R v Whale
Whale Oil has blogged the court summons he has received from the Police alleging breach of name suppression law.
He is due in court on the 5th of January. If he pleads not guilty, then it might be held over for hearing at a later date. He is seeking pro bono lawyers.
The Police have charged him over a post which they allege identifies the “musician” and for a post which they allege identifies the sportsman. In the latter case, they also allege his post identified the alleged victim.
The two charges of breaching a name suppression order are under s140(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1985. The maximum fine is $1,000 per offence, but this can be for every day the breach continues (if proven).
The charge of identifying the alleged victim is under s139(1), but also has a maximum fine of $1,000.
So even if Whale is found guilty, it would just be a fine at this stage. If it later turned into an issue of contempt of court, then a jailed whale would be a possibility 
December 24th, 2009 at 12:02 am
it’s all crap though, everyone with google can find out. incidentally, i found out from some other site.
Technology has outpaced the law again.
December 24th, 2009 at 5:18 am
I didn’t know the name of the musician until I read Whale Oil’s post.
Whale Oil says “Apparently they think pictures of random items constitutes naming someone. Interesting. Using their definition Google image search identifies offenders with name suppression.”
I think he may find that in the context of the post the images weren’t at all random.
December 24th, 2009 at 6:39 am
Let’s hope he cops everthing he deserves – a fine he can’t afford, jail time without a PC and a shared cell with Bubba.
The Japanese are right – whales are only good as a scientific experiment. This experiment failed, so drop the dead whale.
December 24th, 2009 at 6:40 am
“If it later turned into an issue of contempt of court, then a jailed whale would be a possibility
‘
Ought that not be BEACHED Whale? But it’s bound to open up a debate into supression laws which, on the face of it, protect the rich and famous.
And as one poster at Gotcha has noted, Whale appears on the same day as the “comedian” charged with child sex offences – such irony!
December 24th, 2009 at 7:10 am
“Let’s hope he cops everthing he deserves ……..a shared cell with Bubba.”
Billy Borker unmasks himherself as a supporter of homosexual rape.
December 24th, 2009 at 7:17 am
No, not at all, just repeating one of the blubbery one’s mantras. “As ye wish for others, so shall ye receive for yourself”, so sayeth the lard and the profit.
December 24th, 2009 at 7:48 am
borkbork, haven’t you got some grit to pick at over at the substandard?
December 24th, 2009 at 7:50 am
Why would you think there was any possibility that this could be charged as a contempt of court?
Why would you think the fine could be $1000 per day?
[DPF: 1 - Based on Siemer if the material is never removed.
2 - Based on the Police letter which said they may keep laying further charges if material remains up, so if they lay a new charge a day the fine could be $1,000 a day]
December 24th, 2009 at 7:52 am
I found out who the musician was by asking at work. It was pretty common knowledge even amongst those who have never heard of WOBH. The suppression orders are a joke and are meaningless.
December 24th, 2009 at 7:53 am
“No, not at all, just repeating one of the blubbery one’s mantras”
Weasel.
December 24th, 2009 at 7:59 am
As I believe that there should be very rare suppression of name in an open justice system, then I hope he isnt found guilty.
December 24th, 2009 at 8:13 am
Being particularly uninterested in celebs I looked at the pictures and still don’t know the name. Anyone want to tell me?
HEHE
I wonder if anyone has noticed that all of a sudden in the last couple of weeks suppression seems to have come to a grinding halt.
Two people accused of murder in separate incidents in the BOP had one day this week. And I recall another one I read about with the same result.
Incidents like the wide showing both on the Internet and TV of the 3 women who kidnapped an elderly person yesterday will also make suppression obsolete. Its history as it should be in all but a very few offenses.
I get to thinking this is a Wgtn,Auck, Chch, police head office thing. Obviously too many arse sitters in those offices.
December 24th, 2009 at 8:16 am
I found out through a blog which provided enough phrases to google and images [one with only the very edges showing] which I could match. But the blog did not actually name the person. So is it an infringement of the name suppression ruling to provide the means for someone else to learn the information [as the Dominon also did], or do you have to actually name the person?
December 24th, 2009 at 8:16 am
I am not sure about getting rid of or limiting the use of name suppression for those CHARGED with an crime.
IMHO almost everybody who is charged and every court case should be subject to blanket name suppression, if we believe in the “innocent until proven guilty” ideal then very few people should have their name dragged through the mud before they have their day in court.
What is wrong however, is continuing name suppression when the low life is convicted, this should never be allowed to happen. (save those cases where the victims identity would be exposed by naming the criminal)
The current name suppression laws are a joke, although, as we on the right so often say “nobody is above the law” then I guess Whale will have to live by the law of the land as it stands.
December 24th, 2009 at 8:20 am
Barry
I believe that there should be very rare suppression of name in an open justice system.
Open justice system only for ordinary people and a closed system for the rich and famous.
