Who made it easier?
January 12th, 2010 at 10:18 am by David FarrarThe Press reports:
A blogger faces fresh charges after he revealed the name of a national figure charged with indecently assaulting a 13-year-old girl.
Cameron Slater already faces charges over alleged breaches of name suppression, and he said yesterday that he had no doubt his latest effort would land him in more trouble.
Slater, who writes the WhaleOil blog, yesterday posted a blog entry that stated the name of a man charged with indecent assault. The name had to be deciphered by translating a code the blog was written in.
I think it was hexadecimal converted into binary. Now Cameron will find out in due course, whether or not that is seen to identify the ex-MP with name supression, but if they do prosecute the Whale, the question has to be asked whether newspapers should be charged also?
The man’s name was suppressed when he appeared in the Nelson District Court on Thursday.
A Sunday newspaper published details about the man, which Slater said had narrowed the field of possible accused to three.
He wanted to clarify who the accused was so the other two men were not unfairly accused.
Now I am not gunning for the Herald on Sunday. But I would say that far more people worked out from their story, who the accussed is, than the handful of people who were capable of working out the code Cameron had used, and reverse engineering it into hexadecimal and finally the alphabet.
I am not saying that one justifies the other, or two wrongs make a right. I am saying that the Police should be very careful not to be selective. The Herald on Sunday article told us the following:
- An ex-MP in Nelson – narrows it down to around four people
- A “national figure” – probably eliminates around two of the four people as now very low profile
- He has a partner
- Has a firearms licence (implied)
- Implies the victim is the partner’s daughter
- Implies the ex-MP has been in more than one party by referring to the leader of “a” party he represented in Parliament
I would say that identifies the accused far more easily to many more people than the hexadecimal and binary code did.
You can argue that Whale’s post left no doubt, once you cracked his codes, while the newspaper story only allows you to make an intelligent guess. However the law in s139(2) says:
No person shall publish … the name of the person accused or convicted of the offence or any name or particulars likely to lead to the person’s identification.
Were the particulars in the newspaper story enough to be likely to lead to identification of the accused? They certainly were for me, and most political observers.
Now again, I am not advocating that the newspaper be charged. I would prefer no one be charged. But I would be interested in how one could conclude that the blog post is a breach, but the newspaper story is not.
Tags: Cameron Slater, Herald on Sunday, name suppression, Whale Oil
January 12th, 2010 at 10:20 am
Slater made it a shit load harder to work out than the papers did.
If he is being charged so should they. Its as simple as that… unless the cops are being selective of course.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 10:21 am
The newspaper article was misleading as it implied the ex MP had represented more than one party in parliament. That made me come to the wrong conclusion and I suspect that Ken Shirley may have grounds for defamation.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 10:28 am
I understand that if you crack Slater’s code, it just gives you a name – and nothing else. It doesn’t say why the name has been posted, or that the person was an MP, so that they have been charged with anything. Nothing at all. Just a name.
So, in what sense, is this breaking name suppression? If Paul Henry went on TV and simply said “Joe Bloggs” with no other information about why he was saying it, and it happens that Joe has received name suppression for something, how could Paul Henry be said to be breaching that name suppression? He wouldn’t be (although he would look a bit stupid on TV for blurting out a random name, but that’s a different thing, and certainly not a legal issue).
I think Slater is entirely safe on this latest one.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 10:29 am
An excellent summary David. At what point does the name suppression stop protecting the alleged offender and violate the rights and reputation of others?
I believe that name suppression should only be granted when the victim is a member of the offender’s direct family.
Other than that – the law states that every New Zealander is innocent until proven guilty. If the names were published at the time of the charge, it would re-educate the public to WAIT for the outcome, BEFORE making up their minds whether someone was guilty or innocent.
George
Vote:I agree with your comment also, on this basis google.co.nz would also be “guilty” of breaching name suppression.
January 12th, 2010 at 10:31 am
Cameron only posted a name (albeit coded).
It was the herald in this article http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10619680 that added the piece of information that this name happened to be the name of someone with name suppression in a trial.
so, who did the outing? I vote for the herald on this one.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 10:32 am
A week ago Cameron Slater stood outside court and said he obviously wouldn’t reveal the name of the comedian as a child was involved and that wouldn’t be right. This week he reveals the name of the ex-MP charged with indecent assault of a girl.
What’s changed? Is Cameron having trouble remembering the reason he started this campaign, or is the real reason rising to the surface?
I’ll give you a Whale Oil hint: stih etis swollof gnisitrevda
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 10:33 am
I am advocating that the HoS is charged.
Firstly the breaches (and I use the plural deliberately as I believe that the HoS has breached as well). This is a case where, in my opinion, name suppression is entirely appropriate. Firstly the chap is only accused not convicted and secondly this is, apparently, a case where publication can lead to identification of the victim. Surely, even on conviction, this is one exception to so called “open justice” (or more accurately unrestrained and targeted media attention on certain individuals) that is worthy.
That said, I agree entirely that the HoS made the identification of the person almost inevitable AND also narrowed the field to the extent that suppression was all but unsustainable (Cameron’s point I believe). Following that HoS article it was completely unfair to the three or four other potential people that name suppression was in place (and to their families as well).
I do not agree with this person being named and, to be fair, Whale has made himself a bit of a target/matyr but the police and the SG need to grow some testicular fortitude and take on the HoS if they are going to be fair. It will be a damn site harder and more costly but the HoS actions are no less calculated to challenge the law as it is than the Whale’s.
As an aside, I find the way the media are salivating over further charges against Slater quite distasteful and significantly hypocritical. At least he is fronting to his actions.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 10:37 am
Actually Cameron posted the encoded name and the charge, not just the name. It didn’t identify the alleged victim.
I agree with him, the suppression law as interpreted by our courts has become dysfunctional.
And the law belongs to us, the public, not to the lawyers, judges, police, bureaucrats or politicians.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 10:39 am
What’s changed? Is Cameron having trouble remembering the reason he started this campaign, or is the real reason rising to the surface?
He’s has addressed this on his blog.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 10:42 am
Actually Cameron posted the encoded name and the charge, not just the name. It didn’t identify the alleged victim.
