BCL

35 Rae88 SPILLS THE BEANS

Home | 36 LOOSE LIPS SINK SHIPS »

25/10/2005

The Minister of Police
Parliament Buildings
Wellington

Dear Ms King,

How much taxpayer’s money did the Police pay former Mangakino Constable Colin Andrew McLean as compensation for their malicious rape prosecution against him and to maintain his silence about the criminal malfeasance alluded to in the following Internet chat room thread?

The conversation is mainly between a former Probation Officer (rae88) and myself (jackinabox)

This request is made pursuant to the Official Information Act 1982.

Yours faithfully
J Van Der Lubbe

Wanganui

———————————————————————–

Jack I spent every working day for many years either in courts or in prisons, I had daily contact with police in a professional capacity so as I’ve said, DON”T presume, cos you don’t know. I could also give you a story about a top cop now retired and in the public eye that is really bent, This story would really enhance your web site, but I wouldn’t do it, because at the end of the day, when my family needs support, there is only one choice, and its a job I wouldn’t do. Becareful who you abuse on here, you know nothing ol’ man.

rae88

———————————————————————–

Have you ever worked/lived in or near Rotorua?

jackinabox

———————————————————————–

Jack - I was a PO in the Hamilton area for a while, they seconded me their to clean up the serious case list that had become a mess - yes I have done reports for the Rotorua Court.

rae88

———————————————————————–

1. Does ding dong ring a Bell rae88?

“I could also give you a story about a top cop now retired and in the public eye that is really bent, This story would really enhance your web site,” Post it up in Your Stories rae, no names/places required.”

jackinabox (0 ) 7:31 pm, 28 Sep

———————————————————————–

2. Looks a bit like someone who blurs the line

balisal (326 ) 7:33 pm, 28 Sep

———————————————————————–

3. The line was blurred on purpose Bali
I’m sorry Jack but I am not giving you any more details on here. As I have said previously, this cop was convicted of rape, but when I interviewed him and the victim I found some very disturbing and conflicting differences, when I researched further I found the whole thing was political, and that someone in command was lying to me to protect some police matters. I’m sorry but I won’t give you the story, because at the end of the day Jack, I still have faith in our police, besides their mistakes, they are a necessary part of our society.

rae88 (8 ) 7:40 pm, 28 Sep

———————————————————————–

4. not you rae - dong dong

balisal (326 ) 7:41 pm, 28 Sep

———————————————————————–

5. Sounds extremely juicy rae,
convicted of rape aye, that narrows the field down a bit. It’s got to be either S or S.

jackinabox (0 ) 7:44 pm, 28 Sep

———————————————————————–

6. Yes, well obviously you both know
who I mean, and yes, he did lie to me, infact he did it in writing, the cop involved had his conviction dropped partly because I kept that fax. If you do know who I am talking about, it was in the papers at the time he was convicted, the public were crying for this cop’s head - he was due to get a big perf payment, and the public wanted the perfing scheme cancelled because of it. Naturally the Police did not want to lose it, so it was in their best interests to make sure this cop was painted to be a real bad guy and kicked out of the police force so the public would feel happy, and the scheme would remain intact.

rae88 (8 ) 7:45 pm, 28 Sep

LINK

———————————————————————–

7. Its actually a very sad story,
that actually began with the day a policeman asked his best friend, another cop to stand in for him on night duty…. the guy that stood in for him was Murray Stretch, who died that night.

rae88 (8 ) 7:48 pm, 28 Sep

———————————————————————–

8. rae i think the perf thing has been stopped now
with term policing.Could be wrong though

bodgee (1 ) 7:50 pm, 28 Sep

———————————————————————–

9. It has been drastically reduced
for a while there were the two schemes going depending on how long you had served, used to be $3 for 1 I think, then $2 for 1, and now it might be $1 for 1, if its still intact. I know a detective friend of mine, been in for 20 odd years stood to get about $500,000 +.

rae88 (8 ) 7:52 pm, 28 Sep

———————————————————————–

10. You wouldn’t think that
lil old Mangakino would be such a hotbed of Police intrigue.

jackinabox (0 ) 7:59 pm, 28 Sep

———————————————————————–

11. Ok, Jack, you’ve obviously got it
but I’m sorry I can’t give details that aren’t a matter of public record. Unfortunately when the Cop involved conviction was cancelled, the Courts suppressed all details as the police did not want them released. So I can’t give more than I already have.

rae88 (8 ) 8:01 pm, 28 Sep

———————————————————————–

12. Thanks
rae

jackinabox (0 ) 8:05 pm, 28 Sep

———————————————————————–

13. and thats probably too much
rae

bodgee (1 ) 8:09 pm, 28 Sep

———————————————————————–

14. There’s no doubt about your
morality bodgee.

jackinabox (0 ) 8:11 pm, 28 Sep

———————————————————————–

15. No Jack, don’t doubt bodgees morality
he is probably right, and as I said at the beginning, I have had the choice of releasing this to the media for almost five years, I choose not to because there is nothing good that can come of it. We need the police, why destroy someone that may have made mistakes, but still has worked hard and done a good job, a tough job that many won’t or wouldn’t do. At the end of the day, the story is nothing without the evidence I have, and you can rest assured Bodgee, I am not releasing it ever. There are no winners in this type of thing.

rae88 (8 ) 8:17 pm, 28 Sep

———————————————————————–

16. All forms of corruption
should be exposed and all bent cops should eliminated from the Police. These are the same cops that give false evidence in court that destroys innocent peoples lives without compunction or fear of being dobbed in by their peers.

jackinabox (0 ) 8:26 pm, 28 Sep

———————————————————————–

17. I’m going to be a Nana here and
vote this thread off. Firstly because I am not saying more, and secondly because I’ve probably said too much, and thirdly because no one has been able to offer a decent alternative,and there is nothing to be achieved by destroying our police force, in order to do their jobs they must remain aloof, and on an upper level. I understand why they do what they do.

rae88 (8 ) 8:28 pm, 28 Sep

———————————————————————–

18. Cleaning out the rubbish
is not destroying the Police rae.

jackinabox (0 ) 8:32 pm, 28 Sep

———————————————————————–

19. Mind you if all the rubbish was cleaned out
the NZ Police would be a skellital blue line.

jackinabox (0 ) 8:35 pm, 28 Sep

———————————————————————–

20. skeletal
hehe

jackinabox (0 ) 8:39 pm, 28 Sep

———————————————————————–

21. rae - I respect your work & views
but I have to wonder re the professionalism - putting so much detail on a public MB - sorry, my dear, - it does not sit comfortably with me - you may call me ‘old fashioned’- & maybe the guidelines that were laid down in ‘my days’ as a SW have been superceded! Did you know that anything said here can be used against you in a court of law? I don’t want to sound like I’m preaching - are you reasonably ‘new’ to your line of work??? If so - the enthusiasm you have for it - should perhaps be tempered with some caution?

