An appalling decision
I’m not a fan of posting details of Judges who issue suppression orders, as Cameron has threatened to do. Likewise I would not personally breach suppression orders as I am more an advocate of lobbying against stupid laws, rather than breaking them.
I do strongly support the Law Commission’s recommendation to make suppression orders much more difficult to achieve for those convicted of a crime.
But hell when I read about the recent case in Palmerston North, my blood boils and I am half tempted to join Whale in direct action. If you don’t know the case I am talking about, this is the Manawatu Standard on it:
If there were any lingering doubts that the guidelines for suppressing names in this country needed strengthening, the case detailed in today’s Manawatu Standard should shatter them.
The creeping secrecy pervading our justice system has long since passed what the public should accept as a reasonable restriction on their freedom of expression in order to safeguard the administration of justice.
The decision to suppress the name of a prominent Manawatu man convicted of downloading pornographic images of children is a salient example of how the principle of open justice has been reduced to little more than a passing mention before a judge abdicates his or her duty to ensure our public court system belongs to the people.
What if this man does not just download child pornography, but seeks to create some of his own? Parents are blocked from being able to protect their kids..
For Judge Fraser to say publication of the man’s identity was not required because none of the thousands of children pictured were New Zealanders is logically outrageous. Such an argument requires one to believe this man investigated the background of each of his young victims to determine they were not from this country. Does Judge Fraser believe that had the man known the children were New Zealanders he would have not downloaded the images?
An appalling lack of logic.
The Maori Party have attacked the decision:
Maori Party MPs have joined the chorus of condemnation at the permanent name suppression given to a prominent Manawatu man who downloaded more than 300,000 pornographic images, many of them picturing children.
“The decision to permanently suppress this man’s name is outrageous as is the decision to give him a few months home detention,” Maori Party justice spokeswoman Rahui Katene said.
“We urge the prosecution to appeal the sentence so this man can never ever again be allowed to continue his sick actions in a veil of secrecy.”
I hope it is appealed. But I also hope the Government puts a law change on the fast track.
February 8th, 2010 at 5:01 pm
Is it any wonder why we are gold medalists at child abuse!
February 8th, 2010 at 5:29 pm
From what I remember in the Dom Post of the wording of the judge’s decision, he would have been able to suppress this offender’s name under the proposed amendments to legislation governing name suppression.
It was all about the offender’s special circumstances – social, professional, family, mental health. His family would have been embarrassed, his occupation affected, and he’d probably get depressed. Same for anyone, I would have thought.
February 8th, 2010 at 5:31 pm
If you want to rark up the rabble behind a move to “tougher sentencing” or “less rights for criminals” or any of the related jingoes, then a high-profile kiddie porn case would be the near-perfect opportunity to do it.
All this sounds very similar to Clayton Wetherston and the No More Provocation campaign IMHO. Something distasteful happened in one particular case, therefore we must URGENTLY make major changes to the way all accused are tried.
Citizenry, please prepare your legal rights for the weighty impact of a jerking knee, from stage right.
February 8th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
“Something distasteful happened in one particular case, therefore we must URGENTLY make major changes to the way all accused are tried.”
Was that Sue Bradford you were talking about? Exit stage left!
February 8th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
dad4justice, please speak for yourself. I am not a child abuser. My family are not child abusers. My friends are not child abusers. My colleagues are not child abusers.
RRM, you have it spot on. This is a knee jerk government, no policies, just reaction, they are, by far, the most reactioanary government in living memory.
February 8th, 2010 at 5:47 pm
“Was that Sue Bradford you were talking about? Exit stage left!”
Ha!
Exactly
Smacking is far worse than kiddie porn in this country, and Jonkey is A O K with that.
February 8th, 2010 at 5:53 pm
Prominent Manawatu gentleman? Well doesn’t that just thin the herd considerably.
February 8th, 2010 at 5:54 pm
It used to be that went on in ones private life was of no business of someone else. That of course assumed that no one else was in any way affected by that citizens private life.
We should be very careful indeed about the attack upon this person. It is after all motivated by someones ele’s sense of what’s right and what’s wrong. Its moral dilemma is in the eye of the beholder and the problem is that its the thin edge of the wedge that is aimed at the moral boundary. How long before those same self righteous people do as was done last year in Australia and attack artwork, that had been in the public domain for years, on the basis that it was child pornography.