The trouble is we know from other information that the victim is his step-daughter. So it seems to me a trick by his lawyers to allow the relationship of the accused to the victim to become public knowledge in order to prevent identification later on.
FWIW there are two versions of the binary text floating about, the current one on the blog encoding just the name and no charges.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 10:45 am
Just a name (when i did it). Convert each byte (8 bits) into decimal, look up each corresponding ASCII character and you get a sequence of number/letter pairs which look to be hexidecimal. Convert these into decimal and look up each corresponding ASCII character. You get a name.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 10:46 am
I can’t see why publishing the name in hexadecimal would be any different to publishing it in French, Chinese or, by extension, English, and I think that any judge will see things the same way. The police are now talking about some pretty serious charges against Slater. I don’t think you’re doing your friend any favors by playing devils advocate and encouraging him.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 10:48 am
Two wrongs dont make a right
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 10:51 am
I skipped the Lisa Lewis post and justification. Sorry, I don’t believe him.
So now Cameron Slater is not only making his own laws, but he’s changing them at whim. Excellent.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 10:51 am
“But I would be interested in how one could conclude that the blog post is a breach, but the newspaper story is not.”
Or indeed how this post, which spells out things even more thoroughly for anyone who missed it, is not. ;^)
[DPF: I considered this, but I think the Police would look very bad if they tried to have a go at me for merely pointing out that a newspaper has published details that can lead to identification, and why]
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 10:52 am
DPF – The Whale’s post clearly identifies the victim to anyone who knows the accused. And it took me only three minutes to decode the post – I think you underestimate the number of people who will recognise binary code and can convert it to ASCII.
The thing I find weird here is that Whale went on TV saying he wouldn’t breach a suppression order that “involves a kid” and then proceeded to do exactly that.
malcolm – you’re right, it is just a name. But it is pretty clear what he’s on about.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 10:53 am
The HOS clues pointed to Ken Shirley as the most likely alleged offender. It seems now that it wasn’t him. And that’s the problem with this sort of name suppression… it is quite possible that Ken is going to spend the rest of his life being whispered about as a sex offender. Some people will just “know” this about him and will tell others about his “crimes” and it’ll be hard to stop the whispers since it is illegal for those people to access verified and accurate information about the situation.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 10:54 am
If we don’t like any laws should we just make them dysfunctional?
The Herald, HoS and other media are culpable, but with two major differences:
Vote:- they haven’t openly and repeatedly said they want to breach the law
- they have a lot more experience and legal backing than Slater
January 12th, 2010 at 10:58 am
I’m starting to think I’m even stranger than people (mostly my children) have, over the years, told me I am but upon reflection I don’t give a damn who the bastard is.
The only thing that might change that stance is if the bastard is an overt god-botherer or hypocrite of the Capill variety.
Otherwise it simply does not matter and the courts will deal with him (or not) in due course.
It is only at that point that name suppression should be lifted and FULL publication of the facts, whether guilty or innocent, should be made.
This latter is, I believe, most important because I have seen people charged with full publicity then have charges quietly dropped or the case thrown out of court and those not “in the loop” are left with the impression that the poor bastard is guilty.
As for Slater, it does the cause no good at all if you cry like a girl when faced with the consequences you deliberately attracted.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 11:00 am
Peter George>they have a lot more experience at this and legal backing than Slater
So given a choice between two lawbreakers, the Police will go after the one that is going to be able to afford the cheaper lawyer?
If that is the case, then human rights have really gone to pot in NZ.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 11:04 am
The courts are at fault. Either release all details or no details. Some details allows for speculation.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 11:05 am
Slater has moved from not naming “because of the child” to the opposite. His logic is confused and he seems even more “off his meds” than usual. He has deliberately and stupidly flouted the law in a way that makes no sense, and in fact runs counter to all our basic assumptions e.g. of assumed innocence, of protecting the victim (if there is one), and allowing a free and fair trial.
Vote:If he ends up inside he will only have himself to blame.
January 12th, 2010 at 11:08 am
What an odd position. I agree that making so many details available is getting pretty close to identifying, but Slater deliberately posted the name. Hiding it behind some trick doesn’t change the fact that he directly identified the individual with the express intent to do so. That’s the difference and it’s a pretty significant one.
And remember what he’s currently being charged with here: breaching a non-publication order that protects the identity of a rape victim. Not the alleged rapist, the victim. Classy stuff.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 11:09 am
Pete George (3140) Says:
January 12th, 2010 at 10:54 am
“If we don’t like any laws should we just make them dysfunctional?”
Yes we should. Especially so when the law is poorly written and out of date with the times. How can a law give name suppression to a high profile offender but not to a lower-profile offender? Both will have their future employment prospects affected. Why do the courts release only enough information to implicate a handfull of potential people, bringing upon unfair speculation on innocent people. Name suppression law needs re-written, and judges need to be given the hard word to show some common sense or get the f%ck out of the courts.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 11:12 am
All the mp’s who are implicated by the partial release of information should make a statement saying they are not the person, so by process of elimination making it obvious who it is. The judge who issued the order should be sacked.
Would it be illegal if everyone who knows who it is name an ex-mp from the nelson/tasman area who is innocent?
DPF, can we do this?
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 11:15 am
“in fact runs counter to all our basic assumptions e.g. of assumed innocence, of protecting the victim”
How does naming the accused affect any of these? If naming the accused violates the presumption of innocence why are not all accused given name suppression? If protecting the (alleged) victim requires name suppression of the accused why does it not also require name suppression of the convicted offender? Why then are our jails not full of secret prisoners?
These arguments are crap on the most cursory inspection.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 11:17 am
“Now again, I am not advocating that the newspaper be charged. I would prefer no one be charged.”
DPF, if you prefer that no one be charged, it suggests that you think Cameron’s actions do not breach the law. Is that seriously your belief? You are a smart guy, and I cannot fathom how you buy that his actions are legit, especially when, according to comments on his post “the original post including both the base64 title and binary encoded – hex encoded – plain text stated “The ex-MP on sexual assault charges is [first name] [last name]” (edited for obvious reasons).”
What line are you drawing here? If it is OK to breach a suppression order in hex-binary, what if it was in binary only? Or in Wing Dings? Or written backwards? That is surely a crazy and totally arbitrary line-drawing exercise to engage in.