nannieannie (104 ) 8:42 pm, 28 Sep

———————————————————————–

22. Honesty
is a virtue nannie.

jackinabox (0 ) 8:45 pm, 28 Sep

———————————————————————–

23. yeah I know
I think rae realises that maybe she has gone overboard- see #17 - for her own sake - I am going to be a nana - she requested it eh?

nannieannie (104 ) 8:51 pm, 28 Sep

———————————————————————–

24. very good Liz
me too!

balisal (326 ) 8:53 pm, 28 Sep

———————————————————————–

25. Nannie, I did the job for years,
and no longer do it. I have not said anything on this message board that has not been published in the papers, therefore it is a matter of public record, and cannot be used against me. As I said I no longer do the job so could realise all details other than the details of the cancellation of conviction by the court of appeal, if I choose to, but I don’t wish to. I have worked with the law for many years and are fully aware of what is and isn’t allowed, there are many things I have not said on here, The offenders name was published,however I have not given it…. but I have given enough for people who know the case to work it out. Please don’t worry, I know exactly what I am doing.

rae88 (8 ) 8:55 pm, 28 Sep

———————————————————————–

26. likewise
the gorgeous one( ha ha ha ha ha) Thanx Deb

bodgee (1 ) 8:55 pm, 28 Sep

———————————————————————–

27. How ever, I don’t want Jack to use
what is written here, which is why I want it voted off. I support the police and I think they do a job that many /most could not do. Hence, not taking any action, nor giving Jack the details he needs.

rae88 (8 ) 8:57 pm, 28 Sep

———————————————————————–

28. come on people
vote the thread off

bodgee (1 ) 8:58 pm, 28 Sep

———————————————————————–

29. bodgee how do I vote the whole thread off?
can only find how to vote individual comments?

rae88 (8 ) 8:59 pm, 28 Sep

———————————————————————–

30. Vote the first posting off rae

gamefisher (358 ) 9:02 pm, 28 Sep

———————————————————————–

31. oh ok, have tried working my way down
the list…. thanx.

rae88 (8 ) 9:02 pm, 28 Sep

———————————————————————–

32. Bit of panic
here folks.

jackinabox (0 ) 9:07 pm, 28 Sep

———————————————————————–
33. I’ve helped to vote it off rae…
…

warmnz (120 ) 9:11 pm, 28 Sep

———————————————————————–

34. Thanks for doing that
and thanks nannie, my answer sounds a bit rude but it wasn’t meant that way, I do appreciate your advice and help with getting rid of this.

makjar (1105 ) 9:13 pm, 28 Sep

AND THEN THEY GOT TOGETHER AGAIN AND GOT ME BANNED FROM THE FORUM.
=======================================================================

Policeman accused of brutal rape of women
ROTORUA - Mangakino Constable Colin Andrew McLean allegedly punched a woman in the head before ripping her underpants off and raping her. At…NZ HERALD
18 May 2000
=======================================================================
Name: Raewyn
Suburb: Lower Hutt City
policy analyst and PG consultant…..
plus partner in PC business. Mum of 5, professional sweetie !!!

31. Mad, probation officers deal with
very violent criminals. Do do their sentencing reports you are locked in a 2mx2m cell with them alone for 2 hours… in which time you get them to talk about the 48 hours up to their offence… you ask them about their feelings, emotions, thoughts, body actions etc… you get them to relive their offending… if you have someone that is Maori who is upset because a probation officer dissed Maori tradition in the manner Josie did, don’t you think that puts the other probation officer a little at risk… some crims will find any reason to be aggro…Josie gave them a good one..

rae88

33. I am 5′4″ Blonde and average build

these offenders tower over me and out weigh me by heaps. To be locked in with them, without a guard in sight is very intimidating at the best of times, imagine doing a report for a rapist and having them go over their offence… thought by thought, feeling by feeling, body action by body action … and all the time having them giving you the evils and calling you ‘racist’ because some other thoughtless PO decided to make a fuss in public about something that wasn’t even sexist in the first place …

rae88 (8 )

39. Yes Mad, that is why only talented PO’s
get to do the prison sentencing reports, it takes a special kind of person to be able to not be affected and control the situation… someone has to do it, and women are better at it than men …. I realise that most people don’t understand a PO’s job, but the rules aren’t flakey ones they are for a good reason.
>
>
>
rae88 spills the beans 1
>
>

———————————————————————————————————————–
Monday, 10 July 2006

John Belgrave
Chief Ombudsman
PO Box 10152
Wellington

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your letter of 5 July 2006.

The first thing I noticed is that in your letter my initial request
has been truncated from “How much taxpayer’s money did the Police pay
former Mangakino Constable Colin Andrew McLean as compensation for
their malicious rape prosecution against him and to maintain his
silence about the criminal malfeasance alluded to in the following
Internet chat room thread?” to “…how much taxpayer’s money did
Police pay to former Mangakino Constable, Colin Andrew McLean”.

Call me pedantic if you wish but by truncating my request the crucial
portion of it has been done away with and its meaning has been watered
down to try to fit the constraints of section 9 (2) (a) or whatever of
the OIA. Had there been an etc instead of a full stop at the end of
the shortened paragraph I might have let it slide. I also notice the
Police haven’t denied they paid a settlement or that they tried to
shaft Mr McLean.

The Police letter of 7 Feb 2006 states “the information you seek
relates to a personal matter between Mr McLean and the Police. It is
not Police practice to release such information about such matters.
After careful consideration I have therefore decided to refuse your
request in terms of section 9 (2) (a) of the Official Information
Act1982 to protect the privacy of an individual…”.

It’s not the privacy of an individual that is being protected here,
it’s the Police protecting a number of their own members who conspired
together to destroy Constable McLean by foul means and when that evil
conspiracy ultimately failed they used taxpayers money to buy McLean’s
silence. There is no way that section 99 (2) (a), (2)(ba)(ii) or any
other slide out from under the muck section can be applied in this
matter because it was a criminal enterprise from start to finish.
Applying section 9 (2) (a), 9(2)(ba)(ii) or whatever to continue the
cover up is quite simply a continuation of the initial conspiracy.

Furthermore the disclosure of this major criminal malfeasance would
not be likely to prejudice the supply of similar information, or
information from the same source because no information was supplied
to the police from any source (Rae88’s information that Colin McLean
had been screwed over by the Police was given to McLean’s defence
team.) AND the only damage that would occur should the information be
made public would be to the criminal cops who sought to annihilate
Constable McLean and also to those who orchestrated the cover up. The
Public would be well rid of that lot.

I’m not surprised that the terms of the settlement between the parties
were confidential, it would be a disaster for the Police in general
and the conspirators in particular if the sordid details of this
diabolical affair became public knowledge and I dare say that Colin
McLean went along with the terms of the grubby settlement because he
didn’t want to see the rest of the Police suffer because of the
criminal behaviour of a few bent cops. I also suppose that the huge
cash settlement proffered to him and the closure it presented was
another incentive to sign the documents.

The Police certainly had good reason to withhold the information I
requested but not because doing so would be detrimental to the public
interest.

Yours faithfully
J Van Der Lubbe

Wanganui.

Just as useless as in 1987 but LooseLips proved the 1987 decision wrong, I wonder when these buggers will be proved wrong too?

