By John Tamihere The sordid saga regarding All Black Robin Brooke continued to rage through the press this week. The facts, as we now know them, are that Brooke apologised in February this year for inappropriately touching a 15-year-old in the early hours of the morning at a New Year's eve party in Fiji.
Three members of the public saw fit, in May, to bring to the attention of the NZ public an incident where undoubtedly rape has been alleged.
The facts are Brooke had sex by consent with a 17-year-old, 12 years ago.
A year later, by admission of this girl, her and a girlfriend went out to score another All Black.
It is acknowledged alcohol and marijuana were consumed and Brooke was invited back to the complainant's house. By consent they all disrobed and all three, by consent, climbed into the same bed.
This is where the story starts to get murky. Because one girl alleges she awoke to find Brooke having sex with her friend and she says the sex was non-consensual.
This is backed up by a male flatmate who says he entered the bedroom to witness Brooke having sex (allegedly with his unconscious flatmate). He says he asked Brooke to desist and leave.
The person alleged to have been raped did not communicate this issue to anyone.
We know that the male flatmate and the other girl contacted the New Zealand Rugby Union over his conduct at the time.
Both wrote letters and we know that Brooke paid $1500 to the girl who witnessed the event.
We know that Brooke cannot defend himself publicly.
He must wait to see whether a complaint is filed and a police investigation follows to know if there is any merit in charges of sexual violation and the like being laid.
In effect, he cannot challenge or verify the statements being made by these three people... 12 years after an event.
This trial by media is unjust.
The three people complaining know that the NZRU is not an investigative authority and that the NZRU will do anything to protect the All Blacks brand and the name of the rugby code.
The three complainants here know that the right place to make any of these allegations is to the New Zealand police.
On our talkback show this week, I have had to run a defence for Brooke because he cannot defend himself against this trial by media.
It might be true what has been alleged, it might be that two women awoke and regretted their actions from the night before, which were consensual, and it might be they were unhappy.
Twelve years ago this matter should have been aired and the NZRU and all officials who knew anything about this incident should hang their head in shame.
Rather than protecting their code and their brand, they should have protected the complainants firstly, and secondly Brooke, by taking this matter to the police.
Sunday News, 4th July 2010