It seems clear to me that Cameron intended to breach the law through this post, and that his post had the intended effect. That strikes me as a fairly straightforward case, no?
You are suggesting he not be charged with anything. For that to be a reasonable course of action, I must have some part of this story wrong. What part of the story do I have wrong?
[DPF: I said I would prefer there are no charges. I did not say that I do not think there has been a breach of the law. Many law breaches are not prosecuted. Again I have not stated an opinion on whether a particular action is a breach - the courts will decide if there is a prosecution]
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 11:18 am
Charlie, we should improve laws that are not working properly or are out of date with the times – by making them function beter and more fairly, not by making them dysfunctional and not caring who gets hurt in the process.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 11:19 am
Alan, “f naming the accused violates the presumption of innocence why are not all accused given name suppression? ”
It doesn’t violate the assumption of innocence, but their are other ethical implications to naming someone, especially for a sexual crime, only to have that person found innocent, especially in the cases of false rape complaints. There must be privacy implications, as personal information is revealed in courts that is published, and anyone could do a quick google to find out information of that person that was revealed because of a false accusation.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 11:19 am
A lot of people seem to be completely missing the fact that at least two of these cases are about protecting the VICTIM of sexual assault/rape from public identification. All likely changes to the name suppression laws will still maintain that as a pretty basic bedrock.
Publically trumpeting the identity of a sexual assault victim just so we can all boo and hiss at the perpertrator is pretty low.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 11:22 am
Yeah that’ll work well. Everyone just follows the laws you like and ignore the ones you don’t. And make your own new ones. If someone pisses you off then just shoot them.
This’ll be great. We’ll save a fortune on parliament and MPs.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 11:22 am
# Pete George (3142) Says:
January 12th, 2010 at 11:18 am
“Charlie, we should improve laws that are not working properly or are out of date with the times – by making them function beter and more fairly, not by making them dysfunctional and not caring who gets hurt in the process.”
Yes we should improve them, however alot of the time laws won’t get improved untill it becomes overwhelmingly clear that the law is dysfunctional. For instance, the dj given name suppression was completely wrong, yet this case on its own won’t drive the change. At least Slater is keeping this debate going.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 11:23 am
“But I would be interested in how one could conclude that the blog post is a breach, but the newspaper story is not.”
Or indeed how this post, which spells out things even more thoroughly for anyone who missed it, is not. ;^)
[DPF: I considered this, but I think the Police would look very bad if they tried to have a go at me for merely pointing out that a newspaper has published details that can lead to identification, and why]
By that logic then every news outlet that has referred to Whale’s blog will also be in the gun. I guess there is that potential but I would struggle to see how prosecuting those who report the breaches would be in the public interest.
Alan – my view is that all accused should have name suppression because the media, and by extension, the public do not seem to be able to differentiate between accused and guilt. Imagine being accused of kiddy fiddling as a profile figure. Next thing it is all over the news, two years later you are found not guilty. Do you think your life magically goes back to normal?
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 11:23 am
Pete George, you seem naive. There are only two ways laws get changed. The overwhelming majority of changes are because the political bureaucracy finds new ways to extend its powers. A very small minority are because the public rebel with sufficient ferocity and publicity to threaten said political bureaucracy.
Not caring who gets hurt in the process is simply business as usual for the “system”.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 11:23 am
Is that what you would do if there wasn’t a law stopping you?
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 11:24 am
Well said, Garethw.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 11:24 am
The body of the message posted on WO did not simply translate as a name. Rather, it stated: “The ex-MP on sexual assault charges is” and then the name.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 11:25 am
Toad “The Whale’s post clearly identifies the victim to anyone who knows the accused. And it took me only three minutes to decode the post – I think you underestimate the number of people who will recognise binary code and can convert it to ASCII.”
I’ve got a degree in computer programming Toad and I don’t know who it is. Any idea why?
Because I didn’t go bloody looking for the name that why. You all want to get outraged but you’re as much of the problem as Slater is so cry on someone else.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 11:27 am
DPF: is there any chance please of getting the karma buttons back for those who may want to show solidarity or otherwise with the Whale?
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 11:27 am
Malcolm – Good people have enough common-sense to know when breaking a law is right. Many great people have broken a bad law to bring upon necessary change, eg, Galileo, Mandella, Oscar Schindler, even that national mp who drove the tractor up the stairs of parliament.
I don’t support slater in Allowing the victim to be named, however naming a person guilty of a crime should be universal.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 11:28 am
GPT1, at least you are consistent. Either everyone gets it or no-one gets it is defensible. The present lottery is indefensible.
However in an open society with instant global communication suppression is simply now unenforceable. Therefore I argue the only sane policy is open justice. I agree the media is a salivating bunch of clueless ghouls. However that is simply a necessary evil in an open society. At least we can call them on it and should do so frequently.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 11:29 am
I don’t think I would – but it’s hard to say what would become the norm in that situation. Maybe I would. Plenty of people certainly would.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 11:31 am
Firstly the name suppression is for the benefit of the 12-16 victim. Secondly this person is innocent until proven guilty. Thirdly, good people do have enough common-sense. What about all the rest?
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 11:33 am
isn’t the real question;
who is breaching the name suppression in the first place?
the court staff, police, lawyers etc…
the law isnt protecting the victims.. lol..joke.
Vote:either give everyone name suppression until proven guilty or not.
the law is an arse and is open to well paid lawyers getting their celebrity clients name suppression.
that is the whole point of Cameron’s protest.
January 12th, 2010 at 11:35 am
Alan “open justice” as you call can be entirely harmful to the victim and even the innocent accused. You proposal is based in the “its too hard so why bother” priciple.
I’m against it.
I remain FOR locking up those who deliberately attempt to redirect the course of justice because in selected cases they don;t happen to like the result. Be that Slater, a bunch of women screaming “all men a racists”, a newspaper that thinks that laws are for other people or a lawyer who leaks supressed information to tar the army over a bridge that his clients tried to have built on the cheap and didn’t bother to maintain.
