Name suppression of sexual offenders
January 13th, 2010 at 1:19 pm by JadisI have been thinking further on the name suppression issue. I understand that the legislation applies automatic name suppression to alleged sexual offenders in cases where a minor is involved, or where the relationship with the accused means that the victim can be identified (or when you are really really famous). Why?
Why does being the victim of a sexual attack mean that an individual shouldn’t be identified? If the attack had been of a physical nature would name suppression be put in place? And, just to exaggerate the point further, is the honour killing of rape victims by relatives in some countries (to cover up the attack and the way it tarnishes the family) just a more brutal version of a similar moral instrument in our society.
And, no, I’m not suggesting that we specifically name victims… just that using possible victim identification as the reason for perpetrator name suppression is… well… trite.
It seems that we as a society (and through our legislation) have applied a moral code. We have decided that to be sexually abused or attacked means to be broken in a way that is unsuitable for others to have knowledge of. As a society we have decided that people who are sexually abused might have their reputations besmirched by being a victim of such an attack. Of course to move away from that would mean allowing victims (or an adult in their place) to have more say as to whether perpetrators (and potentially they as victims) are named.
Again, I ask you if it would be different if a well-known man had allegedly physically beaten his step-daughter? Would he require the same sort of name suppression?
Name suppression (of the alleged or convicted perpetrator) has the possibility of actually putting sexual abuse victims in more of a box, to isolate them further and to effectively make it clear that we as a society don’t want to talk about that sort of thing.
I’m not saying there isn’t a place for name suppression… more challenging the reasons behind it being a necessary or automatic measure in some cases.
I’d also like to place some faith in the justice system so do think it is important that a person has the potential for a level playing field before they go through trial to be found guilty or otherwise.
January 13th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
I’d also like to place some faith in the justice system so do think it is important that a person has the potential for a level playing field before they go through trial to be found guilty or otherwise.
Perhaps the best way to achieve this is name suppression for all accused, no name suppression (unless extreme circumstances exist) for all convicts.
And, on another note, please refrain from using the abhorrent term “honour killing”, there is nothing honourable about taking a life.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
I can understand where you are coming from on this one, but there is something else to consider. I don’t think the naming of victims is to protect them from society as such, but rather to help them deal with the shame and guilt that goes along with such a vial crime (Victims often feel they are in some way to blame).
By allowing the identity of the victim to be known, the victim can often feel even more exposed and vulnerable. To be honest, they have enough to deal with without any extra pressure.
I also think name suppression is fully justifiable while the trial is still on. People are too quick to judge and just because someone is accused of something, it doesn’t always mean they did it. By naming and shaming before guilt is established, we risk someone being tarnished unjustifiably.
Just a couple of thoughts from me
Vote:[Jadis: you are right of course but the questions I pose about the roots of name suppression in these cases relate to the issues you bring up – why do victims of sexual crime have more guilt or shame to bear than other victims? And, does locking that shame in (by assuming it necessary to protect victims) actually help or hinder societal progress. Ultimately, in my mind at least, it is the offender who should be shamed NOT the victim… name suppression protects the offender NOT the victim.
January 13th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
Hmmmm… you are right Jack. I’ll amend.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 1:51 pm
Jadis – you make an interesting link between the societal sexual shame that motivates name suppression of perpetrators of sexual violence in our country and the same shame that motivates familial murder in others. The shame associated with being the victim of a sexual crime whether it be the rape of an adult or the sexual abuse of a child is certainly one of the major factors in the resulting psychological damage. Do we perpetuate this shame by treating sexual assault differently to other forms of assault ?
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 1:58 pm
In my submission to the Law Reform lot on suppression I recommended that the law should be open and there should be no suppression for almost any situation.
In our society we have a situation where the state (in the form of police) do the prosecutions. The trade off should be fully open information. If people want secrecy then they should pay for the prosecution themselves. However its worthy of note that the bastion of “pay for it’ (the USA) has no suppression rules.
Sexual attack is but one form of physical attack. Yes its abominable and one of the worse versions of it, but it is but a form of assault – no more no less and there is no reason for secrecy. Frankly most people couldnt give a rats arse about some abuser in wherever place – we are only concerned when its in Our place – and court suppression rarely keeps local news a secret.