We have a bunch if interent policeman that now can pry into anything regardless of any harm to any person other than the recipient. Where do they stop, or will they then extend their snooping reach into other aspects of our lives?
No doubt my post will get all the God botherer’s and other sycophants out posting but before they pour forth their vitriol they should think about the consequences. Un intended consequences as the law is formed around these things.
How long before someone in power decrees any other censorship of some other subject??
Does Hitler, communism, ring a bell?
February 8th, 2010 at 6:03 pm
Shunda barunda 5:47 pm,
For some reason the fact that parents who smack (for correction) their kids are now regarded as criminals, and yet kiddie porn watchers are treated as though they are not reminds me of the following:
February 8th, 2010 at 6:05 pm
I agree with you but have to say that Cam Slater is wrong to attack this judge! http://www.paulgardner.info/life/cameron-slater-is-dead-wrong/
February 8th, 2010 at 6:07 pm
In the last three weeks we have seen two professional middle class men granted permanent name suppression after conviction. One in the far North admitted theft and was then given discharge without conviction and permanent name suppression. It has been announced today that he has “resigned” from his position and will no doubt skulk back off to the UK post haste. His continued name suppression is now a joke.
The PN case is of a far higher magnitude on the offending scale and involves children. The judge in this case has breached the confidence that the public should feel about the judiciary.
So what do you do if you are a PN parent?
As we are not allowed to know whether this pervert is a cop or priest or prison manager or judge or doctor or scout leader or teacher or any of the other professions that seem to get the golden ticket to anonymity.
All PN parents can do is keep a very close eye on any adult that comes into contact with their kids and treat all professional men with the utmost suspicion.
Viking2, we are not talking about somebody who has been accused of a crime. We are talking about convicted criminals, the most recent one is (at best) enabling sexual abuse of children.
No judge has the right to put the feelings of a pervert above those of keeping children safe. NO MATTER WHERE IN THE WORLD THESE KIDS ARE.
February 8th, 2010 at 6:14 pm
Agree completely, DPF. That doesn’t happen all that often.
I still disagree with Whale’s campaign though – this case relates to a permanent suppression order after someone has been convicted and sentenced – not to people alleged to have committed crimes whom Whale has exposed at risk of identifying the victims.
February 8th, 2010 at 6:38 pm
I agree with DPF, and go further, the only reason toi suppress the name of any convicted person is the fact that publicity may harm a victim of the person. Otherwise it should all hang out, and for everyone.
February 8th, 2010 at 6:48 pm
There’s nothing wrong with civil disobedience when it’s justified, as it is here. And it doesn’t seem fair that Whale is being threatened with prosecution while the rest of the country enjoys the benefits of wrongdoers being exposed.
Maybe what is needed is a whole lot of people to pledge to all reveal the name simultaneously (assuming anyone knows who the person actually is).
February 8th, 2010 at 6:50 pm
He should be named, shamed and in jail, just remember there is an innocent child that has been abused for the gratification of a pervert. No demand no supply. Th people in PN know they have a perv in their midst who likes looking at young children and he is prominent. How do you protect your children now ? He could hold any position with ready access.
February 8th, 2010 at 6:53 pm
Viking2 – Please correct me if I’m wrong, you seem to be condoning child sexual abuse. I take it that you also believe that children and adults should be able to have a consenting sexual relationship?
February 8th, 2010 at 7:17 pm
I wonder if anyone in the MSM will ask if the Judge and the Defendant are both Masons?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying Masons are bad people – they do lots of good things. I’ simply saying this is a decision which prima facie appears to be one back scratching the other, and while the media outrage grows and its likely to be overturned, I would also like regardless to understand if any such clubby association was behind this decision.
And what’s wrong with that?
February 8th, 2010 at 7:47 pm
This was indeed an appalling decision by Judge Fraser, and the Manawatu Standard is right to be outraged about it on behalf of its readers. I am aware of the identity of the accused.
