Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Scum of the earth

It's a good thing for Clint Rickards' lawyer John Haigh that he's not held to the same standard of testimony as rape survivors. From the Sydney Morning Herald:

Rickards defence lawyer John Haigh QC told the woman she had got "absolutely the wrong man" and that the incident never happened.
How can she have got the wrong man if it never happened? If Clint Rickards wasn't there then how can he instruct the lawyer on whether or not the incident happened?

Of course no-one is going to cross-examine John Haigh on the most traumatic event of his life. They're not going to call him a liar and claim that he can't be believed.They're not going to adjourn court when he starts crying and then start right back up again.

Don't even bother with everyone's right to legal representation - because this sort of representation is only the right of the rich. John Haigh is in this for the money and Clint Rickards is the only one who can afford him.

Apparently John Haigh also told the jury to disregard some erroneous information that has been in the public domain. I wonder what this information could be? All the information I've heard has been entirely roneous.

I have more to say about John Haigh's reported statements to the jury about a previous trial involving these men. But unfortunately suppression orders make it very difficult to do so - I will just say that the same suppression orders that stop me pointing out how very wrong John Haigh's argument is, may have the same affect on the crown.

6 comments:

  1. Michael10:20 am

    There's no worry about suppression orders affecting the Crown - they don't apply inside the courtroom. It's possible that the same information was ruled inadmissible though, you might know more about that than me.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous6:15 pm

    Clint Riccards has been stood down pending his two rape trials on full pay. The question is: how has he managed to wrangle close to $200,000 in legal aid to pay for a top QC?



    Riccards is currently studying law at Auckland University, in the belief that his career in the NZ police force is over.



    A second question is: if Riccards is on full pay as a suspended member of the NZ police force is it appropriate (or even legal) that he is using his government income as an officer of the law to finance himself into another career?



    How is it that he can afford his student fees but not his legal ones?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Are you sure anon that the QC has come from legal aid? I assumed that it was at least partly paid for by the Police Association (an assumption not based on anything really).

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous1:45 pm

    Rickards actually has NOT received any legal aid, that is incorrect. He is also not studying law, he is doing business studies and he is also not getting assistance from the police association.

    So in other words, he's paying for his defense himself.

    ReplyDelete
  5. That's interesting that he's not getting any help from the Police Assn, I would have thought they would do that unless they had good reason not to (or he wasn't a member, but I think all cops are? Maybe as senior management he has to join another union?).

    ReplyDelete
  6. and people wonder why only 16% of rapes are even reported.

    ReplyDelete