Ive sent my $100 off to Radio Live – who are running an appeal for Slater for his defense – and everyone who cares should do the same (I think its Box 8880, symonds street Auck – I wrote it on an envelope as soon as i heard the address – but didnt keep a copy. Check their website)
The only possible cases for suppression are:
1. IF we are to have full openness, then maybe suppression of ALL CASES until the court case is over. No suppression even for those found not guilty. However – this will remove from the scene anyone who might have information about the case coming forward – eg: other victims of the person charged (of which there are often quite a few)
2. Situations of national security.
and thats about all there should be.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 2:15 pm
The issue of name suppression before conviction is complex, and posters in a previous thread have dealt with the issues in well and in some detail.
Two things concern me though -
#1 evident lack of equity in application of name suppression laws, in terms of the alleged offenders social, professional or sporting status
#2 failure to make complainant’s names public if the verdict is not guilty. I’ve met several women who have freely admitted laying false complaints with police, particularly after a failed relationship, and who continue to enjoy name suppression while their targets do not.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 2:19 pm
Make that * complainants’ * dear god I must be getting old.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
barry – “but it is but a form of assault – no more no less and there is no reason for secrecy. ”
The difference between sexual assault and other forms of assault is that our sexuality is a core & significant part of our identity. When someone is assaulted sexually their identity is being challenged in a far stronger way than if they were punched.
When a pre-pubescent child is sexually assaulted the situation is even more serious. Sexuality is not yet a part of their identity so they are being unwillingly forced to deal with issues they are psychologically unprepared for.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
Name suppression of alleged offenders does NOT identify their VICTIMS (unless it is a family member in which case suppression should be automatic)
By NOT GRANTING suppression your are:
1) Upholding the democratic principle that everyone is presumed innocent until found guilty
2) Protecting society from potential further abuse (until such time as the person is either jailed or found to be innocent)
3) Ensuring that other people who share the same profession or background are NOT having their reputations called into question
and as you say David, not treating child abuse cases as something different from other criminal acts.
[DPF: Note Jadis authored this post, not me]
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
What do suppression orders really really achieve?? They cannot stop rumors, people “in the know” most typically journalists know anyway. In sexual offending suppression of details of the complainant and any information that could lead to the public identification of the complainant can be suppressed but only in very exceptional cases should the accused name be suppressed.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
I had a go at this yesterday, so I’ll just bung it in here:
The latest Whailoil antics obviously inspire this, and I think he does point up the somewhat farcical situation we have in trying to protect alleged or actual victims.
However, I can think of three or four reasons why its not in our interests to try to protect victims with name suppression.
1. The obvious one is name suppression (NS) mostly protects the perpetrator, and even if he is eventually named he’s given many months to arrange his affairs to his best benefit under the cloak of anonymity.
2. Justice is not primarily about victims but catching and punishing criminals. NS defies that simple principle and permanent NS means that sexual offenders are soon enough able to re-offend.. and between 30-40% of them do. We would reduce this if offenders were known to the public.
3. The prostitute Lisa Lewis has written of her own abuse by a relative. Although he went to prison he and she received permanent name suppression, so from the time she was six she was never allowed to identify her offender or talk about her abuse. The offender had a long history of hushed up abuse. Lewis feels that victims would be better served by having offenders named and getting the criminality out front.
4. NZ allegedly has stricter NS than most countries.. it also has the worst sexual abuse stats in the developed world. There may be a connection here.
5. I started bookmarking media stories on false sexual abuse and rape claims years ago, and believe me, there have been a lot. There are many police reports suggesting that false claims are as high as 50% of all such claims.. about the worst in the world and all made from a position of anonymity. I’m convinced, and the police files, media stories and surveys confirm to me that NS for alleged victims is a major reason for false complaints and a resultant enormous waste of time for the authorities.
Even when such girls/women (and its virtually always g/w) are exposed as liars they usually continue to receive NS.. thats wrong.
It looks to me that NS and anonymity is a multiplier of sexual abuse and rape; that it leaves genuine victims with a “secret” that they can never tell and thus is left unresolved for decades. Theres plenty of evidence that mental illness is the future we leave to many of the victims because we don’t effectively deal with it at the time because of the laws around NS. It also means we give no credence to the fact that young victims are enormously resilient and recover well from all sorts of trauma if we deal promptly and openly with it at the time.