Either they all walk or they all go down is all I’m looking for.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 11:35 am
Somewhere forgotten in all of this, there is a little girl who will be going back to school in a couple of weeks and will have to face her friends and what they know or don’t know about her summer holidays.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 11:36 am
who is breaching the name suppression in the first place?
the court staff, police, lawyers etc…
Name suppression only covers publication – it does not cover spoken communication.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 11:37 am
Well said, Andrei
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 11:38 am
“Alan “open justice” as you call can be entirely harmful to the victim and even the innocent accused.”
So can secret justice. And is much more likely to be.
“You proposal is based in the “its too hard so why bother” priciple.”
No, it’s based on the “it’s impossible so why be stupid?” principle.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 11:41 am
Murray – “Firstly the name suppression is for the benefit of the 12-16 victim. Secondly this person is innocent until proven guilty. Thirdly, good people do have enough common-sense. What about all the rest?”
I correct what I say, name suppression should be abolished for all guilty offenders unless naming the offender names the victim who doesn’t wish to be named.
What about the rest? They will break the law regardless, there is nothing we can do about it. My point is, there is a place in society for ignoring bad laws, if enough people ignoring/break bad laws then the f%cktards we elect will have to change the law. Everyone who smacks their children for correction is breaking the law but the PM has said it is ok to do so. Life isn’t always black and white.
“I remain FOR locking up those who deliberately attempt to redirect the course of justice because in selected cases they don;t happen to like the result.”
take it to its logical conclusion, everyone who speeds when overtaking a car as thats the safest thing to do will be locked up. Show common sense Murray.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 11:42 am
Andrei, you got it wrong. Somewhere forgotten in all of this there are a whole bunch of families who are facing friends who suspect they may be involved in this affair when actually they have nothing at all to do with it.
And if you think that effective name suppression would have protected the real alleged victim from identification in a small town like Nelson you have no clue whatever.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 11:47 am
Charlie the subject here is not guilty offenders. In all these cases that people are jumping up and down about we onyl have accused and a lot of impatiant rubber neckers who want their daily fix of titilation.
You have not demonstrated that the situation is impossible. For a start the majority of people don’t get their information online. In your personal world every may do, but not in the would outside the magical box on your desk.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 11:48 am
Charlie Brown – the court did not release selective information. It granted name suppression. On reflection counsel could have asked for suppression of former occupation to forestall a collateral attack on name suppression such as that undertaken by HoS. In terms of high and low profile any offender will get name suppression in these circumstances due to the link with the alleged victim so your point is, well, pointless. And even considering name suppression in the wider sense it is only profile and “interesting” ones that make the news. The courts are routinely dealing with sex allegations without media interest.
Alan – I agree, that is a practical flaw in my argument. Although I would suggest that it is not such a grevious flaw as to make the entire law unworkable. Remember that most of us on this blog (thread) have an above average interest in these matters and rely on the internet for our information. I still suspect that the majority of the public are unaware of the identity – there is, with all respect to Whale, a massive difference between a coded thread on a blog and a lead story on TV news and front page of every paper.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 11:48 am
“Charlie the subject here is not guilty offenders. In all these cases that people are jumping up and down about we onyl have accused and a lot of impatiant rubber neckers who want their daily fix of titilation.”
The guilty muscian in wellington who got permanent name suppression is the one I believe Slater was just in outing.
GPT1 – Only in some crimes would naming the offender also name the victim, plus, it should be the victims perogative in these cases
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 11:50 am
I stand corrected. However my position remains unchanged. A law is not a law unless it is enforced. The only reason that supression orders seem unenforcabel is that the polaice have repeatedly failed to make any effort to enforce them. nothing else.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 11:54 am
Charlie Brown – you keep making wrong assumptions to argue against. Firstly this IS a case where naming the ALLEGED offender will identify the victim and IT IS the victim’s preogative as to whether that becomes final on conviction and sentencing IF the person is found guilty.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 11:56 am
He he , just found out.
I suppose all parties have their bug-bear.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 11:57 am
The karma is disabled as it was attracting dos attacks. May return.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 11:57 am
I agree with you completely on this one Murray. And as a matter of principle I won’t try and work out any suppressed names.
(Can live without the karma, I miss the most recent posts list a lot more)
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 11:58 am
Firstly this IS a case where naming the ALLEGED offender will identify the victim
If and only if it is made public that the victim was the step-daughter. If that is not done, the identification of the victim does not follow from the identification of the offender. I believe a high-profile sex abuser victims relationship was not identified so he could be identified without identifying them. So why wasn’t it done in this case?
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 11:58 am
The decoding of Whale’s post is not straightforward, but requires two steps, which is now common knowledge thanks to DPF.
Vote:It’ll be a matter of hours before the guys in blue will come a’knocking I guess.
January 12th, 2010 at 11:59 am
GPT – Under section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act, it is only the victims prerogative if (or once) they are over 16.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 12:01 pm
[DPF: I said I would prefer there are no charges. I did not say that I do not think there has been a breach of the law. Many law breaches are not prosecuted. Again I have not stated an opinion on whether a particular action is a breach - the courts will decide if there is a prosecution]
OK, so what is your basis for concluding that this alleged breach of the law should not attract a prosecution? When considering that question, I suggest that you consider the very deliberate nature of the alleged breach, and the repeat nature of the alleged breaches.
[DPF: I did not conclude it should not attract a prosecution. I said I would prefer it did not. I choose my language carefully.]
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 12:01 pm
Ah yes, thanks Graeme. The other catch is where there are multiple victims and some want suppression and some do not or some are over 16 and some under.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 12:01 pm
“IT IS the victim’s preogative as to whether that becomes final on conviction and sentencing IF the person is found guilty.”
I understand that the victim of the entertainer had no say?
What assumption do you think i’m making GPT1? Slater is wrong in naming the accused (note, I say accused, not offender) ex mp, the courts/law is wrong in allowing the paper to even release any details regarding the accused, however I felt slater was right in naming the entertainer?
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Simply put it is becoming impossible for name suppression to be enforced. Cameron can simpy cop the fines associated with his transgressions (and have a record) but that’s the limit of the penalties as I understand it. The end result might be a few grand out of his pocket, but a forcing of the legislation to be reviewed. The first two cases (the olympian and the ‘entertainer’) had no good reason to get name suppression that I can think of, just as you wouldn’t think it fair for Tony Veitch to have had it (and frankly his time in the public eye is over and he should accept that and get a different job – different topic though).
Vote:I can’t say I agree with him naming the last two (the ‘comedian’ and the MP) as that clearly identifies the victims also.
WRT to his post naming the MP, I pasted the code into google and found a tech forum where someone else had previously posted a copy of the code (from Whale’s site) and asked readers to help crack it. My guess is that someone was from either Fairfax or the Herald, so I’m wondering if technically they also breached the suppression order by re-posting the code, especially since the answer was posted in plain text on that site. That site is hosted offshore so may be out of jurisdiction. If so then I suspect Cam’s possible defence that his site is hosted offshore may also have some merit.
January 12th, 2010 at 12:04 pm
GPT1, surprising as it may seem to many, Mike Ward is an old and respected friend. On reading the Herald report my first concern was whether he was the accused and I think that would be true of all friends of those who could be implicated by the Herald’s description.
That is simply an untenable state which can only be remedied by further information which is certain to happen whether the justice system approves or not.
Suppression in the current world is simply trying to push the proverbial uphill with a sieve for no useful purpose. Despite the current obsession with treating teenagers as though they are incapable infants I do not believe their interests are at all served by judicial secrecy. If bad things happen they are best dealt with in the open air.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
I can’t say I agree with him naming the last two (the ‘comedian’ and the MP) as that clearly identifies the victims also.
Whaleoil didn’t identify the Comedian.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
Isn’t that already happening? Which would make this campaign futile (legally) but potentially damaging to potentially innocent people and victims?
The Whale has dropped enough hints about the “comedian” too. He also said he has changed his mind about not revealing this one because a hooker told him it was in victim’s interest to do so.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 12:08 pm
Charlie Brown – I have just pointed out two errors you made (one tidied up by Graeme in fairness). And above you kept going on about the Court “releasing” selective information. The court does not release information. As I explained above the Court and counsel probably thought suppressing name (which means that no details likely to lead to identification are to be released) was enough – in my view the HoS released more than enough information to make it likely that identification would occur.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 12:08 pm
Mike Ward is an old and respected friend
Was another name I thought of. However I had dismissed him as the possible perp because he was well… too old and more importantly not changed parties.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
The Whale has dropped enough hints about the “comedian” to.
He hasn’t dropped hints in the way that he has dropped hints about the Former Olympian and the Well-Known Entertainer. Nothing of what he has said has lead anybody to identify the Comedian. That he has changed his mind about whether it would be right to identify the Comedian is a fact that he freely admits but to date, he still has not identified the Comedian.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
All this started after some “musician” was given name suppression, and not charged after sexually assaulting a teenage girl. That was 100% wrong in my eyes. It doesn’t protect the victim, and it doesn’t protect the innocent. He should have been named.
Ignoring the Olympian, the other politician and comedian are still not convicted. That means that (so far) they are innocent.
Now I think that name suppression should be universal pre-conviction, with no details, no job, no region mentioned – even the name of the court should be kept out of the news.
After conviction the criminal should be named, and the victim’s name suppressed. There’s no point trying to protect the victim by hiding the crim’s name, because their uncle/stepdad/father/teacher is now in jail, and every kid’s parent in their school knows that, regardless of any suppression order. And if their parents know the kids know. Suppressing the media isn’t going to help.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
This debate is heading in two directions.
We can either have total secrecy and not know the identities of anyone accused of a crime. Perhaps something less restrictive like Queensland where in sex cases names of accused are suppressed until they’re committed to trial. But definitely more than the current situation where the rich and famous can hide their shame.
Or
The American way where nothing is suppressed and you can publish mug shots, 911 calls, the lot.
So what do we want? More secrecy or more openess? I vote for openess.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
All this started after some “musician” was given name suppression, and not charged after sexually assaulting a teenage girl.
He was charged and plead guilty. The issue was whether he should receive permanent name suppression on the grounds that it would damage his career.
Ignoring the Olympian, the other politician and comedian are still not convicted.
I can’t speak for the politician but the basis of the Comedian’s defence is that the crime happened but he did not have the intent to commit a crime. I would hardly consider him innocent in such circumstances.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
GPT1 – I agree, thats why I said that the court allowed the herald to release this information.
Perhaps a way to stop the likes of the herald doing harm (ie, allowing unnecessary speculation on innocent people) would be to allow effected people to sue and get compensation for emotional/reputational damages. Therefore papers will be far more reluctant to do this…. just and idea.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 12:29 pm
I don’t actually agree with what WhaleOil is doing here, but it does raise an interesting question: How much “effort” is actually required to find out the suppressed information?
Media are not allowed to name the person, but often they provide details such as “national figure”, or “household name”, and then provide the date of this person’s next Court appearance.
Is using this information to head on down to the Courthouse on the appointed date / time really much different from deciphering a cryptic post? Yes, I realise that there is a legal distinction on publishing, but shouldn’t the law be supposed to cover the intent, not just the actions?
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 12:34 pm
I recall when the Kirk Labour Government passed a law in the 1970′s that banned the publication of anyone’s name unless/until they had been convicted. The law was intended to protect the character of those persons who were found not guilty. I was quite young at the time and agreed with the law.
The media were outraged at this intrusion into their reporting, said it stymied freedom of the press and the right of the public to know and the newspapers led a sustained campaign for the law to be repealed. This was picked up by Muldoon as Opposition Leader and it became quite an important plank in the party’s election policy. Muldoon won and the law was repealed.
Now, 35 years later we are still discussing name suppression. My views have changed completely and I firmly believe suppression should be very exceptional.
Those in favour say suppression in sexual assault cases is to protect the victim’s identity, especially where children are involved. But I think in such circumstances an accused persons name SHOULD be published as there have been cases where doing so has led to other (unknown) victims seeing the name published and coming forward with their own sexual complaint against the accused. Surely this is a good thing for society, and the other victims?
Some people also say where an accused is name and the victim is a relative, that this has the effect of re-victimising the victim. However, naming an accused in these circumstances can also lead to the accused pleading guilty, so sparing the victim from having to give evidence in Court. Isn’t that a good thing?
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
Spam, and others, in my view the point you make about media publishing broad hints is the key issue here. Whale has opened himself up for prosecution but if the police and SG are serious about making name suppression as workable as possible then the far more serious issue than a blogger on a mission is the actions of the msm and, in this case particularly, the HoS.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 12:41 pm
It’s interesting what is illegal though.
eg, Would it be possible, for him to publish an encrypted code with the guys name.
Then, if someone else posted the encryption key, then who is at fault?
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
[DPF: I did not conclude it should not attract a prosecution. I said I would prefer it did not. I choose my language carefully.]
OK, I’ll try again. On what basis would you “prefer” that Cameron not be charged. Is it simply because Cameron is a friend of yours, or is there more to it than that?
[DPF: Now you are getting closer. I might say I would prefer someone doesn't get hit a car. However if they play in traffic, they may get hit by a car - despite my preference]
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
Dead right. Reminds me of the people who say it is digusting that they can see the nudists if they climb on their garage roof with a pair of binoculars. That code that Slater published meant nothing to me. I still don’t know who is being referred to and despite knowing that there are tons of binary/hex/ascii translation sites out there I am not bothering to look. People who want to know will find out, if Slater puts a whole lot of 000111010101010101′s or not.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 12:47 pm
There was a child pornographer who posted pics of himself on a website, where he had used a photoshop effect to mask his face. The photo was taken by the cybercrime unit, processed to reverse the effect, enabling the person to be identified and prosecuted.
As an analogy, while media aren’t allowed to name people with name suppression, they often show them walking to the Court, and have their faces pixelated. Someone could take one of these feeds (binary data) and reverse-engineering the pixelation algorithm to reveal the person’s face.
Serious question: In that case, is the TV station any more accountable for the breach of name suppression than WhaleOil is by posting the name encrypted?
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 12:57 pm
It’s an aside but I don’t think they could. Pixelation looses information. The paedophile swirl just moves pixels around.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 12:58 pm
@Spam
Pixelation on TV is not able to be reconstructed in the way the idiot pornographers attempt to hide his face was.
In simplistic terms the pornographer simply moved pixels around on the page, which meant they could be moved back to where they had originally been.
In pixelated broadcasts the original pixels are not broadcast, so while you could possibly use software to try and guess what had been there it would be extremely unlikely, effectively impossible, to be accurate enough to determine an identity.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 1:04 pm
Its all really very simple. Cammy has a huge ego, he enjoyed all of the publicity he got from his last little escapade (and perhaps the advertising revenue that came with his increased traffic) so he decided to do it again. All his talk about protecting the victim is just flim flam, cammy’s inflated sense of his own self-importance is what this is about, nothing more.
The fact you continue to defend him does not reflect well on you DPF.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Metcalph – Mike Ward was a co-leader of the Values Party in the 1980s.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
Regarding reporters standing outside court, aren’t the courts breaching name suppression by the simple fact that the alleged criminal is on his way to court, and the reporters are standing there and can see who he is?
Therefore, for the reporters, the criminals name has been released (via them seeing who he is – obviously he wasn’t wearing a badge with his name).
Where does it say in law that reporters are entitled to find out who someone with name suppression is?
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
I have seen him post pointed clues about the identity (before he claimed he wouldn’t reveal the identity). I already knew who it was and it was obvious he was referring to the same person, not sure how much decrypting it would have taken someone who didn’t know. I’m not going to link to his posts on that.
I think he just can’t help demonstrating how “clever/knowledgeable” he his. Then he shows a lack of cleverness using selective excuses.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
metcalph, Whale Oil did drop facts about the comedian. He mentions him and two big clues when he wrote about first appearing in court.
And I agree that the comedian is likely guilty, with a piss-poor excuse. But he has not been convicted/proven guilty so should be regarded as innocent for name suppression purposes.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 1:19 pm
Mike Ward was a co-leader of the Values Party in the 1980s.
Which never was in Parliament. I hardly consider going from Values to Greens to be much of a jump, unlike going from Labour to Act as Ken Shirley did and which was the key reason that I mistakenly thought he was the guy wot dun it.
I have seen him post pointed clues about the identity (before he claimed he wouldn’t reveal the identity).
But those pointed clues were not in and off themselves sufficient to identify the Comedian in the same way that the rebuses were. If they were, the papers would have been all over themselves then as they are now.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
Latest from Cameron’s blog
“Whoopie! Customs stopped 246 kilos of Meth being made. I’ve personally seen someone who was a flea in whatever organisation he was in sitting in a viaduct apartment with a kilo of meth on the coffee table and million bucks in cash”
Naming him Cameron?
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
2010 is shaping up to be a very strage year for me. Just found myself agreeing with both of Sonic’s posts.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
The momentum builds slowly…
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
The newspapers made it easier because the suppression order was not comprehensive enough. But you have made it easier still with your helpful summary especially with the last comment about “a” party. I did not pick that up. But Slater is a disgrace. He cannot be trusted to respect bail conditions about not doing this again. Perhaps he should be locked up until the case is disposed of.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
Slater went from naming someone who was guilty of a crime (Wgtn case) to naming someone who has been charged with a crime. His justification was that people who were innocent (other MPs) might be implicated. One serious problem is that who may have named an innocent party (the accused). It’s a messed up world where Whaleoil decides who gets protection under the law, and who doesn’t.
For fecks sake, Whaleoil (and many posters here) are still upset that Helen Clark was in a car that was speeding, or signed a painting – “She BROKE THE LAW..” For christs sake, try and hold on to at least a modicum of consistency.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
Lhaws dropped a clue just before the news at noon so google away people. My result so far is a name that doesn’t appear on the list of waka jumpers but did switch parties after leaving parliament.
btw, having seen the state of the slack jawed Slater on the news a couple of nights ago I reckon the man is showing the signs of taking an anti-psychotic so perhaps there is more to his alleged illness than he’s letting on.
ps, DPF, please delete if the ice looks to be a little thin.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
I would love someone to ask Mr Winter when they will take a hard line against the HoS
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 1:45 pm
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, sections 14 and 16.
Criminal Justice Act, section 138(3).
You will also note DPF’s quote from section 139, above:
No person shall publish … the name of the person accused or convicted of the offence or any name or particulars likely to lead to the person’s identification.
Name suppression has absolutely nothing to do with “finding out” a name, or being in court or on the street to determine the name of (or take pictures of) a name-suppressed defendant. The rules about name suppression proscribe publication.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 1:48 pm
He said he is having a look at HoS GPT, that’s a start.
I’m not sure that many journalists will want to bring themselves to Mr Winter’s attention too much, questions may be asked in return.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
Based on my (lay-person’s) interpretation of the legislation, the HoS has breached both the letter and intent of the law, while Whale has breached merely the intent. The HoS in its article dropped sufficient clues as to the identity that the person was quite easily identifiable. At best, it was one or 3-4 people. To anyone remotely interested, it was an easy exercise to discern which of those 3-4 it might have been. Whale has been a bit cheeky in this case and has perhaps breached the intent of the law, but the fact is (at least in the version currently published) he did not publish the code (which when decoded gives a name) in conjunction with any other post or link to information about any court cases or other information. As someone above has said, if Paul Henry were to say “And now it’s over to Ally for the 8 o’clock news [Name of Comedian here]” he would look a little silly (pretty normal situation for him) but it would not be a breach of any suppression orders.
Suppression should not be granted just because someone is well-known. It should be granted only in very rare cases, and then the suppression should be both blanket and temporary. No details to be published until after a verdict (and subsequent appeals, perhaps). That way, there is no risk of the offender being incorrectly identified (poor Ken Shirley), the stigma of being falsely accused remaining attached to someone subsequently found not guilty, and protection for victims. As it stands, the law is an ass and I, for one, fully support Whale’s campaign to get it changed.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 2:17 pm
Does the same act define ‘publishing’?
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
Fair enough Alister, you can join mental heavyweights Whaleoil and Lisa Lewis.
Unfortunately (as far as I am aware), Slaters code read something along the lines of “The name of the person with name supression is…. XYZ”
And unfortunately publishing information making the person easily identifiable is the problem. So Slater broke the intent and letter of the law. If Joe Bloggs was charged, and I wrote “The person charged is J*e Bl*ggs”, then I can expect to be charged.
And yes, sex offences usually carry name suppression. That is because of the victims. I will take the law and the judge over you, Lisa Lewis and Slater anyday.
There are hundreds of cases that carry name suppression each year. We just don’t get worked up about it because they don’t make the papers because the charged person is not famous. Because you only read about the famous people’s name supression, we end up with a whole bunch of idiots decrying that it is only the rich and famous get supression.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
Try squinting really hard when you see TV pixelation. You get a clearer view.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 2:30 pm
Unfortunately (as far as I am aware), Slaters code read something along the lines of “The name of the person with name supression is…. XYZ”
As of now the binary text simply reads the person’s name when decrypted.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 2:43 pm
Thanks for deliberately misinterpreting my intention, J Mex. When I read Whale’s code, it definitely did NOT say “The name of the person …” For your benefit (most others seem to have got the point):
(1) the HoS breach was, in my opinion, more egregious than any breach committed by The Whale and if The Whale is to receive a visit from the constabulary, it is only fitting that Caroline Meng-Yee should have receive a visit
(2) suppression should be total (i.e. no details of the charges, the defendant, and definitely no breadcrumbs for the media or others to lay out to assist identification) and, in most cases, temporary until such time a conviction is secured.
Thanks also for the backhanded comment putting me in the same category as Lisa Lewis and Whale. Next, you’ll be nominating me for membership of the VRWC (please). I read a lot of what Whale writes because I tend to agree with his politics and he is infinitely better connected than I am. I don’t tend to read much of what Lisa Lewis has to say because most of what goes on in her world is so very different from mine. I did, however, read her post of her experiences as a child sexual assault victim, and it gave me a different perspective on the whole “protecting the victim” line.
Play the ball, not the man, fuckwit.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 2:46 pm
J Mex you make an excellent point about the use of suppression. The media only care when the person has profile – ie: they can sell papers/advertising. Therefore the perception is that there is one law for the rich and one for the rest. The reality is that there is one publicity standard for the rich and famous and another for the plebs.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 2:50 pm
Fuck the law, it is bullshit. As for Slater, I have no opinion of him – I know he is controversial. Good on him for putting these names out there. The defence shouldn’t get a say in it, the victim should e the only one who can apply for it.
The issue here is that the whole name suppression law is a piece of shit used by “celebrities” and people with money to avoid what they deserve – to be named and shamed.
Everyone with a blog, a Facebook page or an email account should mass mail or relay the names of these fuckwits who think they are above the law. If enough do it then watch the justice system implode. It’s an old tactic, a similar one was used in Ireland in the 70′s when they had a rent and rates strike. A dozen or so were arrested, the first 3 or 4 were jailed but within 4 weeks the courts became unworkable.
It would be nice to know who the scum are in our society.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 2:56 pm
When I read Whale’s code, it definitely did NOT say “The name of the person …”
Originally Slater’s code named the person and the charges. Later on he changed it so it only revealed the name.
The defence shouldn’t get a say in it, the victim should e the only one who can apply for it.
Suppression is automatic when a victim is underaged, as is the case here.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 3:13 pm
Correct. Slater reinforces this by outing only high profile cases. Meanwhile, Jim Bloggs from Papatoetoe on sex charges carries on with the full protection of the law and completely under the radar of “bloggers” like Slater.
It’s actually completely twisted.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 3:22 pm
If I were one of the three that the NZ Herald narrowed it down to and I publicly issued a statement saying “it’s not me!!”. Would I then be breaching a suppression order by narrowing it down to just 2?
What rights do those under suspicion because of suppression have?
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 3:43 pm
Presumably there’s nothing stopping a person with name suppression from publicly declaring, “It’s not me.”
So any suspect saying so would not be narrowing it down at all.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
“J Mex you make an excellent point about the use of suppression. The media only care when the person has profile”
Not true. They only care when the story is salacious or extreme violence – preferably sexual. It doesn’t matter if the accused has a profile – s/he soon will.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Not quite true. Unfortunately, we live in a world where events such as the supressed one happen every week. They don’t make the newspapers because they don’t involve “celebrities” like “the musican”, “the comedian” and the “ex-mp”, they involve “the plumber”, “the beneficiary” and “the manager”. They simply aren’t newsworthy unless they involve extreme violence or sex.
However, take an offence involving a celebrity… That’s a story.
Millie Holmes is a prime example. Everyday P smoking screwups dont make the papers. P Screwups who are the daughter of a celeb do.
Veitch and domestic violence etc etc.
You are hard pressed to hold the position that Slater does, that says Celebs get better treatment, on the whole, when going through our court system.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 4:47 pm
All our major Newspapers are bottom feeders that feed of misery and tragedy with no regard to what effect their stories will have on innocent people. It would be good to see a paper take a principled stand on how to use name suppression.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
Celebs get much better treatment in court. For a start they’re ridiculously rich for doing nothing at all – just look at Millie Elder.
Then they have other celebrities to defend their character. Tea Ropati had born-again Christian The Mad Butcher defend him after he was accused of violent rape.
Then when decisions get made, they’re always allowed to travel. Look at Tama Iti’s Shakespeare, or the boxer who killed his baby they allowed into the Olympics.
And then we have name suppression , what this article is about: our “musician” – not given a conviction because it would hurt his sales!
No-one forced Tony Veitch to become famous. He loved it, he made fortunes from it. Unfortunately he was an aggressive little prick who beat the crap out of his girlfriend. And then cheated on the rich sap of a loser girl who stayed with him!
And then of course are the Richard Longs and Colin Meads, promoting junk finance companies. And again, Colin Meeds, for some deer velvet scam.
Celebs have had it far too easy for far too long. I urge everyone, that when you see a celebrity in the street to punch them in the face! (Just joking). But don’t let them push in front in queues like they’re inclined to do, don’t stand aside with Matthew Ridge rides his little bike on the footpath, don’t smile back when Petra Bagust looks at you in church.
We need to make the law serve the people, not some overpaid newsreader.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 4:59 pm
The judges like celebs – as they usually got plenty of folded stuff too keep them happy.
Vote:White trash with no money get the media bunny all over him. I know for a FACT !
January 12th, 2010 at 6:38 pm
who on earth is Andrew Geddis and what are Pundit??
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 6:53 pm
Yip, sorry DPF, but sonic is right, mates are mates but your scoring negitive karma points with the law!
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 8:26 pm
The Herald (and wider press) need to get dragged into this issue by their curly ones. The free press are supposed to be the ones questioning the suppression of information and the functioning of the judicial system in society rather than be a slave to politicians and a select bunch of the upper crust.
Vote:It’s time the mainstream media in this country grew some cojones.
January 12th, 2010 at 9:20 pm
I’m hoping that Palmer and the Law Commission will wade into this one, once the sub judice issues have passed.
Clearly it’s an issue of public import in light of this new technology which lets anyone not just large rich companies with lots to lose, publish anything to anyone.
It’s also an interesting legal issue. Many good points made above talk about the defendant’s and victim’s right to privacy. However there aren’t quite so many learned comments about the public’s right to have justice “seen to be done.”
It’s an interesting balance, requiring something like Palmer’s rather fine legal mind to sort it through.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 9:33 pm
Danyl wrote: “Suppression is automatic when a victim is underaged, as is the case here”.
Well, we don’t know if that’s the case here because we don’t know if the child has been vicitimsed at all. It could be that the child is lying, in which case the child’s name should be published and the victim’s name (ie, the accused) should be suppressed. Right?
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 9:55 pm
Well, we don’t know if that’s the case here because we don’t know if the child has been vicitimsed at all. It could be that the child is lying, in which case the child’s name should be published and the victim’s name (ie, the accused) should be suppressed. Right?
That would certainly be the case if the law was just something idiots could make up on the comments threads of blogs, but in the real world the law is a little less flexible, specifically section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act which states:
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 10:38 pm
Charitable and educational as always, Danyl.
Vote:January 12th, 2010 at 11:23 pm
Reid said: However there aren’t quite so many learned comments about the public’s right to have justice “seen to be done.”
True, perhaps. Although as I have noted here and elsewhere I am becoming less and less convinced that this is ever the case. Reporting is based solely on what sells. In my experience, save for one or two court reporters still left, reporting tends to be out of context, sensationalised and in at least one instance (this is just my experience biased and closer to a campaign than reporting.
In general I am all for public access to Court and I can see a time where fixed, streaming cameras are allowed into trials with appropriate steps in place to protect witnesses etc. In fact that may be a better solution than the current system of cameras in court where news editors decide what we can see.
As it stands I find the concept of justice being seen to be done laudable but unusual.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 6:01 am
The question I have is whether the website where this can all be found out is likely to face any sort of legal action. Given how it operates it would be shame, but it also lends itself to people posting such material, having it reversed, but the evidence remaining there. Anyone with a profile on it risks the site being used to post such things, although it has policies to address it, the damage has been done.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 7:56 am
Danyl, you ignored my point that we don’t know if the child in this case has been victimised. You merely assumed that is the case. I’d rather leave it to a jury to decide the matter.
But thanks for demonstrating why the law needs to be changed. A guy could be the victim of a malicious complaint but not have his name suppressed, while the accuser gets permanent name suppression. I’m sure you agree that’s unfair.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 8:03 am
Danyl, you ignored my point that we don’t know if the child in this case has been victimised. You merely assumed that is the case.
Read it again:
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 8:08 am
Danyl, I’m well aware of the law. You seem to support the position that someone who makes a malicious complaint deserves permament name suppression but the victim of a malicious complaint does not.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 8:17 am
You seem to support the position that someone who makes a malicious complaint deserves permament name suppression but the victim of a malicious complaint does not.
Maybe this site can help you out: http://teachers.net/mentors/remedial_reading/
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 8:51 am
Ross, leave those straw men alone. They never did anything to you. Danyl has never supported the position you set out above. He is just pointing out that the law covers an alleged victim – as in this case. Of course it is for a Jury to decide but the genie can’t be put back in the bottle if the alleged victim is vindicated by a guilty verdict (and, of course, a NG does not necessarily mean that the complaint was malicious).
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Actually DPF, your summary above was all I needed to figure out who this person is so you may end up in court as well mate – along with some of the folks from HoS. The binary code is not straightforward to decode so I fail to see how the average person can learn the name just from getting the binary and no other instructions. Can’t wait to see what line the prosecution takes on this.
Vote: