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

Personal Responsibility

Filed under: General — triassic @ 8:22 am Wed 29th March 2006

Holes in the Crown case against Assistant Commissioner Clint Rickards and two former police colleagues are too great for any jury to convict the men, the High Court at Auckland was told yesterday.

Lawyers for Rickards, 45, Brad Shipton, 47, and Bob Schollum, 53, gave their closing addresses to the jury of seven women and five men, saying the complainant, , had lied and fabricated events and the Crown case did not come within a “bull’s roar” of what was required.

The jurors will retire today to consider their verdicts

This case will be judged by the philosophical view of the men and women on the jury. I have kept a close eye on this case as it represents to me, and I’m sure to the feminists, how society interprets the actions of woman in relation to men. Louise Nicholas has claimed that she had non consensual sex with the three men. Yes, she admits that she didn’t say no or complain at the time but claims the justification was intimidation. She therefore feels she was not responsible for her actions. Feminists and the like need to heed the words of Yasuhiko Genku Kimura

In public discourse we hear more about the violation of individual rights than about the abdication of individual responsibility. Yet it is the abdication of individual responsibility that leads to the violation of individual rights, because it is intrinsic in the nature of responsibility that responsible individuals respect and honour the rights of others. Today we live amid a pandemic of irresponsibility — irresponsibility within governments, business, education, the media, the arts, academe, and other sectors. In this culture of rampant irresponsibility, responsibility as such has become almost a forgotten ethical value and moral virtue. However, it is the responsible action that alone carries with it the requisite integrity that brings about real change. Therefore, unless we can transform the present culture of irresponsibility into a culture of responsibility, social movement of any kind, including peace movements, will bear only bitter fruit, if any.


  1. Wouldn’t the jury be seen as more fair and impartial if there were 6 people of both sexes on it, instead of the skewed 7/5 ratio?.
    Or is that how we get the desired result (conviction) these days?.

    Comment by Mike — Wed 29th March 2006 @ 11:07 am

  2. agreed mike. in such a matter it behoves the court to keep well away from any implication that a verdict could have been a forgone conclusion. 50/50 male and female. otherwise the risk of getting more feminists than realists becomes a real threat to the accused.

    Comment by miss mug — Wed 29th March 2006 @ 5:03 pm

  3. ..and i should have added more men than women could pose the threat of more misogynists which could disadvantage the accuser.

    Comment by miss mug — Wed 29th March 2006 @ 5:04 pm

  4. Slightly off thread.

    I can only presume ordinary folk and indeed the Court must find the fact that a number of fathers and their respective children have been so severely disadvantaged by Sona De Luen, that the fathers were driven to protesting outside her home.

    Surely this action must cause the Court to consider the fitness of Ms De Luen to remain as lawyer for any child.

    If the dictum of ‘no smoke without fire’ is so easily pressed on fathers who have been subject to false allegations, then surely the same dictum should be applied by the Court when assessing Ms De Luen’s fitness to be a Court Appopinted, child lawyer.


    Comment by dpex — Wed 29th March 2006 @ 7:09 pm

  5. Isn’t it strange (or not) how this case has now disappeared from the leading news stories ?

    Comment by Moose — Thu 30th March 2006 @ 2:14 am

  6. There are only two possible outcomes to this case:
    (1) several men are guilty of rape – at the time;
    (2) or they are not.

    Unfortunately, this case will not be judged on fact, but on emotion.

    They will be judged on a revised post-mortum morality which will see the foolishness of young women as the lesser sin of the equal foolishness of macho men.

    Bat a few eyelids, pull a few tears, and it’s remarkable how years down the track you can be a victim.
    How many young women do we know have enjoyed the flattery of older men?

    As recently as in today’s DominionPost, a woman writer in Asia expounded this very virtue in her fortnightly column.

    These women were not children. These women were not innocent.
    Yet they are women, and women still evoke the sympathetic emotion in most people’s hearts.
    And on that basis, even if not convicted, those men will be found guilty by a jury of millions.

    Comment by Al D Rado — Thu 30th March 2006 @ 6:42 pm

  7. Brad Shipton, Bob Schollum and Clint Richards

    Three men were recently acquitted of repeatedly raping Lousie Nicholas in the 1980’s when they were policemen and she was a teenager. The men were Brad Shipton, Bob Schollum and Clint Richards. A supression order was placed preventing the jury being told that Brad Shipton and Bob Schollum are currenlty serving 8 year jail sentence after having been found guilty of a similar gang rape in the 1980’s on another teenager using a similar modus operandum. The jury were, however, told that Louise Nicholas has made a complaint that another policeman had raped her and that he had been found not guilty.

    Folowing their conviction, last year, for gang rape Brad Shipton and Bob Schollum were giving glowing testimonials in court as to their good character. [See Newspaper article below]

    Bay of Plenty Times article dated 06.08.2005

    Tears in court as rapists’ women stand by men

    Two men[Brad Shipton & Bob Schollum] jailed for a pack rape 16
    years ago wept yesterday as their wives told the High Court they were loving
    fathers and husbands. Four men were sent to prison for between 5 1/2 and
    8 1/2 years for the rape of a 20-year-old woman at Mount Maunganui
    in 1989. Justice Ronald Young told the High Court at Wellington that the
    men had taken part in “deeply disgraceful acts” and three had planned
    what was a gang rape in the worst sense. “She was … treated by you as
    a piece of meat,” he told the men during sentencing. Only two of the men
    can be named. Justice Young continued the extensive suppression orders
    involving the other men[Brad Shipton & Bob Schollum] and details of the case. In jailing all four, he took into account that the attack was pre-meditated and that four of the five men involved – one has never been identified – watched as the others raped the woman. He said
    mitigating factors included that the men had no other convictions and
    that all had many references testifying to their good character before
    and since the rape. Justice Young said one of the men had intimidated the woman into not complaining[Bob Schollum] and two of the men believed they would get away with the crime.[Brad Shipton& Bob Schollum] “And you almost did,” he told the men. “Your
    arrogance, in my view, knew no bounds.”

    Comment by John Wiseman — Thu 18th May 2006 @ 6:39 pm

  8. I am very possibly naive but I am shocked if what I read on these pages is true. I have followed the Louise Nicholas case with interest and have not been so immersed that I knew or thought I knew the suppressed information. I have also been a strong advocate of the justice system and everyone’s right to a fair trial. I still believe that every effort should be made to ensure a fair trial. However, I am concerned that the suppression orders have served nobody. If two of these men are serving sentences, has the suppression remained in place on account of outstanding cases since Louise Nicholas’ case? If so, then a poor job has been made of it, everyone except me seems to know about it. The truth of what happened I may never know but given what these men have actually admitted to I wouldn’t want them marrying my daughter. Maybe it isn’t our place to know everything until ‘Justice’ has taken it’s course but I think that part of Justice is that any victim that has a court rule in his or her favour should have that acknowledgement made public. If the comments I have read are true, then when will this happen fully for this victim? How long will this suppression last? And, afterwards, will we re-adjust our thoughts on the Louise Nicholas case?

    Comment by ann miller — Sat 27th May 2006 @ 12:50 am

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