JC
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 3:26 pm
democracymum: “not treating child abuse cases as something different from other criminal acts.”
I think the reality is that if a child victim of sexual abuse was able to be identified they would be subject to some sort of treatment by their peers that would cause further harm. If for example they had been abused by a parent or other close relative they might be subject to playground taunts and humiliation.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 3:48 pm
JC – great post!
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Steven Price had something really interesting to say about this:
For other sex offences, the media have a choice. They can do what British papers usually do and report that a named person has been charged with an unspecified offence. Or they can do what NZ papers invariably do and report that an unnamed person has been charged with a sexual assault on his wife or daughter, or whoever.
http://www.medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=333
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 4:22 pm
Very good point DPF. Perhaps suppression of revealing the relationship between the offender and the victim should suffice.
I do however believe in name suppression of all details that could identify someone who is accused of a crime but not yet guilty… that is unless they don’t want name suppression.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 4:28 pm
Yes JC – I agree with Jadis. A GREAT post!
I particularly agree with what you said about effectively dealing with shit at the time and this has been my position also on other threads….. but I didn’t put it half as succinctly as you did.
I also wonder, though, if New Zealand’s actual incidence of sexual abuse is as high as it seems to be. It is generally accepted that ours is one of the highest in the world – if not the highest – and I wonder if these figures are true or whether there is a tendency to inflate them just because it is ‘fashionable’ (and allowable) for people in later life to say that they were sexually abused as a child and use this as a hook to hang all kinds of claims and excuses on.
Or are we over-sensitised to this whole thing of ‘sex abuse’? For example, Italy. Does every schoolgirl who’s bottom is touched up in the bus scream “sexual abuse!”?
Maybe we really are a nation of sex abusers, incest perpetrators and black mackintoshes. But maybe our culture of anonymous accusations, judical suppression of the facts and secret courts merely serves to complicate and muddy the waters.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 4:50 pm
“CharlieBrown (243) Says:
January 13th, 2010 at 4:22 pm
Very good point DPF.”
ooops, I meant to say “Very good point Jadis”
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 6:03 pm
JC, you seemed to be running a consistent line until you wrote this:
I started bookmarking media stories on false sexual abuse and rape claims years ago, and believe me, there have been a lot. There are many police reports suggesting that false claims are as high as 50% of all such claims
If I was up on sex charges, and was in the half (your estimate) of innocent people, and acquitted at trial, I sure as hell wouldn’t want the world to know my name before getting my day in court.
People seem to forget that name suppression is very very very rarely carried past conviction.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 6:57 pm
T Mex,
I’ve got bad news for you.
Under current interpretations where the “victim” is not a child, you are not a celebrity and don’t have a 90 year old grandmother who might be upset, you are very likely to be identified. Look no further than Robin Brooke last week.
JC
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 7:46 pm
Well Brooke has allegedly offended in another country and has yet to be charged. How is that in anyway comparable to the other cases.?
But today we have a scumbag who shot a policeman, who has had medical treatment at our expense and appears now to be defended by a lawyer with a strange name, no doubt on legal aid and who is attempting to use the high court to ensure he remains anonymous. The excuse being that although he was arrested on 23 December 09, i.e. 20 days ago hasn’t got around to telling his aged grandmother oversea’s.
For all of you who continue to think for any reason name suppression is a good idea you can pay my share of the expenses from your tax account and leave mine for me Thankyou.
You can make your donations to whaleoil.
Vote:Oh what, you don’t mind contributing to our stuffed Justice system via your taxes and you don’t want it reformed so people bear their own responsibilities.?
Why the hell not?
January 13th, 2010 at 7:56 pm
“stuffed Justice system”
The only word I can think of that appropriately describes our failing justice system is dilapidated. It is beyond repair and no matter what Simon says the judges will still receive another yearly pay increase.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 8:06 pm
Clearly I am missing something. A newspaper identifies the alleged offender as an ex MP as living in the Nelson area who may at some stage have change his political allegances. Now, from the top of my head, that narrows the fleld down to four ….
S who went from Labour to ACT
T who went from National to ACT
W who went from Values to Green
E-S who went fro Green to National
The point I make (assuming my list is complete) is that three innocents are tarred with the ‘guilty’ brush. What sort of justice is it that so called name supression can still allow the media to narrow the field to such a point that anyone can quickly come up with a list of names that leaves innocents ‘hanging’ .
