Name Suppressions
These views have been canvassed well before in the past, but with my post on Friday I thought I should have my say on why Name Suppression doesn't work and should be dropped:
Name suppression doesn't protect the innocent - I remember a case from a few years ago where a Christchurch businessman requested a prostitute bring a child to their next appointment for him to have sex with. The prostitute went to the Police and the man was arrested, charged and convicted - and given name suppression. Christchurch went wild with speculation, and it focused on one man - an innocent man. And recently, it didn't take long for word to get around that it was Marc Ellis who had been charged with a drug related charge. Then speculation was rife that a number of television celebrities were involved in a drug ring when one person from the same television shows was charged. (I went to one quiz night where a team dressed up as 'Snort Cafe'.)
Media outside New Zealand doesn't have to obey the suppression order - Five minutes of searching on South African Rugby related websites earlier this year netted the name of the West Auckland All Black who was convicted of beating his pregnant partner. CNN (which SKY rebroadcast to NZ) gave the name of the billionaire convicted of bring marijuana into New Zealand - once again a five minute search on the internet . And The Sun newspaper in Britain
New Zealand is too small a community - The NBR story on Friday used a series of simple clues and eliminations for me to speculate on who it is. I had narrowed it down to one person pretty quickly. And by variously calling Marc Ellis a former sportsman and a current television celebrity, who has name suppression as he was out of the country, lead speculation straight to him.
NZ Media have acted responsibly in cases in the past - 'Constable A', who was acquitted of a private murder prosecution bought by the family of Stephen Wallace, had his name suppression lifted when the charge was laid. Only the NBR published his name before the depositions hearing (where a case to be answered is established)was completed.
Having said this, I do believe that name suppression can continue to be used on rare occasions where a victims relationship to the offender means that it will expose the victim of a crime to the community. But if you are charged with a crime - or convicted of a crime - the community must have the right to know, and to take the steps necessary.
Name suppression doesn't protect the innocent - I remember a case from a few years ago where a Christchurch businessman requested a prostitute bring a child to their next appointment for him to have sex with. The prostitute went to the Police and the man was arrested, charged and convicted - and given name suppression. Christchurch went wild with speculation, and it focused on one man - an innocent man. And recently, it didn't take long for word to get around that it was Marc Ellis who had been charged with a drug related charge. Then speculation was rife that a number of television celebrities were involved in a drug ring when one person from the same television shows was charged. (I went to one quiz night where a team dressed up as 'Snort Cafe'.)
Media outside New Zealand doesn't have to obey the suppression order - Five minutes of searching on South African Rugby related websites earlier this year netted the name of the West Auckland All Black who was convicted of beating his pregnant partner. CNN (which SKY rebroadcast to NZ) gave the name of the billionaire convicted of bring marijuana into New Zealand - once again a five minute search on the internet . And The Sun newspaper in Britain
New Zealand is too small a community - The NBR story on Friday used a series of simple clues and eliminations for me to speculate on who it is. I had narrowed it down to one person pretty quickly. And by variously calling Marc Ellis a former sportsman and a current television celebrity, who has name suppression as he was out of the country, lead speculation straight to him.
NZ Media have acted responsibly in cases in the past - 'Constable A', who was acquitted of a private murder prosecution bought by the family of Stephen Wallace, had his name suppression lifted when the charge was laid. Only the NBR published his name before the depositions hearing (where a case to be answered is established)was completed.
Having said this, I do believe that name suppression can continue to be used on rare occasions where a victims relationship to the offender means that it will expose the victim of a crime to the community. But if you are charged with a crime - or convicted of a crime - the community must have the right to know, and to take the steps necessary.
posted by Michael at
8:02 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home