———————————————————————————————————————–New trial for police officer

Sep 12, 2001

A former Mangakino police officer convicted of raping and assaulting a woman in 1997 has been granted a retrial.

The Court of Appeal has released its decision on the case of former police officer Colin Andrew McLean.

McLean was convicted of the 1997 rape and assault of a woman in Tokoroa and sentenced to five years jail.

While the Court of Appeal has released its decision, it has suppressed most details in the 13 page judgement until completion of the retrial.

However, it says that because a new trial has been granted there is no foundation for the Crown’s appeal against McLean’s five year sentence and it is dismissed.

It is not known when the new trial will be held.

———————————

« 34 COCK-UPS | Home | 36 LOOSE LIPS SINK SHIPS »

45 Responses to “35 Rae88 SPILLS THE BEANS”

  1. This was my question.

    “How much taxpayer’s money did the Police pay former Mangakino Constable Colin Andrew McLean as compensation for their malicious rape prosecution against him and to maintain his silence about the criminal malfeasance alluded to in the following Internet chat room thread?”

    Did Mr Annan answer my question reasonably or did he obfuscate?

    Jack | March 6th, 2006 at 8:12 pm

  2. I don’t think he was obfuscating, just merely saying ‘No’! :-)

    scud | March 7th, 2006 at 12:36 pm

  3. What a load of rubbish, the conversation above is alterted and fabricated to suite your own needs. It does not give the full details. This man can not be trusted or believed. Check with the local police for their opinion of this person that is obsessed with one topic and just can’t move on it life. He has made an innocent topic and turned it round into something to advance his cause…. sick, extremely sick.

    Rae88 | March 7th, 2006 at 1:23 pm

  4. “This man can not be trusted or believed.”

    That’s a bit rich coming from someone who is pretending to be rae88.

    “11. Ok, Jack, you’ve obviously got it
    but I’m sorry I can’t give details that aren’t a matter of public record. Unfortunately when the Cop involved conviction was cancelled, the Courts suppressed all details as the police did not want them released. So I can’t give more than I already have.

    rae88 (8 ) 8:01 pm, 28 Sep”

    You recon I “fabricated” that to suite my own needs Rae88?

    Jack | March 7th, 2006 at 2:13 pm

  5. Turns out the cops knew all along who it was that fed the Crewe’s baby but kept it to themselves because it wasn’t Arthur Thomas’s wife. Is Mrs Demler still alive?

    Jack | March 12th, 2006 at 1:10 pm

  6. But Jack remember that you and I are the only ones who think police are corrupt. Keeping facts like these away from the public which clearly show others to be involves was “bad judgement” not police corruption.
    well thats what the defenders of this corrupt police force would like everyone to believe anyway.

    DALE | March 14th, 2006 at 7:50 am

  7. “If you must fabricate something Dale, at least try and make it interesting.”

    Is my story an interesting fabrication scud?

    Jack | March 14th, 2006 at 8:14 am

  8. Have a look at Comments in 07 and 09 boys.

    Jack | March 14th, 2006 at 9:03 am

  9. And above, I got an update from the Ombudsman.

    Jack | March 14th, 2006 at 12:13 pm

  10. Nowhere near as much of our money as the cops waste with their malicious prosecutions and compensation payments scud. And look at INSIS, 120 million up the spout, all they got for that colossal amount of cash was a glorified email system which they then filled up with porn.

    Jack | March 20th, 2006 at 6:03 am

  11. You Mr Van der Wanker are a total wacko, you can’t get the information you need so you make it up to suit your story. What a fool. Anyone who talks to you or reads this site soon works out the insane nutbar you are. The only support you get are from those other crims that won’t take responsibility for their own crimes. Get a life Jack, you’re the poorest excuse for a man there ever was.

    Rae88 | March 26th, 2006 at 8:34 am

  12. I note, information from an internet chat room? Your sources of information aren’t at all reliable, you could have been talking to anyone who read the information at the time from the papers, or maybe knew the cop involved. Like the rest of your site you construct your stories to suit your plight, I suggest to try and extract a financial reward from the government.

    DB123 | March 26th, 2006 at 8:40 am

  13. Hello Rae I was wondering when you would show up. I see you’ve been telling porkies about me again. You had me disabled from TradeMe with your lies and now your busy with your fabrications on purple bunny.

    Rae88 wrote:

    but then jackinthebox always was a fool…… and one that will change anything to prove a point… what he doesn’t know, is who has saved what, and can prove his selective editing to be a lie…..

    ——————————————————

    Jack | March 26th, 2006 at 9:01 am

  14. Unibomber and Esther, if you think the jackinthebox thing is of the slightest bit of importance to me, you are sadly mistaken, very sadly mistaken.

    I have already spoken to the Omsbudmans representative, and there is NOTHING in anything about it that Jackinthebox or anyone else has on me. Nothing in that thread was a matter of supressed information at all. Infact, was all a matter of public record because all my documents including my notes and diaries were presented when the excused offender applied for them to the department of corrections…… terribly sorry you two, but I have done nothing wrong, and thats a big official comment from all agencies concerned, in fact I was congratulated for my stance and excellent work ….. so jack, back to your little bent site with your bent brain and your bent obsession, take Esther with you…. she loves anything to keep her amused…..

    And jack…. you’ve altered text in the thread and been very selective not posting all of it…. good thing other people kept it, the omsbudman’s rep was very interested in the COMPLETE conversation…

    —————————————————————–

    unibomber wrote:

    “It’s verbatim doll and the tM posters that weren’t there at the time have NOW seen you in all your disingenuous glory. Singin’ like a chirpy canary, look at moooiiiie, and and then a certain party submitted it to the MOJ! One can see their return letters on his site….No law against that…

    Show me the alterations Rae.”

    Jack | March 26th, 2006 at 2:23 pm

  15. Did I alter this one Rae?

    Jack I spent every working day for many years either in courts or in prisons, I had daily contact with police in a professional capacity so as I’ve said, DON”T presume, cos you don’t know. I could also give you a story about a top cop now retired and in the public eye that is really bent, This story would really enhance your web site, but I wouldn’t do it, because at the end of the day, when my family needs support, there is only one choice, and its a job I wouldn’t do. Becareful who you abuse on here, you know nothing ol’ man.

    rae88

    Jack | March 26th, 2006 at 2:26 pm

  16. Or this one, did I alter this one?

    6. Yes, well obviously you both know
    who I mean, and yes, he did lie to me, infact he did it in writing, the cop involved had his conviction dropped partly because I kept that fax. If you do know who I am talking about, it was in the papers at the time he was convicted, the public were crying for this cop’s head - he was due to get a big perf payment, and the public wanted the perfing scheme cancelled because of it. Naturally the Police did not want to lose it, so it was in their best interests to make sure this cop was painted to be a real bad guy and kicked out of the police force so the public would feel happy, and the scheme would remain intact.

    rae88 (8 ) 7:45 pm, 28 Sep

    Jack | March 26th, 2006 at 2:27 pm

  17. Posted: Mar 24, 2006 6:17 pm

    You do realise Jack, that conversations on the message board are infact the property of TM and if you used them officially on another site, you may just find yourself in a heap of crap….. I’d apply for permission if I was you… Plus you also mention in those threads suspessed court data, which I warned you about at the time ….. but you carried on…. I suspect you will be hauled over the coals for that one too…. LOLOLOLOL, in fact, I suspect your stupidity is going to come back and bite you VERY hard on the bum ….

    Posted: Mar 24, 2006 6:22 pm

    Absolutely nothing wrong with that conversation Jack, not a damn thing, in fact I’ll give you some more information that you don’t know about. The MOP received a complaint against you at the time for your release of supressed Court information in a public forum …. knowing that you would react has you have, given that the police are aware of your insanity …. we have all be waiting for you to make a fool of yourself…. and so you have done and now, you are doing it again on here ….. I’m not sure what your point is uni-bomber/jack …. I’m more than happy for people to read that conversation, as long as they are aware, that you only put in the bits you wanted to, and have kept other parts out of it ….. but hey, only to the inteilligent would that matter, and you don’t see a lot of them around here. LOLOLOLOL Do your stuff Jack, you lucked out on Smile City, and you lucked out in TM with a bit of luck, Jerry will see you for what you are, and you’ll luck out here too…..

    Posted: Mar 24, 2006 6:38 pm

    Jackinthebox didn’t play me like anything you idiot, yes I had him banned and had his alterego banned, and TM supported me on that seeing what a fool he was, and just how derranged he is… or rather you are unibomber…. As far as that conversation is concerned, I have no problems with any of it… nothing there is anymore than what I was allowed to say… and the fact that jack could not get anymore information out of me, is proof that he wasn’t playing anyone. Jack will end up very much with egg on his face over his site, and especially over this, because he jumped in without knowing all the details, presuming he did. Jack is a stupid man that baited the police, and deserved everything he got from them, and the people he stole from and annoyed. He is a victim of his own stupidity, and continues being so. I have no sympathy for him what-so-ever… It was an interesting case, one I”m more than happy to talk about and very proud of my role within it…. Unibomber…. you / jack and Esther can stick you information all over these boards, terribly sorry, but they don’t proof a god damn thing …… idiots….

    Posted: Mar 24, 2006 7:01 pm

    tut tut tut ….. Jack….. wrong wrong wrong….. I have good standing with the police, I’ve worked with them enough …. your knowledge is shit which shows you know nothing …. there was no complaint, the statement and information given came to a conclusion, but considering the previous health of the perpetraitor and the manner in which it was likely to affect the outcome on any ‘case against him’, it was decided not to continue with a formal complaint ….. God jack, you really are getting desparate aren’t you, running out of little things to try and twist now ….. you are repeating yourself …. and why I must ask? Why would you want to try and manipulate me, harrass and intimidate me? Is it because you KNOW I have the only information that can make you not look like a bloody great fool…… and that I’m never going to give it too you !!!! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL OLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL OLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL Cause thats just it Jack…. you’re never going to get your hands on the information you need, because I’M not covered by the official information act … and nothing you do can get what you need out of me…. so go play in your little site and make up more stories on how the cops pick on poor you.Last edited by Rae88 on Mar 24, 2006 7:03 pm; edited 1 time in total

    Posted: Mar 24, 2006 7:09 pm

    LOL Polly you are wrong there, I had nothing to do with those pictures so get over yourself, you’re such an idiot believing that everyone you don’t know has to be Rae….LOL foool As far as worried, nope wrong emotion, I just love the issue involved, and get very passionate about my ex PO work, and that case in particular, it was one of my best pieces of work, and it was so relieving to know an innocent person did not have to serve a long sentence of imprisionment. Plus I just love the challenge of dealing with Jack, he’s a complete nutter, if you read his site, even you will have to agree with that. I’ve had lots of dealings with people about him over the last few months and found out heaps of interesting facts that vary so much from his website ….. he’s an interesting character alright. Unfortunately a real nut roll which the local boys in blue are very familiary with. Interesting he should bring his issues in here, knowing its the only place he’d get support, not so much for him, but against me. He got booted from all the other sites he tried it on….. but I guess you lot are too stupid to see him for what he is… thats the one thing I can say for bodgee, he certainly had Jack lined up properly.

    Jack | March 26th, 2006 at 6:59 pm

  18. Jack you need help, none of those conversations listed in this site occured how you have them put. I’m sure the people reading this site will work out what a fool you are. You haven’t even provided links to these ‘pretend’ conversations, which guarantees they are mostly in your head.

    Rae88 | March 27th, 2006 at 4:36 pm

  19. Nice try Rae but heaps of good folks apart from me have saved the threads.
    Do yourself a favour Rae, come clean.

    Jack | March 27th, 2006 at 4:44 pm

  20. Busted you again Rae, you’re the spammer.

    2006-3-27 @ 4:03:11 pm [ Edit - Delete - Unapprove ]
    Rae88 ( getlostloser@hotmail.com / ) (IP: 222.152.146.88 )
    Jack you need help, none of those conversations listed in this site occured how you have them put. I’m sure the people reading this site will work out what a fool you are. You haven’t even provided links to these ‘pretend’ conversations, which guarantees they are mostly in your head.

    Jack | March 27th, 2006 at 4:49 pm

  21. New comment on your post #63 “FEEDBACK 2″
    Author : jingle bells (IP: 222.152.146.46 , 222-152-146-88.jetstream.xtra.co.nz)
    E-mail : dfassdfasdfafsdfsdfsdfsisssdiotsannon222@hotmail.com
    URI :
    Whois : http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=222.152.146.88
    Comment:
    Background: Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is classified in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) as an anxiety disorder. It is characterized by distressing intrusive thoughts and/or repetitive actions that interfere with the individual’s daily functioning. The DSM-IV criteria for OCD are as follows:

    The individual expresses either obsessions or compulsions. Obsessions are defined by the following 4 criteria:

    Recurrent and persistent thoughts, impulses, or images are experienced at some time during the disturbance as intrusive and inappropriate and cause marked anxiety and distress.

    The thoughts, impulses, or images are not simply worries about real-life problems. etc etc.

    Jack | March 27th, 2006 at 4:52 pm

  22. Just a word Jack, it’s illegal in NZ to list someones IP address on a publically accessible site like this one. Might be heading for a spot of bother there old chap.

    Dave | March 27th, 2006 at 8:35 pm

  23. Just reading through your stuff. The lassie has a point, you would have to prove your information by reproducing the information at the site of origin. These laws are for good reasons as information can be adjusted by anyone and resent. Your site holds nothing worthwhile unless you can produce the original document or entry.

    Dave | March 27th, 2006 at 8:41 pm

  24. You have really lost it Jack, your information is false and untrue. I am not a spammer, I wouldn’t even know how, you clearly made those comments up, like some of the rest of them. Anyone that knows my proper email addresses knows my isp is actrix. You are way out of line and completely over the top.

    Rae | March 27th, 2006 at 8:48 pm

  25. Stop digging Rae.

    “Your site holds nothing worthwhile unless you can produce the original document or entry.”