THe problem isn’t Cameron Slater. It’s lax law.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 8:37 pm
JC – “she received permanent name suppression, so from the time she was six she was never allowed to identify her offender or talk about her abuse.”
It certainly seems reasonable that once a child becomes an adult they should have the right to name their abuser.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 10:07 pm
Sounds like scampi to me.
MP steps down from ..
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 10:46 pm
So let me get this straight, JC…
Do you, or do you not, think that it is appropriate that people charged with sex offences are given name suppression when, by your own admission, you estimate that 50% of them are charges based on false accusations?
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 10:59 pm
” why do victims of sexual crime have more guilt or shame to bear than other victims”
Because many people in sexual assault or rape cases blame or partially blame the victim. If you want evidence of that look back at your own blog comments when a certain National Party minister was accused of sexual assault. Indeed your good friend Cameron was one of the leading voices slandering the alleged victim.
It is not some abstract “society” that tries to put the guilt onto the victim, it’s people you are chums with David. [Jadis: To be fair, I (Jadis) wrote the post. I am also a friend of Cam's but he'll tell you I give him grief for some of the lines he runs.... some... not all]
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 11:39 pm
“Do you, or do you not, think that it is appropriate that people charged with sex offences are given name suppression when, by your own admission, you estimate that 50% of them are charges based on false accusations?”
Yes. That alerts the public and as happens, can encourage more victims to come forward. That of course, is how the system works now unless the victim could be identified by naming the alleged perp.
The $64,000 question is whether the alleged victim should likewise be identified. That might encourage witnesses for the defence to come forward.
JC
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 12:48 am
Jadis
Of course the victim (or their parent/guardian) should have more say in this. However like all things, the law of unintended consequences then makes it possible for a fabricated complaint to publicly name a person and potentially destroy their lives.
I think the current situation is crap, and I do hate to play the ‘she made it up’ card but as long as that actually occurs from time to time the ability to forces names into the public domain when minors are involved is quite dangerous.
Celebrity name suppression is becoming the next reality TV in NZ at the moment. It’s bollox, something needs to change here.
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 7:06 am
This isn’t just about name suppression, it’s closely linked to how sexual assault cases are dealt with. Most victims of sexual assault choose suppression of everything by not reporting the offence, or not proceeding with the case, and then many are difficult to prove:
Isn’t much more important to be focusing on this?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3218475/Push-to-ease-rape-victims-court-ordeal
How to deal with name suppression should then be considered along with this.
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 7:26 am
Pete – it is the societal attitude to victims of sexual crime that is the underlying issue. I’m still unsure whether there is a puritanical basis to that OR a particularly liberal (with a little l) A number of measures deal with that, mold it, whatever you will, then develop from there.
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 11:40 am
Needless to say again, since I already made the point on the last thread, I am 100% with DPF and JC on this. Name suppression supposedly to protect sexual victims is utter crap, does nothing good for the victims and precious little for anyone else. On the other hand it does a lot of harm. It’s main purpose is to fulfill the agenda of some extremist groups to paint all women as helpless victims of an oppressive male society who need anonymity in order to receive justice.
The argument that a large number of sexual abuse allegations never make it as far as the courts is actually a further argument against name suppression of both accuser and accused. The more the public is aware of both unfounded and unprovable allegations the less likely both are to occur and the less likely the public will jump to premature and unjustified conclusions.
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Re point 4 of JC’s post (3.25pm, Jan 13): The question is asked whether there might be a connection between our high level of suppression orders and our equally high rate of sexual abuse. Whether our high rate of such abuse is real or more to do with more efficient gathering of information than other reporting countries is a possible factor.
However I don’t think we can look past the fact that we are also known for having the most stringent libel and defamation laws of countries of our type. Following widespread media dissastisfaction with the repressive influences of these in free reporting in NZ, Parliament set up a Royal Commisssion on our L&D laws about 20 years ago. After two or three years of study and reporting back to Parliament only a few changes were eventually made. The situation is much the same now as it was prior. We do have a culture of privacy in this country which tends to favour less openness in the availability of information from the Courts and elsewhere. Consider also our very high ex-nuptial teenage pregnancy rate which is often attributed in part to our repressive moral code – JC’s paradox is echoed here as well.
In this light it seems inevitable that as a nation we take greater considerations of “invasions” of our privacy into account than to our rights to free information. It is also inevitable that the more commonly suppression orders are applied the easier it has become to misapply them and that is what is happening. From a purely casual reading of court news it has struck me that there has become a surprisingly high level of suppression orders in the court news over the years – seemingly every major case has some reporting restriction imposed on it. Very unhealthy in my view – other similar countries seem to cope with openness without accusations of injustice.
At any rate the matter of suppression orders is to be visited by Parliament. Given the pervasiveness of our culture I don’t hold out much expectation of the brakes being taken off to any great extent – perhaps instead a slightly lighter touch to avoid frightening the natives too much.
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 5:02 pm
I’ve said many times before that suppression until after the verdict, with publication if found guilty and continued suppression if not guilty, is the only way to prevent destroying the lives of those wrongfully accused.
But to spin Jadis’s argument on it’s head – why publish names at all? Certainly society needs to know that X crime attracts Y punishment so that sentences have a deterrent value. But what do we gain from knowing the name of the offender, other than some sort of vicarious thrill if we happen to know them?
About the only legitimate reason I can see for publication is the possibility that there may be other victims (who can always come forward after conviction, and have those offences tried separately). That alone probbaly justifies name publication but, apart from that, the justification is pretty thin.
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 5:27 pm
But to spin Jadis’s argument on it’s head – why publish names at all?
The legal process must be seen to be transparent. Hiding the identities of who is being charged and convicted makes that impossible.
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 8:05 pm
Why not leave it up to the victim as to whether there’s name suppression? Surely they, more than anyone else, should be in the position to know what the effect of naming the person (or not) would be.
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 9:25 pm
Jarbury,
The victim is in a sense irrelevant to the process of justice because it is even more about regulating Society behaviour than addressing the rights or wishes of the victim. If name suppression impedes that process then the victim probably should take second place. Technically we have other processes to address the needs of the victim.
But what we are tending to do is potentially jeopardize the broad concept of justice by veering towards the needs and wishes of the victim rather than focusing on the criminal. Justice is hardly “blind” in such circumstances.
This whole argument is really about whether we are veering too far towards the victim.
JC
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 11:14 pm
Danyl:
I agree re transparency. But how transparent is it if all we know is that Mr X Y was convicted of sexual assault and setenced to 3 years jail? What was the evidence against him? How serious was the offending? What was his previous offending record, if any? Were any mitigating circumstances taken into account when sentencing? And so on.
Sometimes we get told all of this, in a very high profile case. Sometimes we get bits of it. Sometimes we get nothing at all beyond name, offence, sentence which is in some ways worse then no information at all as it raises more questions than it answers – at least for those who care about justice and its administration.
I wish more people would spend more time sitting in the public galleries of our courts rather than relying on a generally shoddy and alarmist media to report selected excerpts.
A look back at old newspapers is interesting… even someone convicted of pinching a loaf of bread had virtually the whole case against him explained, and much of the judge’s summing up was quoted. If we had that kind of coverage then transparency as a reason might be valid.
Vote:January 15th, 2010 at 6:03 am
Rex, if you put it like that it almost sounds like a case for permanent court tv.
Vote:Danyl – would that be the epitome of transparency?
January 15th, 2010 at 6:54 am
A little of subject but relevant to the whole idea of supression;
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10620339
Mr Snow and his partner Robert Cato were investigating a car parked in the drive of a Papatoetoe house when shots rang out. Mr Snow was hit four times.
In court yesterday, the accused man said nothing as his lawyer, Shane Tait, told Judge Charles Blackie that he had not been given a hearing date for a High Court appeal against the judge’s ruling on Wednesday to allow the defendant’s name to be published.
The judge had said the concept of open justice was the principal issue and he would not suppress the man’s name.
An appeal was filed within an hour at Manukau District Court on Wednesday, meaning the name can not be published until the High Court hears the appeal.
The excuse from this scumbag and his legal aid lawyer is that after 14 days he hadn’t had time to tell his aging grandmother is some oversea’s country. So the lawyer gets more of our money. More of our money is wasted in court costs and as a community we still don’t know who this scumbag is and where he hails from.
Vote:Why should he be able to do this and is it in the best interests of our community?