Viking2 – the Prominent Palmerstonian was caught as a result of an FBI investigation into a child pornography ring; NZ Police were given his details. That suggests to me that his involvement goes well beyond the casual viewing of a few naughty piccies. In addition, the Prominent Palmerstonian has admitted that he is receiving treatment for paraphilia:
“Psychologists and psychiatrists codified paraphilias as disorders, as a replacement for the legal constructs of sodomy[4] and perversion.[5] They previously listed homosexuality as a paraphilia in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-I and DSM-II), but they removed it in the 1980 version of the DSM-III. That edition describes paraphilia as “recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors generally involving:
1. nonhuman objects, or
2. the suffering or humiliation of oneself or one’s partner, or
3. children, or
4. nonconsenting persons.”
February 8th, 2010 at 7:52 pm
Having not looked at or read any posts involved , you really need to look at the judges sexuality, if priests do it judges do it
February 8th, 2010 at 7:56 pm
“The pages of many newspapers in this country are littered with names of small-time offenders, yet the real sick freaks out there are getting protection” – Hone Harawira, apparently
February 8th, 2010 at 8:05 pm
Again, there’s a simple answer… automatic name suppression up to the verdict, automatic release of the name after a guilty verdict (unless exceptional circumstances can be advanced), automatic ongoing supression if found not guilty. And that goes for all these little hints the media love to drop so that people can light their torches and grab their pitchforks and go after people who have nothing to do with the crime… descriptions like “prominent entertainer”, “former All Black” etc etc.
On the face of it I can see no reason why the name ought not to have been released once a guilty verdict was returned. If the judge’s reasoning had to do, as annie suggests, with the offender’s “social, professional, family, mental health” then, as she concludes, welcome to the reality of anyone convicted of a crime… and, at present, almost anyone accused.
February 8th, 2010 at 8:24 pm
The judge is an absolute moron, a cretin of the first order.
The fact that he made a statement of such breathtaking absurdity means he either lacks the intellect required for his job, or he was ill-prepared. Either way he should be sacked forthwith to prevent him doing further damage.
As for this bollocks of an idea that so called ‘prominent’ people getting name suppression is required because they will somehow suffer more than us mere mortals is simply ridiculous.
Most people, regardless of original public prominence, if convicted of such a crime, with our names splashed all over the papers would be very negatively impacted in terms of career and personal life – and rightly bloody so.
Part of the punishment is being disgraced in front of the community. If one just sneaks away and pays a fine, does a bit of home detention or even a short spell in prison – what punishment is that? Absolutely not punishment at all.
The idiot imbecilic moronic travesty of a judge should be sacked right now.
February 8th, 2010 at 8:26 pm
One has to wonder if Judge Fraser was aware or took into account that the Prominent Palmerstonian’s professional premises are at the same address as a pre-school …
February 8th, 2010 at 8:30 pm
“The idiot imbecilic moronic travesty of a judge should be sacked right now.”
Agree , but judges can’t be sacked.
Justice Fisher used a court computer to view and download porn and he still sits behind the vile bench.
Masons all of them. Just like blowflies around a big turd.
February 8th, 2010 at 8:30 pm
mjennings said “Part of the punishment is being disgraced in front of the community. If one just sneaks away and pays a fine, does a bit of home detention or even a short spell in prison – what punishment is that? Absolutely not punishment at all.”
I couldn’t agree more mjennings. But Judge Fraser has, in a fit of judicial wisdom, eliminated that sanction. Full marks to the editor of the Manawatu Standard for taking on the local judiciary; it’s not always a good career move, but one has to give the guy a big thumbs up for sticking up for what he believes in.
February 8th, 2010 at 8:36 pm
Dave001. where did I say any of that? I pointed out that we should be careful what we wish for. That your screwed up mind leapt to a completely erroneous conclusion makes the point really.
Barnsley; at worst the man showed poor judgment. Copying a bunch of photos’ is just that. You and the FBI have simply no way of verifying the integrity of those photo’s because if they did they would have scooped up the perpetrators.
Its all a bit like the drugs issue. Throw a lot of money at some thing and then justify the need.
Unless you can demonstrate that the man caused any harm to anyone I’d suggest that there is not a case to answer beyond foolishness.
Rather akin to a court establishing that someone murders someone else with no witnesses and no body. (Watson anyone).