December 24th, 2009 at 8:33 am
I agree with you barry (7.59am). All this constant name suppression stinks of a closed justice system with secret tribunals, mainly because as it is it allows titillating details such as the defendent’s occupation to be known. Its almost as if the whole idiotic system has been invented purely to fuel and fan the fires of speculation. This is surely not what the law intends?
I call for total suppression of all the defendent’s details (if they apply and it is granted) before trial, and then an absolute removal of that name suppression in any form if the defendent is found guilty. All this crap about ‘protecting the victim’ is bullshit. Justice should be done and it should be seen to be done. If there isn’t enough evidence to convict, then the defendent’s details should all be permanently suppressed if they wish it…. but if there is a conviction then everything should be above board and known publicly. This would be a transparent justice system.
Good on Whale for all he has done on these cases. I hope he wins and what is more I hope that any resulting publicity stimulates public debate on a change of our name suppression laws.
December 24th, 2009 at 8:51 am
Dave Mann
I agree with you re name suppression when convicted, however, when it comes to incest cases then surely we can allow the victims the dignity of not being named.
I can think of few other crimes where we need name suppression for the criminal though.
December 24th, 2009 at 8:55 am
Graeme Edgeler: “Why would you think there was any possibility that this could be charged as a contempt of court?”
Perhaps because that is what happened to Vince Siemer when he published information contained in a suppressed judgment relating to Operation 8. There seems little difference between publishing suppressed details and publishing a suppressed name. The added element of WO having published three suppressed names and identifying a victim may elevate the offence to one of contempt I would have thought.
December 24th, 2009 at 9:04 am
Sadly, I suspect the legal/politico establishment is going to hand him his arse on a plate. They want an example, a scalp to hang upon their wall, so to speak. What could be better than a harpooned Whale?
The impossibly short time between summons and appearance appears to be so contrived. I suspect also ernesto will be proved right. Once is nothing, twice is coincidence, three times and you’re out, or in this case, maybe you’re in for a while.
Good luck Whale. I think you’re going to need it.
December 24th, 2009 at 9:19 am
big bruv, I have thought this over and I honestly don’t think that even ‘identifying the victim’ is a valid reason for name suppression after a guilty verdict. That having been said, I think that the victim doesn’t need to be specifically named, and I am pretty sure that the media (and bloggers) would respect a victim’s dignity and feelings in cases where it is very sensitive.
Also, I am also pretty sure that knowing that there is a good chance of name suppression to protect the victim actually makes deliberate perpetrators bolder in many cases.
Name suppression just doesn’t stack up.
December 24th, 2009 at 9:27 am
If this person lived in Australia there would be no way he would get name suppression.
December 24th, 2009 at 9:55 am
As I haven’t been charged with contempt at this point I would bet you $1000 that on the 5th I still won’t be.
I think I will conduct my defense entirely in pictograms.
[DPF: That would be very amusing. I hope the media apply to be able to film that day!]
December 24th, 2009 at 10:05 am
Do you want us to all come down to the court to cheer you on?
December 24th, 2009 at 10:06 am
Here’s an idea for a ‘poll’…
I support Whale.
Vote on this simple statement to show whether or not you support him on this one (in general terms that is).
December 24th, 2009 at 10:11 am
its only a $1000 per offence? thats pathetic.
December 24th, 2009 at 10:25 am
I do hope that Whale is going to ask for his name to be supressed…
December 24th, 2009 at 10:33 am
Whale pushed the boundaries knowing it would likely attract attention, probably hoping it would attract attention. He deliberately tried to circumvent the law, to prove it’s ineffectiveness? This is the consequence. It will be up to the court to decide if he took it too far.
Because laws can be circumvented does not mean they should be, or it is right that they should be.
December 24th, 2009 at 11:01 am
Keep voting, guys. Its 9 to 3 for the Whale at the moment
December 24th, 2009 at 11:12 am
If you followed every law out there to the letter of said law, you would be an emotional cripple – except that there is probably a law against it.
December 24th, 2009 at 11:31 am
If every group of people who didn’t like a law flouted it we would have a mess. Or much more of a mess.
A few bloggers who don’t like a law and can easily flout it doesn’t mean it’s a good or popular stance or reasonable stance to take. It could be but there is a good reason why there is a proper process to change.
There are other people much longer and deeper legal experience who still think name suppression is an important part of the legal process.
In the “comedian” case what would name publication achieve? It would satisfy some curiosities, but I doubt it would do anything positive for the family, and far more likely it would have negative effects.
Even if the “comedian” is found guilty what would publication achieve? Apart from the sentence his family situation is possibly irreparably damaged anyway, and maybe the same for his career.
Sitting at a remote computer it is far too easy to forget that real people suffer real consequences, some just and justified, and some unfairly damaging. It is too easy for bloggers to get too full of their self perceived importance, and forget responsibilities to other people in the still real community..
December 24th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Um, Whale Oil is seeking “Pro Bono” lawyers ?