    Untold Official documents photos and transcripts in there Dave if you care to look, got em all stored.

    Jack | March 27th, 2006 at 9:03 pm

  26. Rae88Joined: December 02, 2005Comments: 474Location: wellington Posted: Mar 24, 2006 6:38 pm

    Jackinthebox didn’t play me like anything you idiot, yes I had him banned and had his alterego banned, and TM supported me on that seeing what a fool he was, and just how derranged he is… or rather you are unibomber…. As far as that conversation is concerned, I have no problems with any of it… nothing there is anymore than what I was allowed to say… and the fact that jack could not get anymore information out of me, is proof that he wasn’t playing anyone. Jack will end up very much with egg on his face over his site, and especially over this, because he jumped in without knowing all the details, presuming he did. Jack is a stupid man that baited the police, and deserved everything he got from them, and the people he stole from and annoyed. He is a victim of his own stupidity, and continues being so. I have no sympathy for him what-so-ever… It was an interesting case, one I”m more than happy to talk about and very proud of my role within it…. Unibomber…. you / jack and Esther can stick you information all over these boards, terribly sorry, but they don’t proof a god damn thing …… idiots….

    Poor Rae thinks I’m unibomber.

    Jack | March 30th, 2006 at 9:19 am

  27. Just thought I’d say good on ya again jack.

    Isn’t it strange that all those who try and smear you and stick up for the police show themselves to be such nasty types.

    these police apologists and groupies all seem to have something wrong with them and dont seem to be able to tell right from wrong.

    they are just the sort of people the nz police should steer clear of if they are ever serious about cleaning up their image and attitudes.

    The more they say the better you look.

    nznative | April 5th, 2006 at 5:16 pm

  28. You’re not wrong there nznative.

    Jack | April 5th, 2006 at 7:24 pm

  29. Rae 88. The biggest, most unstable, the TM opinions slapper who got alot of people banned, still raves on, on any forum she can find. What do you call a woman that is a man’s equivillent of a wanker (wankee maybe)

    Fred # 2 (sorry Fred # 1) | April 8th, 2006 at 10:42 pm

  30. Funny, I found rae88 to be rather pleasant and knowledgeable. Maybe the problem is you Fred?
    __________________________________________________________________________________________

    Then you would stick up for her wouldn’t you scud aka Constable Kim Kuiper, from Papakura?

    SCUD

    scud | April 19th, 2006 at 8:39 pm

  31. The problem isn’t with Fred as Rae’s posts clearly show. She’s been busted as a liar, a spammer, a malicious serial dobber inner and a looney (have a look at all the lols in paragraph 4 post #17, she thought I am also unibomber.) Her credibility is zero and she’s not worth supporting or arguing over.

    Jack | April 20th, 2006 at 2:54 am

  32. So stop arguing. I found her fine. You know you hardly bring out the best in people Jack.

    scud | April 20th, 2006 at 9:01 am

  33. Perverse people find it hard to get along with me scud.

    Jack | April 20th, 2006 at 9:36 am

  34. You came up against one of NZ’s most obsessive *message board obsessed* in rae88 jack! Hard to believe she could be a representative of, or indeed exemplify any type of social worker in NZ, let alone our penal institution, is of concern to me. A visit to the purplebunny.com referenced above and one finds more of her curious manifestations. Why anyone would expend so much energy on such imaginative yet baseless diatribe is a mystery!

    interested | May 5th, 2006 at 10:22 pm

  35. She’s mad alright interested but your attempt to deter me has fallen on deaf ears. I know for a fact that her ‘diatribe’ was far from ‘baseless’ and Police reactions to my OIA requests leave little doubt about that.

    PS Rae88 went from reasonable to one of NZ’s most obsessive *message board obsessed*
    after she realised she had ’spilt the beans’ to someone who actually cares about corruption in the NZ Police .

    Jack | May 6th, 2006 at 6:24 am

  36. Fair enough jack, I am sorry for inferring your cause is empty, as I know well it is NOT. Just that out there on cyberland there are nut bars and the veneer on this one(rae88 and her many monikers) is particularly thin and flakey, as anyone who dares cross her finds out. One does well to remember she SHE IS DANGEROUS and thus far nobody has managed to put an end to her nonsense and utterly self-interested MO. I encourage you to do your best and to enforce some accountability on this issue.

    interested | May 6th, 2006 at 3:53 pm

  37. Cheers interested

    Jack | May 6th, 2006 at 4:02 pm

  38. Not much point checking out purplebunny, I’m afraid. Almost all of rae88s’ posts have been deleted.

    “#Just a word Jack, it’s illegal in NZ to list someones IP address on a publically accessible site like this one. Might be heading for a spot of bother there old chap.

    Dave | March 27th, 2006 at 8:35 pm”

    How interesting.
    Hypocritical old fool.

    Aglarana | June 10th, 2006 at 5:57 pm

  39. Its not illegal to post IP addresses in NZ. Thats the biggest load of crap ever.

    Ben | June 11th, 2006 at 7:36 am

  40. ….the biggest load of crap? The irony.

    scud | June 22nd, 2006 at 6:36 pm

  41. What’s a load of crap scud?

    Jack | June 22nd, 2006 at 7:25 pm

  42. This site Jack. The irony is he is commenting about the biggest load of crap on a site which quite possibly the biggest load of crap….

    scud | July 10th, 2006 at 5:22 pm

  43. Hmmm…rae seems like she might be trying to discredit what you quoted her as saving because she told tales out of school

    its not our fault rae88 you now cover your tracks because you fear the dody cops you cover for now

    mykodd | July 11th, 2006 at 8:25 pm

  44. A load of crap you reckon scud?

    —————————————

    New trial for police officer

    Sep 12, 2001

    A former Mangakino police officer convicted of raping and assaulting a woman in 1997 has been granted a retrial.

    The Court of Appeal has released its decision on the case of former police officer Colin Andrew McLean.

    McLean was convicted of the 1997 rape and assault of a woman in Tokoroa and sentenced to five years jail.

    While the Court of Appeal has released its decision, it has suppressed most details in the 13 page judgement until completion of the retrial.

    However, it says that because a new trial has been granted there is no foundation for the Crown’s appeal against McLean’s five year sentence and it is dismissed.

    It is not known when the new trial will be held.

    Jack | November 24th, 2006 at 5:09 am

  45. Court of Appeal of New Zealand Decisions

    THE QUEEN v COLIN ANDREW McLEAN [2001] NZCA 233 (12 September 2001)

    1. Publication of the name, address and occupation of the appellant, the nature of the charges and the result of the appeal permitted.

    2. Otherwise not to be published in news media or on Internet or other publicly accessible database until completion of re-trial.Publication in law report or law digest permitted.

    3. Publication of name and identifying particulars of complainant prohibited

    by s139, Criminal Justice Act 1985.