All circunstantial and unproven except by inuendo. IMHO a much more serious issue in the courts.
February 8th, 2010 at 8:43 pm
For what it is worth, Rob Fisher retired from the High Court Bench about 3 years ago. And as far as I am aware, as is the case with most of the High and District Court bench, he isn’t a Mason, despite what the more deluded amongst us think.
February 8th, 2010 at 8:48 pm
Rex
I totally agree with your 8:05pm comment.
Many of those who have jumped onto the name suppression bandwagon have done so for no other reason than they are nosey bastards.
How is anybodies life improved or bettered by Cameron Slater releasing the details of the Christchurch comedian?
Total suppression for almost every case is the way to go until the verdict is handed down, name suppression should be near impossible to get if you are found guilty, then and only then should the name and details be released to the nosey public for their pathetic titillation.
February 8th, 2010 at 8:55 pm
“he isn’t a Mason, despite what the more deluded amongst us think.”
That wasn’t what I thought, Alex, it’s what I considered as a possibility, and invited response from those who might know, given that this is how these things have sometimes worked in the past.
And if you know your history, why is that deluded?
February 8th, 2010 at 9:01 pm
Total suppression for almost every case is the way to go until the verdict is handed down, name suppression should be near impossible to get if you are found guilty, then and only then should the name and details be released to the nosey public for their pathetic titillation.
At first look I agree that name supression should be only released upon a guilty verdict being delivered – but in this case the pervert has been found guilty.
And as for a nosey public – really so what? They have a right to know the types of crimes committed in their very own communities and the way these crimes are punished.
Whats wrong with making the offendor an object of public disdain, contempt, and ridicule. I would posit that this is really the worst aspect of punishment for many – fear of what your friends, neighbours and family would think.
If I was to commit a horrible crime, prison would in fact be the least of my worries (especially a pathetic four month term) – by far the worst thing would be the public shaming. But this so called ‘prominent’ sicko has escaped this. While your garden variety burglar, mugger, thief, is routinely named and shamed, this pervert on account of his perceived status in society basically gets off scott free.
As DF has said – that makes ones blood boil.
February 8th, 2010 at 9:09 pm
Judge Fraser said: “The punitive consequences are more extensive for you than for others, particularly in light of your position, your achievements and the consequential outcome.”
While then, based on Judge Fraser’s logic the amount one should pay for traffic fines, parking tickets, etc, should be adjusted according to the ability of a person to pay. Those on very low incomes of course should be allowed to speed all they want, and millionaires and other ‘prominent’ people should be required to pay about 100 times more than the average man.
Can anyone see this suggestion being adopted?
Sack this *##$^$
February 8th, 2010 at 9:21 pm
mjennings
“Whats wrong with making the offendor an object of public disdain, contempt, and ridicule”
Nothing at all is wrong with that, I fully support naming 99.9% of criminals when they are CONVICTED.
Justice cannot be done if people are named before they have their day in court, imagine some poor bastard who is charged with a sexual assault who was totally innocent in fact we have seen many cases like this over the last few years where a female claims a rape has occurred just to cover her embarrassment.
Any man charged with that crime is branded for life irrespective of the outcome of the trial, what makes it worse is that the woman making the false claim is often let off scott free.
Total suppression is the only way to go.
February 8th, 2010 at 9:32 pm
Nothing at all is wrong with that, I fully support naming 99.9% of criminals when they are CONVICTED.
Agree totally. But the rule should be across the board. Name suppression applies for ALL before conviction, and public naming applies to ALL after conviction. Public ‘prominence’, except under the most exceptional of circumstances should not be brought into the equation.
February 8th, 2010 at 9:34 pm
There are two “justice” systems in this country, one for the rich and-or famous and one for the rest of us.
Was recently involved in a situation where a couple of fresh pommy imports decided they didn’t want a house 150m from theirs so they sought an injunction against the (nearly completed) house. And what did the judge say? because the poms had enough money to pay costs if they lost he gave them the injunction!.
After 20 grand in legal fees, a whole lot of stress and a trip to a court in Wellington (from the south island), work on the house was finally able to continue.
Though, there is at least one good judge, the one in Wellington was appalled that it had gone that far with such a frivolous objection and ruled against them.
