- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Tuesday, April 04, 2006

Louise Nicholas: suppression/violation



Hat tip: Three Point Turn

Stuff reports:

Defiant Louise Nicholas supporters say they will continue to distribute leaflets breaching court-ordered suppressions relating to the trial, despite a police inquiry.

The women – who said they were deliberately breaching the orders – are being investigated by police and the matter has been referred to the solicitor-general's office.

The group could face prosecution after handing out 1200 fliers to morning commuters at Wellington railway station yesterday.

They claimed much of the suppressed information had already been published on the internet, though a check last night suggested that was not the case.

Breaching suppression orders constitutes disobeying a court order and is deemed contempt.

The offence carries an open-ended penalty, which can include a fine or even a jail term.

The problem is that speculation will rage and although I don't know what the suppressed information is, how can I even discount any speculation? How can anyone tell? Must everyone guess at what it might be in order to ban it? What is acting responsibly in this situation mean?

Eg. this blog in the comments section:

I would love to have a copy of the leaflet to find out more. a.b
By Anonymous, at 6:51 PM

More = Schollum and Shipton attended Court from jail where they already are, for the pack rape in Mt Maunganui where a police baton was also used.
By Anonymous, at 4:59 AM

Now, I don't know if it's true or not. And no-one can claim it is or isn't without violating the suppression order by confirming it. So unless people hear from an officer of the court that what they have said is a suppression breach then I guess it stands as merely allegations?

Are the vigilante-type actions of those women understandable? We don't know until we know the facts of what was suppressed. What is forbidden? Does it undermine justice in this instance? And if so how? I find it difficult to even speak in generalities becasue I have no idea what the facts are that we're not allowed to talk about.


At 4/4/06 2:29 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mungo no understand: How come when the fucking pigs put out pamphlets about sex crims moving into your street thats not only fine and dandy, but the cops doing it become fucking heros - yet when someone else puts out pamphlets pointing out that two of these cops are sex offenders, oh they need to be dealt with by the full letter of the law? The whole thing stinks of a pig cover up!

At 4/4/06 4:57 pm, Blogger Bomber said...

More allegations here. Trying to get to the bottom of it.

At 5/4/06 9:56 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The "fucking pig" responsible for the above mentioned outing of a sex-criminal neighbour was also responsible for said sex crim receiving 25 large in compo for breach of his privacyt, thanks to Mr. Plod's heads-up to the neighbours. Contempt of court is contempt of court, no matter who you are. How would you like to be persecuted after you were found not guilty?

At 5/4/06 2:50 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have no idea who or what you are talking about
Last year 4 men were convicted of rape. One of the men made a lunch date with the woman, but instead of taking her to lunch, he took her to a shed where he raped her with four of his work collegagues.

Their occupations are supressed, what they did is suppressed, and the names of two of the rapists are suppressed. They raped her with a police baton.

AND NOW WE HAVE THE LOUISE NICHOLAS CASE – I wonder if the two cases are connected at all? Hey you know what, I also wonder how it is that we never see Schollum or Shipton? Fucking pigs!

At 5/4/06 8:55 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Was passing by Auck uni today to see hundreds of pamphlets handed out in the Quad violating the suppression order, prior to an SRC. Lively, informed debate ensued, motion carried with acclamation to support Wellington women.

Was on One News.

At 6/4/06 11:09 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

another court case to begin in wellington, moved from Rotorua, at the end of June.Names also suppressed, is it the same two again?

At 6/4/06 11:33 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is that possible? How much free time do these guys have on their hands?

At 6/4/06 1:52 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Child sex abuser awarded $25,000

A convicted paedophile has been awarded $25,000 damages for invasion of his privacy after police alerted people in his neighbourhood to his presence. Barry Brown - who has convictions for sexual offences dating back to 1982 - sued police in Wellington District Court for $80,000....

Published: Tuesday 21, March 2006 5:12.00 AM
Content Type: News
Words: 500

At 6/4/06 2:14 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...


That guy simply had the balls to jump up and down about his rights - what about the other convicted sex criminals last year who had vigilante action taken against them (even though the vast majority of sex crimes are within friend and family circles) - what about the intellectually hadicapped guy who was wrongly attacked after being singled out - WRONGLY- as a sex criminal - just because one person was able to stand up for themselves doesn't take away from my point that the cops have a code to look after their own

At 6/4/06 11:49 pm, Blogger Bomber said...

Vis a vis the blog linked to in the post - she's taken down all her comments :(

At 7/4/06 11:09 am, Blogger stephen said...

Following up to albie, wouldn't be a shame for a forthcoming case to be dropped because the accused argue they can't get a fair trial? And wouldn't it be ironic if the very people who want to see a guilty verdict were responsible for the inability to get a fair trial? Mmmm?

At 7/4/06 12:16 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm sure that pissy sentiment will keep Louise Nicholas warm at night - 'sorry love, we'd loved to have caught these dirty raping pigs for you, but the rules which we write for our benefit say otherwise' - whats the quote, "kill all the lawyers first"

At 7/4/06 12:22 pm, Blogger Bomber said...

Albie & SJ:
I don't want to fuck up any future trial. I don't think the rumours in this post (and in these comments for that matter) constitute anything that would prejudice a trial. ( and the jurors will be excused anyway won't they if they know of the forbidden secrets?) And if an officer of the court tells me that these rumours are in breech of the suppression order then I will take them down.

At 7/4/06 2:51 pm, Blogger stephen said...

Pissy? Hardly. If you used your brain, you'd realise that if there's a conspiracy to protect ex-cops, the flier distributors are helping it. The current suppression order is there to ensure that the defense can't claim a mistrial at a future hearing.

At 7/4/06 3:12 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You missed my point, so I'll slow it down for you,

At 7/4/06 3:31 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

He didn't miss the point as much as he chose to ignore it. I think Bomber's splein has more to do with have a go at cops-they're an easy target-than any feigned concerned for LN's welfare. Are laws made to be broken Bomber?

At 7/4/06 3:35 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

...of course i meant spleen, as in venting of.

At 9/4/06 12:15 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

been doing a bit of digging and came across this piece of interesting info,
it seems not long after, or before, not to sure of the excat dates, that a bussiness partner of Robert Francis Schollum, a Howard francis Russell who were joint directors in RUSCH HOLDINGS LIMITED http://www.companies.govt.nz/pls/web/dbssiten.main
died. http://www.marketing.org.nz/cms/News/1926.

i don't know how and under what circumstances, but they could be more to it, being a average joe, i don't have access to the data bases you would, and thought it may be worth looking into

At 9/4/06 12:25 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...


At 9/4/06 1:56 pm, Blogger Bomber said...

If someone had the time they could make a Wikipedia entry for Louise Nicholas, Schollum, Shipton & Rickards - surely that would get around the suppression orders?

Anon: Couldn't find anything on an initial perusal.

At 10/4/06 10:20 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Laws that don't see justice done are not really doin their job now are they kids - look at the end of the blog I'm glad guys can get off rape charges - phew, thank god a man wrote the law! I mean we can inspect Miss Nicholas and her past up to the most Gynaecological detail can't we, but we must not expose the accused to the same level of scrutiny - NO WAY - what I may or may not have done in a case where it is he said she said even though I may have done something that has THE EXACT SAME FUCKING MO - oh Christ no, that would be 'un-just'. When it comes to pig, I'm jewish.

At 11/4/06 1:32 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

i don't know Louise nicholas personally, but feel so helpless and angry at the disgusting way the New Zealand justice System and the police force have humiliated, denergarated and tortured her with this hideous misscarriage of justice.I feel that the public and jury should have known that Shipton and Schollum,along with pete macnamara, and( cant recall the other guys name) are already serving lengthy sentences for the kidnapping and pack rape of a Young Mount girly around the same time. makes you sick doesnt it?, I know this for a fact. shipton having the longest sentence of 8 and a half years.They are supposedly in Wellington doing their time in Rimutaka Prison.pigs they are, well done to the pamphlet girls!!!!!

At 18/4/06 10:56 pm, Blogger kgb_log said...

police culture has been cut to the bone by this revelation . these are the queens constabulary their first duty is to her before newzealanders
if the system was corrupt that corruption went to the top


Post a Comment

<< Home