    IN THE court of appeal of new zealand
    ca 157/01

    CA 167/01

    THE QUEEN

    V

    COLIN ANDREW MCLEAN

    Hearing:
    3 September 2001

    Coram:
    Richardson P

    Keith J

    Blanchard J

    Tipping J

    McGrath J

    Appearances:
    M S McKechnie and S V McKechnie for

    Colin Andrew McLean

    S P France and M F Laracy for Crown

    Judgment:
    12 September 2001

    judgment of THE COURT DELIVERED BY RICHARDSON P

    [1] Colin Andrew McLean appeals against conviction on a charge of sexual violation by rape and a charge of assault on a female.The Solicitor-General seeks leave to appeal against the sentence of five years imprisonment which was imposed by the trial Judge following conviction.

    The background to the trial

    [2] Mr McLean was a Police Officer stationed for many years at Mangakino. He was committed for trial and was facing an indictment containing five counts, two of sexual violation and three of assaults alleged to have been committed on his partner at the particular time.The first charge was of sexual violation on his wife, “X”, in late 1994.They parted in 1996.The next set of charges all related to the complainant, “Y”: one was of sexual violation on 15 December 1997, two were of assault on 22 December 1997 and 7 February 1998 respectively.The final charge was of an alleged assault on 15 January 1999 on his current partner, “Z”.

    [3] He applied for separate trials.The Crown opposed severance of the trials involving X and Y on the footing that the evidence relating to each complainant was admissible as similar fact evidence at the trial of the other. Randerson J rejected the Crown submission and ordered separate trials. It was accepted that the remaining count involving Z should be the subject of a separate trial.Z had never complained to the police and had not made a statement to the police.The foreshadowed third trial will not take place, the Crown having given notice following Mr McLean’s convictions on the charges which are the subject of this appeal that it would not pursue that assault charge.

    [4] The first and second trials were expected to take place at Rotorua only six weeks or so apart.Randerson J, concerned at the real risk of prejudicial publicity, made extensive orders in respect of non-publication of evidence, submissions and summings up in each trial until the verdict on the last of them was delivered.The non-publication orders did not extend to the name and occupation of the accused and the nature of the charges against him, those matters already being in the public arena through widespread media publicity.

    [5] On a different point Randerson J recorded, in relation to the recent complaint evidence of Ms Debenham which was the subject of a pre-trial admissibility application, that by agreement of counsel it would be dealt with at trial and on the footing that the complainant’s (Y’s) evidence would be the subject of a voir dire.

    [6] The trial involving the charge of sexual violation against the appellant’s ex-wife was held over several days in February/March 2000.He was acquitted. There was extensive local newspaper publicity within the limits of the non-publication order.

    [7] Four weeks later the second trial began.The first charge was of sexual violation at Tokoroa on or about 12 December 1997.That night the complainant and Mr McLean had gone together to the Police Christmas party from Tokoroa to Rotorua and the rape was alleged to have occurred afterwards, when they were staying at her mother’s home in Tokoroa.The second, a charge of assault on 22 December 1997 at Taupo, was alleged to have followed the Christmas party of Carter Holt Harvey (her employer) at Taupo.The third was a charge of assault on 7 February 1998 at Mangakino following Sergeant McCullough’s wedding.Mr McLean was found guilty on the first and third charges and was acquitted on the second charge.

    The grounds of appeal

    [8] Mr McKechnie, who was not trial counsel, has advanced four grounds in support of the appeal, submitting that, considered cumulatively, they give rise to a miscarriage of justice.The first concerns the furnishing to the jury of the trial transcript and the editing of it.The Judge had advised counsel at the commencement of the trial that following the practice recommended at the Judges’ Conference and by the Law Commission he would give the jury three copies of the transcript immediately before they retired to consider their verdicts and that he would be following the standard direction provided to Judges who wished to give transcripts to juries.Counsel for the accused expressed some concern, not having previously experienced that procedure.

    [9] Mr McKechnie submitted that giving the notes of evidence to the jury was a radical departure from previous practice.He raised concerns about the literacy of jurors, about the need for uniformity of practice, and about the particular difficulties arising in this case from the extensive editing out exercise undertaken following a ruling late in the trial that considerable evidence which had been adduced was inadmissible;and, he added, without adequate explanation to the jury of the course that was taken.

    [10] The second ground is directed to the failure to stop the trial and discharge the jury following disclosure by the complainant in cross-examination that the accused’s ex-wife had laid rape charges against him, and to the steps that then ensued and their effect on the trial.

    [11] The third ground is that in a number of respects trial counsel made radical mistakes in the conduct of the defence.In the course of oral argument it was submitted as a separate ground that the manner in which recent complaint material came before the jury and was dealt with had occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

    [12] The fourth ground was that the length of the jury deliberations which totalled some 17 hours over two days was seriously excessive, rendering the verdict unsafe.

    [13] It is convenient to go immediately to the second ground and then to the now separate ground concerning recent complaint material.

    Disclosure of prejudicial material:the applicable principles

    [14] The legal principles are well settled.Where there is inadvertent disclosure of prejudicial information about an accused the trial Judge has a discretion to discharge the jury.Whether it will be proper to do so depends on the facts of the particular case.If the jury is not discharged, whether to give a direction and, if so, what direction in relation to the objectionable passage in the evidence, similarly depends on the facts of the particular case. If the trial proceeds and the accused is convicted the ultimate question on appeal is whether a substantial miscarriage of justice

    occurred.(See R v Rongonui [2000] 2 NZLR 385 para [23]; R v Gray (CA 361/96,

    judgment 20 February 1997); R v Yeates [1992] 1 NZLR 421; and R v Weaver [1968] 1 QB 353.)The most recent extended discussion is in Gray.That concerned an inadvertent comment in cross-examination that the accused had been in jail.The appeal against conviction failed.In discussing the question facing the trial Judge of whether or not to discharge the jury, the court endorsed the approach taken in R v Weaver at 359-360:

    It follows, as has been repeated time and again, that every case depends on its own facts.It also, as has been said time and again, thus depends on the nature of what has been admitted and what, in the light of the circumstances of the case as a whole, is the correct course.

    The court went on to note that on an appeal against conviction the question in such a case is whether a substantial miscarriage of justice has occurred and that the test therefore is whether there is a real danger or a reasonable suspicion that the accused was or might have been prejudiced by what took place.

    Disclosure of prejudicial information:the facts

    [15] Under cross-examination the complainant was asked:

    When was the first time you spoke on an official basis if I can put it that way to a police officer about your allegation the accused raped you?

    She responded:

    I was rung up at work by a Detective Ron Frederickson that I needed to be interviewed in regards to my relationship with Colin as Colin’s ex-wife had also laid rape charges against him.

    [16] The transcript records that the jury then retired at 12.40 pm and returned at 3 pm when they were addressed by the Judge as follows:

    I apologise for the delay that we have had in the trial.As I told you in my opening remarks, there will be times in the trial when I need to discuss matters of law with counsel.The fact that I have to do this is no one’s fault and shouldn’t be held against one party or the other.You will recall the last answer the complainant gave where she referred to a complaint of rape having been made by the accused’s former wife.That is irrelevant to the matters you have to consider.You must completely disregard it.

    [17] The cross-examination continued and the complainant agreed that the first time she told the police about her allegation of rape was in February 2000, over 2 years after the event, when she made a statement after Detective Frederickson approached her.

    [18] In his ruling on the defence application to discharge the jury the Judge records that he was caught unawares by the complainant’s answer and that:

    Although I stopped the complainant as soon as I realised what she was saying, by then the information had come out.Although I believe I may have been talking over her as her last words were said, asking her to stop, we must proceed on an assumption that the jury did hear the words in question.It is on that basis that I am approaching this application.

    [19] We pause to add that, referring to what happened when the complainant made that comment, the appellant deposes in his affidavit, and his evidence is supported in that regard by his trial counsel and not disputed for the Crown, “At this stage there were audible gasps from members of the jury”.

    [20] The Judge saw as a crucial question in considering the application for discharge whether the jury would already have known the prejudicial information given by the complainant in her answer.He concluded from newspaper references he recorded from cuttings handed to him or material drawn from a computer search, that it was almost inevitable that some members of the jury knew that the accused’s former wife had made a complaint of rape against him, and that there had been a prosecution and trial with respect to that rape charge.He also considered it almost inevitable that the fact that the accused had recently been tried for rape and acquitted would have been passed on to the other jury members, probably in their first tea break at the trial.

    [21] Accordingly, the Judge concluded that the complainant’s answer did not create a real danger or reasonable suspicion that the accused might have been prejudiced by that answer and that what had happened could be dealt with satisfactorily by way of appropriate directions to the jury.

    [22] The Judge then discussed with counsel what, if anything, should be said to the jury and adopted defence counsel’s suggestion of a low key stance of “the less said the better”.Both counsel agreed with the direction that the Judge then formulated and subsequently in court gave to the jury (para [16] above).

    [23] Later in the trial there was a reference by the Crown Prosecutor in cross-examining the accused which might be taken as an indirect allusion to the previous trial.It was the subject of considerable discussion in the course of argument before us.In our view and in context the reference is too equivocal and what might be taken from it too speculative to bear on the present issue.

    [24] The Judge’s bench note relating to his discussion with counsel prior to summing up records that his present intention was just to give the standard directions about sympathy and prejudice and that both counsel were happy with that.It is common ground that nothing was said in the summing up about the complainant’s comment in cross-examination.

    Disclosure of prejudicial information:the rival submissions

    [25] Mr McKechnie for the appellant submitted that the Judge was in error in not discharging the jury;that there was a real danger that the accused was prejudiced by what took place;and that when the Judge ruled that the trial would continue his directions were insufficient to address the prejudice to the accused.

    [26] Mr McKechnie emphasised the similar nature of the charges by the accused’s former wife and by this complainant;the reaction from the jury when the prejudicial comment was made;and the length of the time they were left to speculate (12.40 to 3 pm) before the trial resumed.He submitted that the decision to continue the trial was based primarily and wrongly on a presumed degree of knowledge by the jury of the facts of the previous trial. Reference to the newspapers listed by the Judge did not justify the conclusion that the jury had any or adequate knowledge of the complaint by the accused’s former wife and that they knew that the accused was acquitted at the prior trial.He submitted, further, that the directions then given to the jury were inadequate to address the prejudice of the disclosure by the complainant to the jury, particularly given the length of time the jury had been sequestered in the jury room.The jury should have been told that the accused had been acquitted of the rape charge laid by his wife.

    [27] Mr France for the Crown supported the reasons given by the Judge for continuing the trial and the directions given to the jury at that time.His primary submission, however, was that the jury could be expected to differentiate and to put aside that irrelevant comment just as they are regularly expected to focus on admissible evidence against an accused and disregard evidence implicating him but admissible only against a co-accused or for other reasons not admissible against the accused.

    Disclosure of prejudicial information:discussion and conclusions

    [28] We are satisfied that in the result there has been a substantial miscarriage of justice and that the convictions must be quashed.

    [29] The comment by the complainant was highly prejudicial to the accused’s trial on the complainant’s charge against him of raping her.The credibility of the complainant and the accused was the major issue.The comment pointed to a prior incident of rape within a relationship.It was illegitimate similar fact material which the Crown had earlier sought to adduce and Randerson J had firmly ruled out.Clearly the jury was startled by what they heard.Whatever some may have recalled from prior media publicity - and it seems unfortunate that these successive trials were scheduled for hearing in the same provincial city only a few weeks apart - that could never adequately blunt the highly prejudicial impact of the comment which might have suggested to jurors that if he raped his wife he is more likely to have raped his partner.Next, the trial was immediately stopped, indicating to the jury that the complainant’s answer was a matter of concern and the jury was then left to speculate for over two hours (including lunch) before the trial resumed.

    [30] We doubt whether, had an appropriate direction been given immediately at 12.40 pm with the immediate continuation of the trial, the prejudice of the disclosure could have been countered.But we are satisfied that with the passage of time the direction that was given at 3 pm was insufficient to avoid a miscarriage of justice.If the prejudice to the accused was to be significantly reduced the jury needed to be told that there had been a trial a few weeks previously;that the accused had been acquitted on the rape charge; that they must completely disregard that comment by the complainant when considering the present charges and certainly must not speculate or draw any conclusion against or for the accused;and that they must decide the present counts solely on the evidence before them, guarding themselves firmly against being influenced by the complainant’s reference to the earlier rape allegation.

    [31] It was not suggested for the Crown, and could not possibly be said given that there were conflicting accounts of the sexual violation incident by the appellant and the complainant and credibility was all important, that a conviction was inevitable despite the inadvertent reception of inadmissible evidence.The convictions must be quashed and a new trial ordered. Accordingly, it is unnecessary to deal with other grounds of appeal but we propose to refer briefly to two matters:the recent complaint question, because of its relevance to a re-trial;and the giving of the notes of evidence to juries and directions as to their use, because of the wider importance of that matter.

    Recent complaint evidence

    [32] Recent complaint evidence is admissible in sexual violation cases as tending to show consistency in the conduct of the complainant:that what she has said in evidence to the jury is consistent with a prior complaint she made about it, thereby supporting the credibility of her testimony.Admissibility is for the Judge to determine and difficult questions may arise.

    [33] The only point of apparent difficulty that arose in this case is that the complainant initially said she spoke about the alleged rape incident to three persons:Ms Debenham, and then immediately to Ms Ray of Women’s Refuge, who suggested she call at the centre, which she did the next morning, speaking to Ms Scott.As this court said in R v N [1994] 3 NZLR 641, 646, “What can safely be said is that our Courts have not been prepared to admit a second complaint, remote in time from the first and lacking any connection with it”.At the other end of the spectrum the court observed in R v Accused (CA 273/91), (judgment 20 December 1991) at p12 that the events which follow a sexual assault are often of a developing kind with more than one confidence being made within a short period of time;all the confidences can then properly be said to have been made on the same occasion;and it is a matter of degree in the individual case.After referring to that passage the court in R v N observed, “No doubt this was not intended as an exhaustive exposition and a developing or incremental disclosure is but one illustration of circumstances where evidence of separate complaints may be admitted …” and referred to R v Phillips (1989) 5 CRNZ 405 where the trial Judge ruled evidence as to two complaints admissible where the first was fleeting and limited appropriately by the traumatic circumstances of the moment, and was followed by a more comprehensive

    complaint when the complainant arrived home.See also R v Accused (CA 289/95) (1996) 14 CRNZ 399.