In saying that, the house builders only received 50% of the costs to fight the injunction.
There is a difference between a “justice” and a “legal” system, especially if you have lots of moolaa.
February 8th, 2010 at 9:54 pm
Viking2 – One does not just “copy” thousands of pornographic photos of children, they are brought sold or traded. Buying selling and trading pornographic photos of children is not only illegal but is thought of as morally repugnant by most, excluding I would guess paedophiles and seemingly yourself. Child pornography can only be produced with the abuse (rape etc) of children. therefore the purchase or trading of child pornography is an extension of the abuse. I would guess that typically people who defend the possession of child porn are also paedophiles and yourself.
February 8th, 2010 at 10:00 pm
“You and the FBI have simply no way of verifying the integrity of those photo’s because if they did they would have scooped up the perpetrators.”
Viking, Dave is right you are condoning the sexual abuse of children by the above statement.
If you pay to see underage children engaged in sexual activity whether live, by video or still photos you are part and parcel the sexual abuse of a minor. Trafficking in such photos carries a maximum penalty of 10 years.
If you think trafficking in photos of children engaged in sexually activity trivial you need some serious help.
Why do you not use your real name if you are proud of you silly opinions?
February 8th, 2010 at 10:25 pm
I have to agree with Rex’s statement at 8.05- name suppression should be automatic until conviction.
Once a conviction is entered, however, it should be near impossible to get unless it would identify a child complainant in sexual abuse cases. That is the only exception. If we commit a criminal act then we should have to face the consequences of society knowing about that offending.
That said, I have acted for a number of people charged with possession of objectionable images, and I can tell you one of them got his name published in the local paper, while the others all escaped the attention of the media. It is a fact that if you are of some note in the country then any appearance before the courts will generally get national attention, meaning that such a person suffers a far greater penalty than just that imposed by the Court.
February 8th, 2010 at 10:48 pm
It is a fact that if you are of some note in the country then any appearance before the courts will generally get national attention, meaning that such a person suffers a far greater penalty than just that imposed by the Court.
F E Smith – that comment is almost as imbecilic as the one made by ‘Judge’ Fraser.
So perhaps people with few savings should be given shorter jail terms for the same crime than people with a heap of money, because the impact of a jail term on the families of the former would be far greater than the impact on the families of the latter?
Or perhaps foreigners or tourists who murder and rape here should be given a shorter jail term than locals because they would no doubt suffer more because they are a long way from home with the likelihood of fewer family visits?
Or, as previously mentioned, traffic fines should be adjusted in to align with an individual’s ability to pay?
Public prominence carries privileges and benefits – your achievements and ‘glories’ are widely known (this is in fact sought after by the majority of ‘prominent’ people), but any disgraceful behaviour also becomes public knowledge (or should). That goes with the territory. You can’t expect your cake and eat it too.
Those who are poor will in general suffer more from punishment than those who are rich and influential. But this is perhaps balanced out by rich and influential being punished more in the area of public shaming – or at least it should be.
F E Smith – your comment is just plain stupid and I pity the person who chooses you to act on behalf of them.
February 8th, 2010 at 11:09 pm
F E Smith (504) Says:
February 8th, 2010 at 10:25 pm
I have to agree with Rex’s statement at 8.05- name suppression should be automatic until conviction.
Once a conviction is entered, however, it should be near impossible to get unless it would identify a child complainant in sexual abuse cases. That is the only exception.
FE Smith, you, and people like you, are the problem.
What has the victim, whether child or adult, of sexual assault or any other heinous act, done wrong that they need name suppression to protect them?
If, and I doubt a bloody ambulance chaser will understand this. IF these people are portrayed simply as victims and not participants in shameful activity there is no fucking shame.
THEY DID NO WRONG!
Therefore, simply, there is no way perpetrators can hide behind name suppression.
Big Bruv, if arrest and trial were instant, even quick, I would agree but better there is no name suppression at all, instead a law demanding full and equal reporting of not guilty or charges dismissed verdicts and equal implementation of criminal charges when the bloody sheilas cry rape or child molestation falsely.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:09 am
Hells teeth. The veil slips. FES, as usual, makes a pertinent comment and promotes a valid opinion and out come the knives. MJennings and MT_Tinman who the hell appointed you as defenders of righteousness? You show your own ignorance and arrogance in playing the man and not the argument. Disagree with the opinion, raise your own opinions but why get so personal?
The point about prominence is a valid one. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS OPEN JUSTICE. There is largely open reporting of the salacious and the prominent that is barely curbed by suppression orders. It is a FACT that people with a profile (any sort of profile) get more coverage than those who don’t. You can argue that is tough as they have had the benefits of that profile and there is something to be said for that but you cannot deny the fact.
MTT_Tinman – as has been noted on previous threads the suppression of a convicted person’s name is at the discretion of the victim (assuming they are of age – over 16 or 18 – can’t remember which) so your opinion on what is good or bad for victims is covered. If a victim feels suppression continues to victimise them then it can be lifted. If they feel that dealing with the crime against them is something they would rather do privately then I would have thought respecting that would have some merit. Although it would seem you would prefer to make offensive assumptions about ambulance pursuits and blanket statements as to what is best for victims than actually offer them some choice in life.
And if you think that “a law demanding full and equal reporting” will work they you really should consider smoking something else. You cannot undo the damage of a false complaint. And on the other hand are you now suggesting that every not guilty plea means the “bloody sheilas” are lying? Heard of beyond reasonable doubt any time lately?
And even on the most biased standard how are people like FES the problem? I would have thought the sex offenders would have been the problem.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:17 am
Tinman, you just haven’t got the point, have you? Publishing the names of child victims of sexual offending can expose them to embarrassment both at the time and at later times. It is completely wrong that any child victim of sexual offending, which involves the infliction of highly personal and often psychologically damaging acts upon them, should have to suffer even the possibility that others should know they have been abused.
It is nothing to do with shame, it is everything to do with the protection of what is left of their childhood from the taunts or questions of their peers, or the condescension of adults. If it was so simple as you make out then I would have no issue with it, but it isn’t, so I do.
February 9th, 2010 at 1:03 am
F E Smith made some useful observations, and I you would need to be rather blinkered to not see them.
Putting children aside for a moment, if I were the victim of a crime (be it rape, burglary, or anything else) then I would appreciate the ability to retain my anonymity. Some victims might revel in the chance to get their name and photo in the paper, or be the topic of gossip in their neighbourhood, others not so much. I would hate it to be a foregone conclusion.
Getting back to children, they might not grasp the hunger of the media and the fascination of the public in trash reporting and what it might mean for them in later life.
Wherever a line is drawn in law it seems that there will be absurd cases which fall either side (the wrong side). Naming and shaming has the potential to stick to more than just the victim. Perhaps if they were able to have some say in the matter then that would make a difference.
So I agree with the learned F E Smith. It’s not quite as simple as some would think.
February 9th, 2010 at 1:26 am
Excuse my deliberate typos and semantic srcew-ups. (Naming and shaming has the potential to stick to more than just the
victimconvicted), etc. Hopefully makes sense otherwise.February 9th, 2010 at 7:02 am
Chuck Bird, dave001 is not right and he is using a typical socialist behavoir to attempt to besmirch me and the point I was making.
If he wants to accuse me of the things he says then let him do so providing his full name and address and the evidence in public and I will ensure he gets sued of everything he owns.
and Chuck you should know me much better than that for we have argued over lots of issues for a longtime.
Its quite clear that I do not condone the behavoir behind the photo’s but then I also think The Simpsons on TV have plenty of bad attitudes and therefore I wouldn’t recommend that show to anyone anymore than I would much of the violence that is inserted into films, videos, DVD’s,and playstations etc. That’s my opinion but I’m sure that I would be in a very small minority about those things. Violence on screens watched often enough is every bit as bad and when I hear you yelling for that to be treated the same then you can throw the moralistic views you have at me.
F.E Smith is right as well and he raises the very valid point of objectionable material. Whats objectionable to one is not necessarily so to another and violence is objectionable to me as is child pornography but apparently you and Dave001 are happy with violence. Perhaps you are also happy with torture, slavery and the behavoir of many members of Catholic Church?
These things you see are in the eye of the beholder and unless you can demonstrate, with evidence, of harm to another person, you are imposing your own prejudices on others.