I’m not sure what Whale Oil has to offer these Lawyers, but I know a Gay high profile Barrister in Manukau.
Thats if whale oil is up for it
December 24th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
I don’t follow every law to the letter.
But I don’t break laws or push legal boundaries to prove my own powers, when the effect on other people, especially innocent people, could be significant.
December 24th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Not only do I support the Whale in his stance, I support his undeclared but apparent rules as to appropriateness. He has not picto-grammed the comedian, although I’m sure he could, presumably because of the nature of the charges involved. The “musician”, the olympian and the (former) parliamentarian, on the other hand, are justified outings.
A slight segue, but when I learned the identity of the “musician”, I thought that descriptor could well have been a red herring given to the media to obfuscate the person’s identity. It might, at a stretch, be an “entertainer”, but it is certainly not a “musician”. Using these rules, the “comedian” could be pretty much anyone from an actual comedian (although the’re all shouting “Not me, not me, not me” to anyone who’ll listen) to Gerry Brownlee (the Brokeback Mountain thing was bloody funny, after all).
December 24th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
[DPF: 1 - Based on Siemer if the material is never removed.
They have been removed ( perhaps to avoid a contempt charge) . But you can still see them on the cache. Which Is why I never named the blogger concerned as it leads to the identity of the suppressed name.
December 24th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Just a thought, but if suppression was eliminated wouldn’t that be a good thing. After all it would eliminate a lot of reporters and newspapers playing hide the parcel in the end who really cares about most of these names. Its just another way of extracting funds for the benefit of the legal and newspaper professions.
December 24th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Well, I have to be the dumbest Whaleoil reader – I couldn’t work out who the musician was from his pictogram as I misinterpreted the surname. It wasn’t until I saw the musician was on TV1 news that I worked out who it was from the build, hair style and skin colour – despite the musician being blurred out. So I hope TVNZ are getting the same charges.
December 24th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
I wish Whale had just left it with identifying the “musician”. I supported him on that – the guy was guilty and the suppression order when the case was finalised was a very bad decision by the Court. It was a good case for a civil disobedience protest to highlight the inappropriateness of suppression orders after someone has been found guilty. Someone should have done that with Shipton and Schollum too.
But with the “sportsman”, Whale went way too far. His case is completely different – the “sportsman” hasn’t even gone to trial, and the alleged victim can be identified from Whale’s post without much effort. His alleged breach of the suppression order in this instance may well jeopardise the Police case against the “sportsman”. Sorry, that one was a very bad call by Whale, so I won’t be turning up at Court to support him on 5 January.
If he’d just left it with the “musician” I may have.
[Shit - just realised I agree with big bruv (@8:16 am) on something. Guess it's that time of year.]
December 24th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
I am the only idiot who doesn’t know who the musician or the comedian are.
Maybe someone can give me a Christman present?
Hehe.
Merry Christmas from China!
Good luck Whale! If I was there I would represent you for free.
December 25th, 2009 at 11:27 am
Any reporter worth their money would publish the names before they get to Court. To late to stop it then. But what no court reporters any more.
Just taker the stuff off the police comms fax.
December 26th, 2009 at 12:04 am
LOL – I just had a quick google and the first page loaded said the name of the “entertainer”. Hehe, even msn.co.nz has it named somewhere, are the police going to summon Bill gates now? The judge that issued that name suppression order is a proper twat that deserves to go through what that 16 year old girl did (ie, “suck the entertainers balls”)
Like others though, I support whaleoil with naming the entertainer, but not the others cases. Name suppression is valid whilst someone is innocent of the crime, and its disgusting that the press and courts even release partial details of a person which allows for speculation to run rife… I’d hate to be a comedian that lives in ChCh at the moment. Also, untill someone is found guilty of a sex crime, even being names in beforehand can cause untold damage if they are innocent. The other case where name suppression is valid is when naming the criminal will identify the victim.
December 26th, 2009 at 11:20 am
I recently came across the following Youtube video. It is very interesting, mainly for the fact that Mihcael Laws hasn’t been taken to task over revealing suppressed information in regards to the Peter Ellis case. Could it have anything to do with the fact that Laws was discharged without conviction, in June 2008, in regards to another case where he allegedly breached suppression laws? Why are police going after Whaleoil and not doing the same to Laws? Something seems amiss here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DkQ5B3e_yo
December 26th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
To Pete George;
If that tongue in groove set from the Labour Party had passed a law making homosexual activities compulsory, I imagine that you would be in there obeying the law and loving it.
It is our duty as citizens to ignore bad law. Whale Oil’s behaviour is to be applauded.
Our German friend told us how they passed a law in 1933 making it an offence to be polite to Jewish people. The devout and law abiding German people (Pete George would have felt at home amongst them) obeyed that law to the letter. Since 1945 no Kraut will ever obey a stupid law. They have seen how blind obedience can get one into trouble.