickards and former officers Bob Schollum and Brad Shipton who faced a three week jury trial in the High Court at Auckland.

Mr Schollum’s lawyer, Paul Mabey, QC, said he had referred the leaflet to Solicitor-General Terence Arnold, QC, and the police.

“It’s in their hands,” he said.

“All I can do is bring it to their attention, which I have, and they’re the enforcement authorities. It’s up to them what they do.”

A spokeswoman for the Crown Law Office said the matter was one for the police.

“It is a breach of a suppression order, which is a criminal offence,” she said.

She also suggested that Mr Mabey could go back to the court that imposed the suppression order.

“It’s a serious breach,” she said.

The spokeswoman said she had heard the women had given out about 1600 leaflets so far.

No-one was available for comment from Wellington police.

Hey! These girls probably have children to look after. Just leave them alone you big bullies. They are only trying to help one of their sisters from being seen as a conniving, spoilt, lying bitch.

I just can’t wait to see how this will be handled. It’s going to be so tough for the Police to come down heavy on the four little women who just don’t believe there was a fair trial. IMO the police had political pressure put on them to prosecute in the first place. A lot of people in high places would not have been happy with the “peoples” decision.

Does the public have a right to know the suppressed information? These are the interesting and intriguing areas of the justice system. I am sure it was important that the jury didn’t see it. In sex cases there is traditionally lots of material that cannot be used as it evokes strong emotion rather than sober facts.

However, now that it’s out there I want to see it’s contents………….

Update: If you know how to research, peterellis site will tell you more than the Wellington pamphet will.


  1. Funnily enuff, the ‘secrets’ were all revealed on one of the talkbacks last night so what’s the big deal now? The shit will hit the fan when the public get to hear about it and I suspect that the jury will all go out and commit kari-kari when they get to hear about it. What a shambles.

    Comment by JamesW — Mon 3rd April 2006 @ 11:53 pm

  2. Funily enough it is normal for all supression orders to be reviewed at the conclusion of a trial. Where the defendents are found “Not Guilty” they are normally continued

    Comment by Alastair — Tue 4th April 2006 @ 12:16 am

  3. I cant find this pamphlet on the net,somebody post a site please.Thanks

    Comment by Rex — Tue 4th April 2006 @ 9:01 am

  4. I turned this pamphlet down yesterday at Wellington railwy station. I did not take a pamphlet.

    Nice to see the girls experiencing the effects of supression of evidence and non publication orders.


    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Tue 4th April 2006 @ 9:19 am

  5. Rex

    The information was posted on a Feminist Bloggs last week.

    If you are desperate to know just google.

    You’ll find it

    Comment by jimmy — Tue 4th April 2006 @ 9:55 am

  6. The leaflet they were handing out, is about 2 of the men on trial are [suppressed fact edited by nervous webmaster] ! and this wasn’t relevant to the trial?

    Comment by jack — Tue 4th April 2006 @ 12:56 pm

  7. Jack – you are a CRIMINAL. You will go to jail. You have just committed contempt of court as has the webmaster for having not censored your comment. Shame on you….didn’t you realise these facts were still a state secret?

    Comment by JamesW — Tue 4th April 2006 @ 1:10 pm

  8. Big Fat Luantic – in a simple word: PISS OFF. You do absolutely nothing to help our cause with your comments. Indeed to webmaster- how did that crap get through? If we are ever gonna further the cause of men in NZ then that sort of garbage has to be filtered out. Btw Jack – my tongue is glued to my cheek!