    [34] It appears that the Crown Prosecutor saw these successive complaints as a developing incremental disclosure and all three recipients, Ms Debenham, Ms Ray and Ms Scott, gave evidence at depositions and were listed as witnesses for the trial.Ms Debenham’s deposition and evidence at trial were that the complainant said that after the Christmas function the accused had raped her at her mother’s house.She said that the complainant told her that probably no more than a couple of weeks afterwards - at trial she agreed it was on 23 December - and said that they then rang Women’s Refuge.

    [35] The complicating factor is that the rape was alleged to have occurred after the Police Christmas party at Rotorua on 12 December 1997 and the unrelated assault was said to have occurred after the Carter Holt Harvey Christmas party at Taupo on 22 December 1997, less than two weeks later, and Ms Ray and Ms Scott were deposing to what was said to them on 23 December and 24 December respectively.Ms Ray’s deposition statement was that the telephone complaint she received on the evening of 23 December was that the complainant had been hit and subjected to rough sex but the deposition is not specific as to date or whether it amounted to rape.She said she calmed the complainant down and advised her to call at the centre, which the complainant did the next day and saw Ms Scott, to whom Ms Ray had passed on details of the previous night’s call. Ms Scott’s deposition referred specifically to a complaint of rape occurring the previous night (which appears to be a reference to 22 December).

    [36] Unfortunately the Crown Prosecutor had not pursued the course indicated to Randerson J of seeking a voir dire.Rather, he called evidence from the complainant of her speaking in succession to Ms Debenham, Ms Ray and Ms Scott.She said she could not remember what she said to Ms Debenham and to Ms Ray but that she had told Ms Scott about both incidents, that is the rape following the 12 December Police party and the assault following the 22 December Carter Holt party.Not surprisingly in view of the apparent conflicts the complainant was cross-examined at length about the complaints.

    [37] Only part of Ms Ray’s deposition statement was read to the jury and she was not examined orally.Ms Scott, who was at the court, was not called by the Crown to give evidence.It seems that by then the Crown Prosecutor had concluded that there was a single complaint to Ms Debenham, not an evolving complaint situation or other circumstances requiring or justifying the adducing of Ms Scott’s evidence.This had the effect of denying the defence the opportunity of pointing out apparent discrepancies in that regard between the complainant’s complaint evidence and Ms Scott’s, if the latter had adhered to her sworn deposition, and even if she departed from it.

    [38] The next step as recorded in the Judge’s ruling of 30 March was that in the course of the accused’s evidence the Judge had become concerned about some of the complaint evidence that had come in.That concern was based, it seems, on reading the deposition statements of Ms Ray and Ms Scott and on the Judge’s conclusion that they had not given evidence as to what was said to them.In the result he ruled that considerable evidence adduced in cross-examination was inadmissible as not being justified under the doctrine of recent complaint.He ruled that 14 passages from the evidence and that part of Ms Ray’s statement read to the jury were inadmissible and would be excised or excluded from the transcript to be given to the jury.They totalled some seven pages.

    [39] It is unnecessary for present purposes to resolve issues of admissibility on which we heard argument, or to attribute ultimate responsibility for what happened or suggest other steps which might or should have been taken.For a recent discussion in this court see R v A (CA 69/99), (judgment 15 July 1999) where the court observed that to depart from the ordinary practice of holding a voir dire before the complainant gives evidence is to run the risk that the relevant part of her evidence will have been given to the jury and, if ruled inadmissible, the proceedings would have to be aborted (paras [6] and [17] of R v A).The primary question for the re-trial in this regard will be whether there was a single complaint to Ms Debenham, with the complaint to Ms Scott lacking any connection with it, or whether there was a developing sequential disclosure to the three persons the complainant spoke to about it.

    [40] Clearly the court and defence were in a quandary due, it must be said, to the Crown’s not having sufficiently thought through ahead of trial the basis on which, and what, complaint evidence might be led and to their not taking the sensible course of seeking a voir dire and a ruling as to admissibility before any complaint evidence was adduced before the jury.

    Transcripts of evidence

    [41] Over relatively recent times there has been a considerable expansion of the written material provided to juries to assist them in the discharge of their responsibilities.In recent years, and reflected in the Law Commission Report (NZLC R69 Juries in Criminal Cases (2001)) and the ensuing discussions, Judges have been considering the giving of transcripts of evidence to juries and we understand that some trial Judges have begun to make transcripts available to juries.

    [42] It is neither necessary nor appropriate in this case to embark on any discussion of the practice.In principle it can be proper to provide the jury with the transcript of the evidence in appropriate cases.Trial Judges have a broad discretion as to the conduct of trials.And whether to provide a transcript and, if so, on what principled basis are for the Judge to determine in the exercise of that discretion, weighing relevant considerations.

    Result

    [43] Given that there must be an order for a new trial it is unnecessary to comment on other matters raised in support of the conviction except to note: (1) that we have not discerned in the conduct of the defence by trial counsel the kind of radical error that in itself could have led to the quashing of the convictions;and (2) that on the information we were given we would not have had any concerns over the length of the jury’s deliberations.

    [44] The appeal is allowed, the convictions are quashed and a new trial is ordered.In the result there is no foundation remaining for the Solicitor-General’s application for leave to appeal against sentence and it is dismissed.We record our view that the Crown and the defence will need to consider whether Rotorua is an appropriate venue for the re-trial.

    Solicitors

    H E Edward, Rotorua, for Colin Andrew McLean

    Crown Law Office, Wellington

    ———————————————————————————————————————————-

    Officer acquitted of rape seeks settlement, The Press, Christchurch, 25/10/02

    NZ: Former Mangakino policeman negotiating secret settlement with police
    A report says:

    ‘Former Mangakino police officer Colin McLean is negotiating a settlement with the police - seven months after he was acquitted of rape following a trial in the High Court at Rotorua.’

    In April a jury found Mr McLean not guilty of raping a woman at Tokoroa in Dec 1997, and of assaulting her in Feb 1998. In a previous trial on the same matters he was found guilty, but that was overturned because the jury became aware of a previous rape charge that related to events in 1994, although he had been acquitted. Although he was acquitted of the 1994 charge, he had been dismissed from the police, not to be reinstated so far.

    Mr McLean has been acquitted twice now, and the police are settling, but the parties agreed not to talk about the negotiations, Mr McLean’s lawyer, Murray McKechnie, said.

    New Zealand Women’s Weekly magazine had been facing a contempt of court charge over the case, because it had published material asserting his innocence a month before Mr McLean was to stand trial - leading to the case being adjourned to April in 2002. Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias and Justice Morris had reserved their decision.

    Jack | November 25th, 2006 at 11:51 am

Comment on this Article