February 9th, 2010 at 8:20 am
Would automatic name suppression hinder the prosecution though?
Surely some witnesses come forward after seeing the person or the persons name in the paper?
February 9th, 2010 at 8:59 am
Re: Rex Widerstrom’s 8:05 post.
There are several different cases:
1. Name suppression to ensure a fair trial. I don’t really have a problem with this in principle but it’s quite a narrow target. Releasing the name may lead to witnesses coming forward. Also the jurors may hear all sorts of stuff which they still associate with the accused once the trial starts.
2. Name suppression if guilty. The only possible reason is to prevent identification of the victim in a sexual case and even then the victim should be able to waive it, and where possible it is better to identify the accused but suppress the relationship between the accused and the victim.
3. Name suppression if charges dropped or found not guilty. This is 100% wrong. The standard of proof needed for conviction is high and people are entitled to information they need in order to protect themselves even if that high standard is not met. Whether someone has been wrongly accused or just got off due to reasonable doubt is something that the public are entitled to decide for themselves.
February 9th, 2010 at 9:12 am
This guy didn’t have a few hundred, or a few thousand pics. He had three hundred thousand of them. This puts him in a different league from your average internet kiddly perver. His victims are not New Zealanders according to the judge so naming him wont affect them at all, as no-one knows who they are. As to his family being embarrased – tough shit.
February 9th, 2010 at 9:15 am
How does the judge know none of the 300,000 are abused NZ kids? Surely that is impossible to determine. Not that it should make any difference to the gravity and depravity of the crime.
February 9th, 2010 at 9:24 am
Steve Crow has been found guilty of objectional material 33 times according to someone I spoke with recently.
He hasn’t had name suppression so why should someone with one conviction, they both had objectional material.
The difference is Steve Crows material was from willing adults and he is open and brazen about his behaviour.
Even more reason to know who the paly person is whether they are a professional or not.
This is kids and the offender had a massive library possibly for sale in NZ.
Moreover this type of offender can go on to offend against kids, just as peepers go on to rape and animal mutilators go on to serious assault.
I think this judge has committed a judgment call that calls into question his competency to sit on the bench and at the very elast i would want him checked out for Freemasonary or child porn links too.
February 9th, 2010 at 9:33 am
Viking, I would have thought that harm to the children due to the demand of people prepared to download them would be self evident. That is why there is a law with very harsh penalties in theory.
People who download child porn are an accessory to the crime. I find it hard to understand that you cannot see something that is so obvious to most other people aside from some judge who is incompetent at best and corrupt at worse.
I wonder if that could get me a charge of contempt.
February 9th, 2010 at 9:33 am
People like Judge Grant Fraser make a very good case for the removal of judges being allowed to have discretion in these matters he is obviously incapable of excercising it in a rational manner.
The statement he made that because the child victims were not New Zealanders it was not so important to name this creep was unbelievable.
I agree with the majority above that name suppression should be until conviction then none and as for home detention for a sicko like this, well what planet does Judge Fraser actually come from.
No wonder the NZ legal system and its practitioners are generally held in contempt.
February 9th, 2010 at 9:34 am
inventory 2
“Psychologists and psychiatrists codified paraphilias as disorders,
Some in the field (American Psychological Association) do not consider that childhood sex with adults is harmful and are pushing for it to be repealed.
http://www.narth.com/docs/pedophNEW.html
The authors’ conclusion? That childhood sexual abuse is on average, only slightly associated with psychological harm–and that the harm may not be due to the sexual experience, but to the negative family factors in the children’s backgrounds.
February 9th, 2010 at 9:36 am
JohnBoy
it looks like he was looking for an excuse to give the offender leeway.
I sat through an rape case (incest) and felt the same at the end as the judge seemed to look for am way to give leeway, the man got 3 yrs for multiple rapes thuogh the soft word incest was used.
February 9th, 2010 at 9:38 am
Viking2. I get the impression you condone child pornography. This isnt a censorship issue, its about protecting kids from being exploited by perverts. What the do the simpsons have to do with this?
Its people like you that allow these sick fucks to prey on innocent children
February 9th, 2010 at 10:27 am
No FE Smith, I don’t miss the point.
If a child is mugged in the street and, as I’m told sometimes happens, his/her shoes and telephone are stolen name suppression is not even considered.
The child’s embarrassment matters not, they are simply noted as innocent parties.
My point, which you miss completely, is that is only the attitudes of people like yourself that treats innocent victims of sexual-type crimes differently and if they were simply seen as just that, innocent victims, there would be no fuel for “the taunts of their peers, or the condescension of adults”.
I agree this requires a change of attitude, particularly from the idiots who think anything to do with natural processes of the human body are shameful and must be kept out of sight (another argument for another day), and suggest that this change of attitude can only be led by the more educated such as yourself.
That you champion the reverse is not just reprehensible (in my opinion) but condemns more and more innocent young victims to, what for them must be, living hell.
A hell that does not need to be and should not be.
February 9th, 2010 at 10:46 am
mjennings: go and read your comment again and then slap yourself in the face. You are, actually, incorrect. The sentencing regime in NZ is pretty balanced and consistent. Not completely, but not so I would say there is one law for the rich and another for the poor when it comes to sentencing (notwithstanding rich foreigners with dope on their yacht).
I won’t even dignify the rest of it with an answer.
Tinman: yes, you do miss the point. That is because you don’t seem to understand the difference between what is and what should be. Go study your chart again to work out the difference between dreams and reality. I fail to see how my noting what actually happens and trying to allow for some protection from it is reprehensible. Perhaps because, as I said, you just don’t get it?
February 9th, 2010 at 11:38 am
F E Smith said:
Not completely, but not so I would say there is one law for the rich and another for the poor when it comes to sentencing
Well using applying your logic that the ‘impact’ of punishment on the individual on his family should be taken into account, when it comes to name suppression for rich and prominent people, why not then the impact of a prison term on a poor person compared to a rich person?
Using your own twisted logic there definitely is one law for the rich and another for the poor – poor people should be given shorter sentences than rich people for the same crime (so they can get out earlier to support their families) for there to be true equity in sentencing. This is currently not the case.
Obviously FE Smith you are all for bending over backwards for the rich and prominent when it comes to public notoriety and shaming, but not for poor people when it comes to sentencing. Can’t you see the idiocy behind your thinking? Probably not, as it is seems that it is beyond your limitations to perceive.
February 9th, 2010 at 11:42 am
Perhaps its vested interest. Maybe FES charges such exorbitant rates for contributing his genius to their cases that only the rich can afford him.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
However, when well known as ACT members and supporters argue for certain things like legalising all drugs it does not help ACT very much but it does not do all that much harm either. But when a number of ACT members argue for such things as no censorship in relation to child porn or even allowing “consenting” sex between adults and children it can do a lot of harm for ACT.
Do you recall the problem with Jim Peron? He had strong links with ACT. Rodney and ACT defended Peron when allegations that he had strong links with NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) were made. However, when it became clear that the allegations had merit Rodney distanced himself from Peron. There are still some ACT members not happy with me for my condemnation of the sick puppy, Peron who has been kicked out of New Zealand.
The vast majority of the public abhor child pornography of any sort.
Can you not see that any ACT member who in any way supports child porn reflects badly on ACT?
February 9th, 2010 at 10:19 pm
jennings, what are you smoking? I fail to see what how your comments have anything to do with my assertion that name suppression for those convicted of sexual offences against children should get name suppression to protect the child. Fair enough that Tinman thinks there shouldn’t be the need for it (and I agree in theory, but I disagree in practice) but whatever you are on is just far too strong for you.
My comment was simply pointing out that if you are famous then your misdeeds are more likely to become the focus of media attention, while someone unknown committing the same offences is unlikely to get reported by the media. That is all I was saying- I made no attempt to say that it is a factor for mitigation of sentence. The effect of the approbation in the media is a penalty in and of itself, that is true, but your attempt at sarcasm are actually sentencing policy! Mate, your rantings are just OTT. Calm down and go cold turkey, ok?
February 9th, 2010 at 11:11 pm
No person on this earth should have there name suppressed, these monsters should be hung out to dry, let the people know who is in our Country, I still have no idea who this man is
February 10th, 2010 at 12:05 am
Valid point FES – there is a fair bit of messenger shooting going on here. God forbid if one actually tried to put forward an opinion.