    Comment by JamesW — Tue 4th April 2006 @ 8:17 pm

  9. As a woman who has also been through a similar violation by three men many years ago I have had mixed feelings about this case and consequently have alternately tried TO follow and then also tried NOT to follow the case.But one very puzzling thing for me is……. “HOW COULD LOUISE HAVE WANTED TO AND BEEN ABLE EMOTIONALLY TO CONTINUE TO KEEP, LET ALONE WEAR AGAIN THE DRESS INVOLVED AT ONE OF THE INCIDENTS??” My personal experience is that anything associated with the abhorrent act would take on and hold such repulsive emotional memories I could never look at it ever again let alone touching and wearing it again. I still carry the same natural repulsion to a certain colour to this day (and that is 20 years later)I am sure I am not alone in this as it is just a natural response to want to remove all evidence of anything associated with such a traumatic experience. In the same way that you just want to scrub and scrub your body to wash it all away so to speak) This is the point that has me worried. There is NO WAY I would ever want to (or be able to) bring back painful memories in such a way. I would be very interested in other victims views. I am sure they would all have similar feelings to mine. Or am I wrong???

    Comment by Jaqui — Wed 5th April 2006 @ 10:35 am

  10. I am sorry to hear of your experience Jaqui. It is women like you that have the experience to make good judgments in cases like these.

    In regards to this case, Casual sex brings with it many dangers, not just STD’s and unwanted pregnancy. For women it opens them up to abuse and for men false allegations. Both of these consequences can have monumental repercussions.

    There are very important lessons here for both genders. If men wish to engage in sex that is risqué they should go to a professional sex worker. If women wish to be promiscuous and have a bit of fun (I don’t judge them) they should set up recording devices so a jury can hear the big ‘NO’ word and the mans response.

    Comment by triassic — Wed 5th April 2006 @ 11:51 am

  11. I’m in Christchurch and haven’t seen the leaflets, nor have I been able to find anything on the net, other than the news reports. I think there is far more to it than what has been released offically. I personally think they may of got away with it. I mean what woman in her right mind would put herself through this ordeal, unless something happened. I was raped at 14yrs old when I was babysitting one night. I didn’t tell anyone. The guy involved got away scott free. I couldn’t bear to ever see him again let alone tell anyone what had happened. I couldn’t even tell my husband until a few years ago when we were kidding around in the bedroom one night and he got all manly and domineering (playfully) and I froze completely and burst into tears. Obviously I had to explain what had happened. Which just goes to prove that even years later when you think you have these things under control, they do come back to bite you on the bum. I still couldn’t face my rapist in court and shudder if I hear his name mentioned in passing.

    Comment by Dinah — Wed 5th April 2006 @ 2:02 pm

  12. I think we should all pray that what has occurred never happens again.

    Comment by Monty — Wed 5th April 2006 @ 4:01 pm

  13. First time I’ve been to this site and after reading the post and especially this bit ‘Hey! These girls probably have children to look after. Just leave them alone you big bullies. They are only trying to help one of their sisters from being seen as a conniving, spoilt, lying bitch’.
    I can only say that it would have to be one sad, bitter pathetic new zealand man to write such bile.

    Is this a some kind of weird fundy men are victims site …………….. how sad, go play rugby or something.

    Comment by kiwiman — Wed 5th April 2006 @ 4:57 pm

  14. Kiwiman, you have come to a site where you will hear “men’s” stories, some may be victims of conniving, spoilt, lying bitches. This site is not for Misogynists but it is anti-Misandry. Your ignorance of Misandry in society tells me that you have been blessed with good women in your life. Let’s hope it stays that way because you will never see NZ in quite the same light if you are unfortunate enough to be at the receiving end of a bitch. Read this site and get an education that may save you becoming “Castrated-Kiwiman”

    Are the 12 men and women of the jury who agree with me that Louise is a liar also bigoted? Perhaps they know more about life than you do.

    Comment by triassic — Wed 5th April 2006 @ 7:07 pm

  15. I still cant find a site displaying the whole leaflet,would really appreciate hearing from anyone who can be specific about a site not just generalisations,thanks

    Comment by Rex — Wed 5th April 2006 @ 7:38 pm

  16. It is only the greatest of men that will be victorious in their own battles and still find time to understand the tragedies of another’s life.

