Too dishonest to be a policemen...

...and therefore, says the Law Society, perfectly suited to be a lawyer:

Former Assistant Police Commissioner Clint Rickards has been granted the certificate of character he needs to be admitted to the bar as a lawyer.

And lawyers wonder why people make jokes about them.

UPDATE: Says Idiot/Savant at No Right Turn:

The New Zealand Law Society has decided that Clint Rickards is a "fit and proper person" to practice law. I can think of no better demonstration of the utter moral bankruptcy of the legal profession.

He's right you know.  If this doesn't convince you then let HL Mencken make the argument:

All the extravagance and incompetence of our present Government is due, in the main, to lawyers, and, in part at least, to good ones. They are responsible for nine-tenths of the useless and vicious laws that now clutter the statute-books, and for all the evils that go with the vain attempt to enforce them. Every Federal judge is a lawyer. So are most Congressmen. Every invasion of the plain rights of the citizens has a lawyer behind it. If all lawyers were hanged tomorrow, and their bones sold to a mah jong factory, we'd be freer and safer, and our taxes would be reduced by almost a half.

"What can we do to win the war against the drug P?"

With commendable honesty Minister Annette King confesses that the War on the Drug P is already lost.  The Herald follows up and asks, "What can we do to win the war against the drug P?"

Have they ever considered that this is a war than can't be won?  That the real damage is done by the War on Drugs itself? As Milton Friedman once told Bush Snr’s drugs tsar Bill Bennett, “You are not mistaken in believing that drugs are a scourge that is devastating our society. Your mistake is failing to recognize that the very measures you favour are a major source of the evils you deplore.”

I won't bore you with another reiteration of the arguments why the War on Drugs can't win (you can read most of my previous posts here), but just consider these few pointers:

• Since the government can't even keep drugs out of prisons, how can they keep them off the street?
• Removing the legal market for recreational drugs (even relatively benign party pills) has created an illicit one, run by criminals.
• Banning and arrests only reduces supply.  Since it does nothing to reduce demand, what do you think that does to price, and the profits of drug suppliers?
• Since banning and arresting drug suppliers puts police in conflict with huge amounts of money, what do you think this does to police morals (hint: Clint Rickards was once an undercover cop).
• Outlawing drugs leaves drugs in the hands of outlaws -- with huge profits driven by the reduced supply. (All praise the War on Drugs.)
• Criminals have no interest in things like quality control, honesty about the composition of a substance, or refraining from selling to children. (All praise the War on Drugs.)
• Outlawing drugs only increases the virulence of recreational drugs.  As Milton Friedman explained with his Iron Law of Prohibition, 'P' is precisely the sort of drug you get when you start a War on Drugs, since the more intense the law enforcement, the more potent the prohibited substance becomes.
• If it is impossible to win the war on drugs, and no government anywhere ever has, then the question surely becomes: should we have a legal, transparent, accountable market for drugs, or an illegal, secretive, unaccountable one?

So what do you think? Could it be that what's too often overlooked in the link everyone sees between illegal drugs and crime is the 'illegal' rather than the drugs?  That's certainly the position of the cops and former cops  from an organisation called LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) who argue that, "We believe that to save lives and lower the rates of disease, crime and addiction, as well as to conserve tax dollars, we must end drug prohibition."

In the end, none of these practical arguments will convince a soul, not as long as good people are convinced the health of their soul depends on having drugs banned. In other words, not as long as the morality behind the war on drugs remains unchallenged.  In the end, here's the telling point: That consenting adults have the right to make our own choices for ourselves, and we do. As with alcohol use, so too with drug use: youngsters need to be able to see both responsible drug use, and people saying no because they want to say no, not because their free will has been lobotomised.

Perhaps if you won't listen to the cops or to people like Friedman, you'll listen instead to the criminals:'
                                         

Justice not yet exemplary

The timely release of the Independent Police Conduct Authority report into Clint Rickards' complaints about the "shambles" he says was Operation Austin does at least remove the usual objection of justice delayed being justice denied, but while justice may well have been done with this report -- and let's hope it has been -- we have the problem once again that justice hasn't been seen to be done.

The review into Operation Austin was carried out by former commissioner Richard MacDonald and former acting deputy commissioner and acting assistant Commissioner Roger Carson, and was released yesterday by IPCA chairwoman Justice Lowell Goddard.  On the conclusion that Operation Austin was "exemplary," we have only have the judgement of Goddard, Carson and MacDonald on which to rely -- we have to take their word rather than have the opportunity to see the evidence of being exemplary for ourselves.  Goddard says, for example:

There was "no evidence at all" to support Mr Rickards' statement that Operation Austin had been a shambles.... "In fact, the opposite."

That's good.  But since the inquiry was held behind closed doors, we don't know this for ourselves.  This is justice neither to the police nor to the original complainants -- nor to Rickards.  Justice must be done, and it must be seen to be done.

It's good that the Police Complaints Authority is now independent -- at least nominally -- perhaps the next step should be that it is open, and truly independent.  It's what a mature democracy should require, and what confidence in the police demands.

Taser trials

One year of taser trialling is nearly over, and there is now a decision to be made: Do we want the police we pay for to carry tasers. Here below is what I said one year ago. I don't think we've learned anything since to change it?

* * * * *

Steven Wallace. Constable Murray Stretch. Detective Constable Duncan Taylor. Three people who may still be alive if the police had been allowed to carry tasers before now.

So tasers are a good thing. Let the trial begin!

However:

• Their use has been abused by police departments overseas.
  
• NZ's thuggish police culture has become evident in traffic policing and recent court hearings.
  
• We still have many, many laws on the books that are an affront to personal liberty, and that suggest that no matter what internal police guidelines are established for their use, tasers used by the NZ police are going to be used against some people that have committed no real crime, and some of them will be used when and how they shouldn't.

So if our police force was run by angels and we only had good law on the books, tasers would be an unreservedly good thing. Does that perhaps show the urgency of getting our laws right, and proper checks and balances over our police force?

I think so. Fine words and promises aren't enough. You can imagine for yourself how much restraint such fine words would exercise on Clint Rickards and his colleagues. If Tasers are to be introduced, proper legal checks and balance must be introduced to effect firm, entrenched, systematic and transparent restraint. Victimless crime laws must be repealed so innocent people are not 'Tased.' And as I argued here a short while ago, police systems need to urgently change to fix what most of us already know: that all is not well with the force. Trevor's ten points for fixing police systems would be something else to get on with quick-smart.

If the introduction of Tasers is urgent, as I believe it is, then all this needs to happen with speed.

And here's one further point:

• If the police are allowed to defend themselves with pepper spray and tasers, then why can't we? Why shouldn't NZers be allowed to own Tasers to defend themselves from attack? If the police need to defend themselves as a matter of urgency, which they do, then how much more urgent is it that we who are their employers are able to defend ourselves.

LINKS: Taser trial starts Friday - TVNZ
Taser protection - Not PC (an earlier post on which this one is based)

RELATED: Politics-NZ, Law, Victimless_Crimes, Self-Defence

Management fads and business books

Nothing is so banal or so stupid that it can't be picked up and used as the basis for a 'management textbook.' The Economist blog thinks they know why:

How can we tell which CEO's are stars, and how much they really bring to the bottom line? In part it's so difficult to determine because management theory is so awful... no one has any coherent idea of how one identifies a good CEO, or what good management practices are, which is why the business bookshelves are crowded with banalities set in big type for the casual airplane reader.

(Nothing is so stupid that it cannot be made into a framework for analysing your business; when I tried to freelance a parody piece on business book titles, I was stymied by the fact that the most outlandish ideas I could come up with—"Management secrets of the Carmelite Nuns"—had already actually been made into books by some optimistic editor. The only idea which had not already made it into print in some very similar form was "How to make a killing in business: Strategic secrets of America's greatest serial killers". No doubt it is forthcoming from Harcourt Brace this year.)

This got local blogger Jim Donovan thinking about some Kiwi variants [hat tip DPF]:

• The Jerry Collins Guide to Ambush Marketing
• Building a Global Brand on a Limited Budget, by Nicole Begg (Hang on, she’s just done that)

And he's offered a prize for "the best Kiwi business book title in the genre of Management secrets of the Carmelite Nuns and How to make a killing in business: Strategic secrets of America’s greatest serial killers" -- well, a small prize. Some of the best so far, from both Jim's and DPF's:

• Economics for Dummies, by Michael Cullen
• The Buyers Guide to Elections (2007 Revevised Version), by Helen Clark
  
• Bran Flake, by Dick Hubbard
• Downsizing your Business, and Yourself, By Rodney Hide
• Corporate Uniformity: Brand Enforcement, by the Mongrel Mob
• The Rickards Way: Secrets of Team Building from the Team Policing Specialists, by Clint Rickards and Brad Shipton
• Being a Team Player, by Ali Williams (as told to Bill Ralston)
• Discipline in the Workplace, S. Bradford
• Ganging Up On Your Competitors, T. Turia
• Guaranteed Returns: A Guide to Property and Foreign Exchange Investment, by Dr A. Bollard
• Kyoto…A beginners guide, by P. Hodgson
• Negotiation: How to Give it All Away, by John Key

Any others?

UPDATE: All joking aside, and far be it for me to disagree with such an august periodical as The Economist, but while it's true that most management theory is awful, it's not true to say that it's impossible to identify a good CEO.

In fact, psychologist Edwin Locke -- internationally known for his research on goal setting (a recent survey found that Locke's goal setting theory was ranked #1 in importance among 73 management theories, none of them awful) -- has made a study of that very thing. His book, The Prime Movers: Traits of the Great Wealth Creators does exactly what it says: it studies the great wealth creators to understand the traits needed to be a walking, talking, thinking engine of production. Introducing the book, banker John Allison says,

Dr. Locke is unequivocally clear that productive geniuses from Thomas Edison to Bill Gates are the Prime Movers of human progress. While these men amassed great fortunes, they raised the standard of living for all of us...

What characteristics enabled these men to make such a significant contribution? These great creators have the capacity to see the big picture trends others cannot foresee -- vision. They have active and independent minds with an undying commitment to action, the capacity to make rational decisions based on the facts, the ability to judge ability in others, and the willingness to reward superior contributions by others. These attributes produce a level of confidence and competence that leads to success.

Dr. Locke's view is radically different from the common belief that progress more or less happens automatically or is the result of some undefined collective effort. Dr. Locke sees a relatively small number of outstanding individuals who make a disproportionate contribution to human well-being...

If the characteristics that Dr. Locke discusses have contributed to these individuals' success, we should teach these attributes to our children. Clearly, the foundation attribute is an unwavering commitment to make independent, rational decisions based on the facts-which is the ultimate form of honesty.

For the full menu of traits Locke identifies, you'll need to read his book for yourself. Unlike most of the titles above, it really is worth it.

Child beaters won't listen anyway

I paraphrase from Lindsay Mitchell:

Just as micro-chipping dogs does not stop dog attacks, neither will repeal of section 59 stop child abuse.

As Lindsay says, Sue Bradford's bill is a red herring. Removal of section 59 won't stop child abuse because child abuse is already against the law -- and none of the child abusers care. Removal of section 59 won't stop child abuse because it won't tackle the causes of child abuse, but it will make criminals out of good parents.

But good parents won't get prosecuted, you say? Remember to whom you're giving discretion: to Clint Rickards' colleagues. D'you trust Clint et al to exercise power with discretion?

Notice too that Sue Bradford, the promoter of repeal, says we'll all need to be re-educated to conform to her view of the world. As I've said before, this is about far more than just smacking: it's about getting the state further into families.

PS: Do you think the Pink Tories will overturn this when or if they come to power? Don't make me laugh.

UPDATE: Discretion? Don't make me laugh, says Police Association president Greg O'Connor [hat tip Sir Humph]:

O'Connor said police guidelines in their current form made it clear they would have no choice but to act on smacking complaints...

Unless there was a change to the guidelines once the law was passed, police would have no discretion. "If it is family violence and there is evidence of violence, the policy is quite clear, the offender must be arrested. "That means an admission or a witness saying they saw someone smack. Police will have no choice but to arrest a person acting on a complaint."

A commenter at the Humphs makes the telling point: "I think that the biggest impact the passing of this bill will have is not really going to be in the criminal courts but in the family court. Where there is a bitter divorce this will be a favoured weapon." And so it will.

RELATED POSTS ON: Smacking, NZ Politics, Greens

Sunday Star Drek

Has the Sunday Star Times anything going for it?

This is the 'newspaper' that in recent times splashed spectacularly across its front page the stories of Tariana Turia's bugging by the SIS (she wasn't), loudly compared Don Brash to racist Pauline Hanson (he isn't), and broke the news that conspiracy specialist Ian Wishart was about to publish [gasp] 'news' about Helen Clark's husband (he didn't). None of these 'scoops' were out of character, and nor did the editor seem at all chastened by the fact that her front page and the truth apparently dwelt in different counties.

The lesson seems to be that if it's in the Sunday Star Times, particularly anywhere near the front page, then don't believe a word.

Yesterday's Focus puff piece (seemingly written and photographed by Clint Rickards' press agent) was just another piece of drek to add to the pile, and almost the only part of last weekend's offering that didn't get a well deserved going over by Paul at The Fundy Post, who seems to have the same opinion of the back pages of the rag as I do about the front [Hat tip Russell].

That the SST's editor considers Michael Laws' opinion as worth publishing is just one more reason to read something else, anything else, on a Sunday.

Innocent until proven guilty

Is it justice or injustice to withhold the information of a defendant's previous conviction from a jury? That's the question many people are asking this morning.

Shipton and Schollum were found guilty in 2005 of a similar rape to the one with which they were charged in the recent case; that rape happened at a similar time to this one. That conviction surely speaks volumes about their character, doesn't it? Shouldn't juries be made aware of the type of people they are judging?

My answer: Not necessarily.

You see, juries are rightly required to judge only on the facts before them. The prosecution is required to lay out the facts that prove beyond doubt that the defendants did what the prosecution says they did, and if the evidence itself can't convict, then a jury is rightly required to deliver a not guilty verdict. This is how innocent people are protected from unfair convictions. This is what it means to be innocent until proven guilty -- a person's guilt on specific charges must be proved by the facts germane to those charges.

But surely the character of the defendants is important to a case? Well, not necessarily. Character can certainly become an issue during sentencing. And it can become an issue too if the defendants choose to stand on their character and make that part of their defence; at that point, a previous conviction would certainly be germane. If their lawyer was to say, "These aren't the sort of men who would do this sort of thing," then straightaway a previous conviction comes on point.

But Shipton and Schollum's lawyer didn't do that for them. He couldn't -- and not just because of the prior conviction. It's true that former All Black Steve McDowell was called to give evidence on behalf of Clint Rickards (and based on the paucity of factual testimony offered by McDowell, we can only conclude he was called as an 'informal' character witness for a man very much short of the quality) but given the previous conviction -- and what that conviction was for -- the defence knew in this case that they just couldn't go there; they were unable to use their character as any sort of defence, or even to place Schollum or Shipton in the witness box lest they inadvertently make their own character an issue -- and the defence was hamstrung here not just because of the previous conviction, but also because the character of all three defendants is so loathsome.

Rickards did take the stand, and even at the distance offered by the filter of television, radio and newspaper his thuggishness and brutality was clear enough. Yet despite this obvious thuggishness, which we figure must surely have stared the jury in the face, the jury concluded that the facts did not support a conviction in this case. Such is their right. They saw all the facts that the prosecution had determined related to this case, and we didn't. Their verdict was given on the basis of those facts.

Justice, we have to say, has been done in this case, and on these charges.

But the character of all three men has now been laid bare for all time, and it's not a pretty sight. And that sort of character is itself is a life sentence.

Rule No. 1: No Assholes!

Somehow, the conversation around the water cooler this afternoon has come around to the issue of assholes and their employment. What do you do when you find out that you've hired an asshole, and how do you avoid hiring assholes again?

As it happens, Stanford professor Robert Sutton -- the author of the book The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn't -- shares a few thoughts on that very subject here: How to deal with jerks, bullies, louts, boors, entry-level brutes, schmucks, rascals, jackasses, antagonisers, tormentors, schmos, browbeaters and assholes.

These people are destructive, he says -- they're assholes! -- and the simple fact is that you should apply a 'no asshole rule' in hiring. He offers up some tips on that. And if you're already encumbered? "You can actually calculate the total cost of assholes, or TCA," and use that in their termination notice, he says. Eminently practical.

And here's a quiz to find out if, just possibly, you are that asshole.

By the way, this conversation has absolutely nothing to do with Clint Rickards. Nothing at all. Not a thing. No relevance whatsoever.

LINKS: The Bully Rulebook & the No Asshole Rule - Inc.Com
Quiz: Are you an asshole? - Inc.Com

"Downright predatory"

Seems to me that this point from Idiot/Savant is pretty much unarguable:

The jury is out in the latest police rape trial. But regardless of what their verdict ultimately is, it has painted an ugly picture of our (former) police.

Any argument with that?

Whatever the decision today, in each of the cases prior to this one a jury has found them not guilty of the charges laid, but the evidence adduced in all cases (much of which was conceded under oath) has shown them thoroughly guilty of being complete and utter assholes -- of being, as I/S says, "downright predatory," and thoroughly disgusting human beings. And these men were policemen; and one achieved the rank of Assistant Police Commissioner.

That paints an awfully ugly picture indeed about the make-up of NZ's police force.

UPDATE 1: All three men have just been found not guilty of the legal charges of indecent assault and kidnapping. That verdict doesn't alter the point made above in any way.

UPDATE 2: Now that the verdict is out, so too is the suppressed information. Former policemen Bob Schollum and Brad Shipton have been visiting the courthouse every day from their home in jail, after having been found guilty in 2005 of a historic rape charge, and being sentenced to eight and eight-and-a-half year sentences respectively on that charge.

UPDATE 3: Answering one of the many further questions surrounding this case, that is, the future status of suspended Assistant Police Commissioner Clint Rickards, Deputy Police Commissioner Rob Pope has just confirmed that "Police will now move to address employment issues... Mr Rickards will remain under suspension during this process." Stuff story here.

You'd have to feel shat upon if you'd been one of the police team putting together this and related prosecutions, only to find that Mr Rickards employment has been "addressed," he's been reinstated, and he's your new boss.

Does he seem like a forgiving chap to you?

LINKS: An ugly picture - Idiot/Savant, No Right Turn
Police sex trial jury retires for night - NZ Herald

RELATED POSTS ON: New Zealand, Law

Taser trial

Steven Wallace. Constable Murray Stretch. Detective Constable Duncan Taylor. Three people who may still be alive if the police had been allowed to carry tasers before now.

So tasers are a good thing. Let the trial begin!

However:

• Their use has been abused by police departments overseas.
  
• NZ's thuggish police culture has become evident in traffic policing and recent court hearings.
  
• We still have many, many laws on the books that are an affront to personal liberty, and that suggest that no matter what internal police guidelines are established for their use, tasers used by the NZ police are going to be used against some people that have committed no real crime, and some of them will be used when and how they shouldn't.

So if our police force was run by angels and we only had good law on the books, tasers would be an unreservedly good thing. Does that perhaps show the urgency of getting our laws right, and proper checks and balances over our police force?

I think so. Fine words and promises aren't enough. You can imagine for yourself how much restraint such fine words would exercise on Clint Rickards and his colleagues. If Tasers are to be introduced, proper legal checks and balance must be introduced to effect firm, entrenched, systematic and transparent restraint. Victimless crime laws must be repealed so innocent people are not 'Tased.' And as I argued here a short while ago, police systems need to urgently change to fix what most of us already know: that all is not well with the force. Trevor's ten points for fixing police systems would be something else to get on with quick-smart.

If the introduction of Tasers is urgent, as I believe it is, then all this needs to happen with speed.

And here's one further point:

• If the police are allowed to defend themselves with pepper spray and tasers, then why can't we? Why shouldn't NZers be allowed to own Tasers to defend themselves from attack? If the police need to defend themselves as a matter of urgency, which they do, then how much more urgent it that we who are their employers are able to defend ourselves.

LINKS: Taser trial starts Friday - TVNZ
Taser protection - Not PC (an earlier post on which this one is based)

RELATED: Politics-NZ, Law, Victimless_Crimes, Self-Defence

Taser protection

There are two sides to the introduction of Tasers. Here's one:

• If the police had Tasers then Steven Wallace, Constable Murray Stretch, and Detective Constable Duncan Taylor might still be alive.

However:

• Their abuse by police departments overseas, NZ's somewhat thuggish police culture -- which has become so evident in traffic policing and through recent court hearings -- and the many, many laws on the books that are an affront to personal liberty suggest that no matter what internals police guidelines are established for their use, tasers used by the NZ police are going to be used against some people that have committed no real crime, and some of them will be used when and how they shouldn't.

The first point makes the introduction of Tasers urgent. The second point makes it important that their introduction is done right, with proper checks and balances and not just fine words. A promise from police Superintendent John Rivers "that there will be no relaxation over time, Tasers will only ever be used as an absolute last resort," is just not enough. You can imagine for yourself how much restraint such fine words would exercise on Clint Rickards and his colleagues.

If Tasers are to be introduced, proper legal checks and balance must be introduced to effect firm, entrenched, systematic and transparent restraint. Victimless crime laws must be repealed so innocent people are not 'Tased.' And as I argued here a short while ago, police systems need to urgently change to fix what most of us already know: that all is not well with the force. Trevor's ten points for fixing police systems would be something else to get on with quick-smart.

If the introduction of Tasers is urgent, as I believe it is, then all this needs to happen with speed. And here's one further point:

• why shouldn't NZers be allowed to own Tasers to defend themselves from attack? If the police need to defend themselves as a matter of urgency, which they do, then how much more urgent it that we who are their employers are able to defend ourselves.
  

LINKS: Stun guns worry experts - TVNZ
It's an unfair cop - Not PC (Peter Cresswell)
How to save our police force - New Zeal (Trevor Loudon)
Police Tasers: Good for them, good for us - Not PC (August, 2005)

TAGS: Politics-NZ, Law, Victimless_Crimes, Self-Defence

Top ten searches. Sigh.

Here's the list of top ten searches landing at this blog at the moment. Can you see any common denominator? Do you think they've read this? Or this? Or worked out why publishing what they're publishing they'll hurt their own cause before they help it?

suppressed information in rickards rape trial
reverse waffle slab
nz rape trial rickards
nz louise nicholas rape
willie jackson eye to eye maori
neutra, desert house
clint rickards suppressed evidence
medalla milagrosa candela
louise nicholas rape trial nz
frank lloyd wright broadacre city

LINKS: Suppressing information. A challenge to free speech? - Peter Cresswell
Another blog breaks the law - Kiwiblog

TAGS: Free_Speech, Law, Politics-NZ

Suppressing information. A challenge to free speech?

The use of suppression orders in recent trials has come in for much debate, not least in two trials involving and alleging gang rape, the latest being the suppression orders from the Louise Nicholas/Clint Rickards (et al) trials just finished, and currently being informally challenged. A commenter here asked for my opinion on the various breaches of the suppression order in the recent rape trial: "PC," said Yalnikim, "I'm looking forward to your thoughts on "free speech versus information suppression." So here they are.

I can sympathise with those handing out leaflets assaying facts about both this case and a previous case -- just part of the information denied to the media by the courts' various orders suppressing media reports of names and of evidence given in the trials. On the face of it, the suppression appears to deny both the right to free speech and the principle that justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done.

It doesn't.

There are two very good reasons for the use of suppression orders in trials. Here's the first: As you'll probably recall, there is an important legal principle that protects all of us saying that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty --- and that means innocent of the particular crime for which they are being charged. For the most part, the law still follows this principle -- and so it should. The reason for courts having the power to suppress evidence and trial reports is to protect the innocent until or unless their guilt has been proven.

Which leads to the second very good reason, in some ways a corollary of the first. If you'll recall the 'Propositions on Free Speech' I posted here a few weeks ago (which it might be worth re-reading at this point), one of those important propositions sets out the limits to free speech: "My freedom ends where your nose begins. My free speech ends where your rights begin." The reason for suppression orders is to protect those before the courts whose guilt is being judged, and who are therefore innocent before the law. Your free speech ends where their noses begin.

So in my submission then, even though it's increasingly difficult to put them into effect, suppression orders in trials do provide an important legal protection upholding the rights of the innocent. It's sometimes appropriate to argue about the appropriateness of particular suppression orders, as it's often possible to disgree with particular trial verdicts, but in doing do it's important not to throw out the legal baby with your emotional bathwater.

LINKS: Pack rape four found guilty - Scoop (5 July, 2005)
No more Nicholas fliers - for now - Stuff
Some propositions on free speech - Peter Cresswell

TAGS: Free_Speech, Law, Politics-NZ

Rickards v Nicholas

With the verdict out on the trial of Clint Rickards et al and Louise Richards (and make no mistake, she was on trial here too) it should be possible now to comment on the case and on the verdict.

On the face of it, not guilty on all counts seems the correct legal verdict. The moral verdict however looks a whole lot different. Rickard and co may not be guilty of rape, but they do seem guilty of being unpleasant and swinish human beings. Pigs. Not somebody you would want knocking at your door asking for a favour when you're home alone. Not someone you want as Police Commissioner.

However. Our problem as observers and commentators is that too much of the evidence could not make the media (by order of the judge), and in any case we don't have the advantage the jury has of seeing all the witnesses, all the evidence and the entire case of both prosecution and defence. What was not heard? How bad was it? Against whom was it directed? With that significant caveat, from what could be seen it does at least suggest the jury got it right. It's now our own job to make our own moral judgement, and the job of someone else to decide on Rickards's future in the police force.

Does the jury's not guilty verdict mean that Rickard should get his job back? He's been found not guilty of rape, but shown horribly guilty of poor judgement, awful behaviour, thuggish ignorance. Is that the sort of man you want as Police Commissioner? As the head of the only organisation in the country legally allowed to use force? And if Rickard became Commissioner, would you like to be one the police investigators who helped put together the prosecution's case against him?

TAGS: Law, New_Zealand