    Comment by Bevan Berg — Wed 5th April 2006 @ 7:43 pm

  17. Rex, without breaching a ridiculous suppression order… if i was in court charged with breaking a window with a big stick would it fair/relevant for the jury to know that I was already in prison serving time for breaking a window with a big stick?

    Comment by Nigel — Wed 5th April 2006 @ 9:16 pm

  18. The leaflet IS on the web of course, however since this page currently turns up at the top of several Google searches, we’re all going to be good law-abiding citizens and respect the suppression order aren’t we?

    Members of the Paul’s News e-mail group can find a link to the pamphlet in their archives.

    Although the leaflet says;

    It’s a travesty that evidence that would show that she was telling the truth never made it to court.

    there is nothing special about the information being suppressed in this case. It is a basic principle of justice that a jury does not hear about prior convictions before deciding whether a defendant is guilty.

    Of course, modern feminists like the ones on the streets of Wellington are clearly not too keen on upholding principles of justice.

    Comment by JohnP — Wed 5th April 2006 @ 9:23 pm

  19. I think the story is even bigger than the pamphlets. I mean it has all leaked since the prosecution was questioned after millions of dollars had been spent and ‘Not guilty’ was handed down. Somewhere in the system the preperation failed. I guess they don’t know about ‘strategic planning.’ Some poor prosecuter has their head on the chopping board and their collegues feel for him. This might just be a cover-up. And these women are just eager pawns.

    Comment by julie — Wed 5th April 2006 @ 10:27 pm

  20. From what I read it was,

    “not guilty of a variety of sexual offences against Mrs Nicholas in Rotorua 20 years ago.”

    that isn’t a previous conviction.!

    Shall we have a third trial just for fun.

    Comment by Bevan Berg. — Wed 5th April 2006 @ 11:18 pm

  21. This is ‘just another case’ of how the Law has become so sensitised and biased towards women that it is so easily abused.

    Why would a woman press charges now for an incident that happened 20 years ago ? IMO Because she can either : Now, finally get justice, or manipulate the weak and biased law to her advantage, for whatever reason that could be.

    So what we have is the law softened up to a degree that makes rape accusations more viable, yet more open to those who choose to abuse it.

    With 7 women and only 5 men on the Jury, surely this inital advantage for her would be enough to proove the juys decison is acceptable ?

    Comment by Moose — Thu 6th April 2006 @ 2:18 am

  22. Jesus Bevan, Two of these guys (the two you didn’t see leaving the courthouse) are [suppressed fact removed by webmaster]. A fact that the jury should have been made aware of.

    Comment by Nigel — Thu 6th April 2006 @ 7:36 am

  23. How would you like to be presumed guilty based on another persons behaviour, and not judged for your own behaviour.

    Comment by Bevan Berg, — Thu 6th April 2006 @ 8:08 am

  24. Men need to stand up for our rights, and fight those who lessen them, be they women, the ‘system’, or other men. Other men who abuse women in the way these guys did clearly are wrong and we should say so clearly. I have now heard the information about 2 of these guys current judicail state and guilty verdicts for other acts, from enough places to beleive it. It is wrong that this information was not given to the jury as these guys give us all a bad name and discredit us. I suggest that there are two issues – one is the poor woman, the other is men being responsible and showing we are trustworthy – if we want that, we must honour that trust and earn it. We should speak up against this tragedy that may have allowed very guilty men to walk (from this crime if not others!)Tim_

    Comment by Tim — Thu 6th April 2006 @ 8:30 am

  25. These men were aquitted on Friday , why has it been neccessary for them to have a such a large presence on and for so many months now . Surely this is a for someone who believes they have been wrongfully convicted . For me another very telling issue is why have the Police Association been silent , usually on matters like this they are right up there in the media in defence of their members .

    Comment by Richard Moore — Thu 6th April 2006 @ 11:42 pm

  26. It is interesting that suppressed info has not been released on Louise. Coincidence? I think not!!!!

    Comment by Voice of Reason? — Fri 7th April 2006 @ 11:46 am

  27. Of the seven supression orders covering this case which effectively conceal 80% of it ,how many were put in place by Louise Nicholas ? The men or their lawyers have had orders covering much of this for eleven of the last twelve years . Louise Nicholas is the victim here . These guys friends and relatives are saying she was a party girl who was always hanging around the Police Station bar in those days .OK my next question is if that is true what was the Liecencing Authority doing , teenage girls drinking in the Police Station bar in Rotorua in the mid 1980’s

    Comment by Richard Moore — Fri 7th April 2006 @ 12:46 pm

  28. Louise was sexually abused as a thirteen year old. From this moment she was vulnerable to the sly fox type of guy. Those cops just took advantage of her vulnerability. Cops are meant to protect the vulnerable in society, not screw them for all they are worth. They were as guilty as hell. Guys like this give all of us men a bad name. Lets not make it worse by crying how hard done by the cop and ex-cops have been treated. I hate to think how many vulnerable victims they have left in their wake, but you can bet your last dollar that it is a lot more than Louise.

    Comment by ken — Fri 7th April 2006 @ 4:59 pm

  29. The Louise Nicholas case has just demonstrated once again thet our system of ‘justice’ should be remodelled. It’s useless following the British system. Just because it’s old doesn’t make it right. Suppression orders should be made extinct except in the case of child abuse. Also, if we’re going to stick with the jury system why should the jury not be made aware of the accused’s past history? After all, there’s nothing to stop a lawyer from impugning a witness’s competence and past history. We should look hard at the French system of three trail judges and forget about 12 incompetents who probably have trouble reading. I should know – I was foreman of a jury and half of them used to sleep on the floor while we were discussing the evidence!

    Comment by John Walters — Fri 7th April 2006 @ 5:50 pm

  30. Yes John, I agree that the jury system is outmoded but at the same time, I agree with it it principal. It’s more difficult to corrupt 12 people than three. One answer may be to have three judges AND a jury and require a unanimous decision. As far as sleeping jurors goes, I served on a jury where the verdict was finally agreed by tossing a coin three times.

    Comment by JamesW — Fri 7th April 2006 @ 5:54 pm

  31. Jaqui I feel for you, but its unfair to say that just because you react a certain way about an incident in your past, that all victims of sexual abuse will react the same way. We’re all different, and we all react differently. The dress was given to her by someone she loved and ended up marrying.

    And before you jump back on your high horse, don’t assume anything about me. You don’t know me, or my past. And yes I was sexually abused, but I NEVER assume that someone will react to things as I do, or don’t do. We are ALL more than one incident in our lives. We’re the sum of our TOTAL life experiences.

    And Rex, do a google search, and enter (rickards+police+suppressed+evidence+nz) and it’ll bring up heaps of pages about the suppressed info.

    And everyone, regardless of how you feel about women, remember Lousie is someones daughter, sister, mother and wife. How would you feel if someone in your family was treated this way, humiliated etc, by a bunch of thugs in uniform (and they’re all wearing a uniform of sorts, it’s just 2 eat porrige with it).

    Comment by Jo — Fri 7th April 2006 @ 11:25 pm

  32. Worth having a think about is the David Dougherty case. This man was convicted of rape and lost his appeal. He spent 3 years in prison before DNA proved his innocence. Had any other women accused him of historical rape whilst he was inside, do you think he would have had a fair trial with his convictions being revealed to a Jury??? Justice is a funny old thing except when you depend on it for your life!!!

    Comment by Bryan — Sat 8th April 2006 @ 12:12 am

  33. That the police officers played on their positions of power, I have no doubt.
    That Louise at the time was a willing partner, I have no doubt.
    That Louise at the time may have been caught up in the glory of ‘I’m in on the Police game – they fancy me, this is flattering etc’, I have no doubt.
    That Louise was therefore deluded, I have no doubt.
    That Louise came to resent this in later years, I have no doubt.
    That the men were in essence callous basards, I have no doubt.

    But does that constitute rape?


    Abuse of power, which I have no doubt happened, does not consitute rape.

    I do not wish to minimise any person’s experience of rape.
    Sexual abuse is rife, with on average (according to NZ studies) some 17,000 new cases each year, of which some 4,000 being reported to police.
    [assuming the oft-quoted figures of 4 in ten girls, and 1 in ten boys].

    But surely the best course of action, is to file complaints as soon as practical, “the obvious aim of which is to precipitate an immediate investigation of the relevant circumstances whilst the evidentiary trail is fresh”.
    [S. 246(5), Report of the Board of Inquiry, Anglican Diocese of Adelaide (24 May 2004) – no doubt in the interests of informed debate, you are familiar with this report, which covers the same issue central to Louise’s case – an abuse of power].

    Louise’s failing, if she indeed were raped, was to leave matters so long.

    Comment by Al D Rado — Sat 8th April 2006 @ 7:26 am

  34. You may well have doubts once the surpressed information is released .
    Wednesdays Herald Editorial suggested that were it to publish the full case on it front page under the current orders 80% of the page would be blank .There have been surpression orders on this case for all but a short period of less than a year since 1994. Even all the material in the site is subject to these surpression orders much to the advantage of these men . Every single opportunity to show them up in the best light is being used , as is every opportunity to blow smoke over these issues .

    Comment by Richard Moore — Sat 8th April 2006 @ 11:09 am

  35. Jo!! I was NOT meaning I thought Louise was fabricating things. I just could not understand that particular aspect.Indeed after reading the ‘ Flyers ‘ I have got a very uneasy feeling about the whole thing. And if what the flyers say is true then the whole case should be looked at again very very thoroughly. To be brave enough to lay a complaint of rape is not an easy thing as obviously the complainant is going to be very vigorously interrogated and every little negative aspect of a woman’s sexual history will be pounced upon. One has to compare the similarities with ‘battered womens’ inability to remove herself from violent situations and indeed it is a recognised FACT now. And as The Gaye Oaks case proved it can be taken into consideration.I believe the two are very closely linked. In the same way that children who are subjected to historical sexual abuse by family members have not been able to put a stop to it and indeed they continue to live with it. They are however later subsequently believed and indeed succesful convictions have been reached. Personally I wonder if Louise may?? have come somewhere under this category?? Whatever the truth the whole case has a very ugly smell about it for various different reasons.

    Comment by jacqui — Sat 8th April 2006 @ 7:12 pm

  36. Anyone who feels they are in a better position than the judge who granted the suppression orders, to decide whether the information should have been presented or not, should seek a career leading to them being on the bench.

    The judge is not required to grant a suppression order on the basis of public opinion, but on matters of law.
    A judge

    Comment by Al D Rado — Sun 9th April 2006 @ 2:35 pm

  37. Anyone who feels they are in a better position than the judge who granted the suppression orders, to decide whether the information should have been presented or not, should seek a career leading to them being on the bench.

    The judge is not required to grant a suppression order on the basis of public opinion, but on matters of law.

    The judge may also admit any evidence he or she sees fit.

    The judge made a decision that he saw as the right decision based on his rather fuller knowledge of the case than any of us have.

    We, the public should leave it at that.

    Or fight it through the proper channels, NOT by illegal means.

    Those women distributing the leaphlet are saying they believe Louise, and therefore the three (ex) policemen are guilty of rape, and should be sentenced accordingly.

    These women themselves have broken the law.
    broke the law.
    They too should be sentenced accordingly.

    Comment by Al D Rado — Sun 9th April 2006 @ 2:40 pm

  38. You want to know why I’m in a better position than all of you to make judgements – I know the FACTS
    1. I went to school with Louise
    2. I know ALL the (ex)cops involved in the Murupara/Rotorua scene at that time and the police culture that existed
    3. “Incidents” happened to me by them
    4. I was asked to press charges by Detectives investigating Operation Austin – but the result of this circus just confirms why the hell I would not put myself through being portrayed as a dirty slut who was asking for it – from age 14 – by these “pillars of society” police officers.
    5. I was interviewed in the initial investigation over 10 years ago when I was living in Australia but somehow all that I told at that time was never put forward – funny that!

    You can make judgements about Louise’s character all you want but without understanding how she was groomed from age 13 by these PIGS (and you won’t) you will never understand this case or her.

    Comment by SCD — Wed 12th April 2006 @ 6:12 pm

  39. Well lookee lookee they have charged ex Inspector John Dewar with four counts all info supressed , he is the guy who did all the covering up for Shirton , Schollum and Rickards .

    Comment by Richard Moore — Wed 12th April 2006 @ 9:11 pm


    Comment by brent — Fri 26th May 2006 @ 4:50 pm

  41. I knew nothin of this case, until shortly after i moved from New Zealand to Australia. And even now, i cant say as i could make any informed statements on the matter. I asked my family to save me newspaper articles, but thankfully they didnt. But what i can say is that i worked for one of these “rapists” for about 18 months, and i would still consider him a friend. He was a good man to me, and im just so glad i wasnt anywhere near to see all this devestation!

    Comment by tempz — Sat 27th May 2006 @ 10:50 am

  42. People are still wondering why Louise Nicholas waited 20 years to press charges? Newsflash: she didn’t. The mishandling of her initial complaint was the reason she went public.

    Comment by Mog — Sat 27th May 2006 @ 12:37 pm

  43. Thank you for the news flash…please now direct me to or supply evidence of your claim??

    Comment by triassic — Sat 27th May 2006 @ 1:14 pm

  44. And excuse my naiveity, but why wait another 10 years (since the initial complaint)?

    Comment by tempz — Sat 27th May 2006 @ 3:28 pm

  45. Here comes Louise Nicholas back out of the shadows again now we have a left wing male hate machine in government again …

    A victims advocate says while thousands of violent sex crimes reported each year are “unresolved”, the process and attitudes around reporting incidents has vastly improved.

    The comments follow a Herald investigation into the resolution of reported violent sex crimes, which found 2400 cases went “unresolved” in 2016.

    Each unresolved case means police believe an assault occurred, but an offender was never charged and taken to court for that crime.

    They’re all guilty because it was reported we just can’t find the evidence.

    The Demonic Leadhead.

    Comment by Evan Myers — Fri 4th May 2018 @ 7:20 am

  46. In my humble experience , about 30% , of women’s allegations for rape, protection orders are false but still the men are sentenced by the Judges . That make about at lest 5000 men in NZ every year feeling wronged and alienated , including me . What to do with those men ?

    Comment by GEORGE SIMONOVSKI — Fri 4th May 2018 @ 1:32 pm

  47. #45 Louise does an excellent job of supporting victims of sexual abuse. Both male and female. She has attended Kidz Need Dadz conferences to be better informed. Last year she was the MC (continuity) of the male survivors of sexual abuse conference and their big international event South South Institute against sexual violence against men and boys.
    We desperately need advocates like Louise out from the shadows.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Fri 4th May 2018 @ 5:19 pm

  48. So, there are some obvious questions here, Allan.

    A. Why does she not approach msm about these events and take the publicity?
    B. Is msm selective about which stories they reject if she did approach them.
    C. Was Kidz Need Dads short on the inclination to post the story on MENZ

    Perhaps a few others, but seeing as you’ve opened the door you might want to continue with those few?

    Comment by Downunder — Fri 4th May 2018 @ 6:34 pm

  49. 46, I’ve wondered this too.

    Comment by Voices back from the bush — Sat 5th May 2018 @ 12:05 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar