Christchurch Name Suppression
February 15th, 2010 at 9:43 am by David FarrarI did a brief interview with Radio New Zealand on the Christchurch name suppression case. I think it highlights the limitations of such orders. Name suppression is in place for a man who only a few days earlier was named in the media as wanted for questioning.
Now as Whale has pointed out with dozens of links, his name is all over the Internet, including the Police’s own website. The Internet doesn’t allow for collective amnesia very well. If his name was in the news just the day before, it will be simple for people to find it.
In this case the Judge turned down name suppression, but defence counsel is appealing, which means interim suppression must be granted. I have no idea what the defence hopes to achieve.
I am not anti name suppression in all cases. It works very well in most family court cases. It doesn’t work well when the person is well known, and it doesn’t work well when the name was all over the media in the days before suppression was granted.
Related to this, the Sunday News reveals:
The man at the centre of the investigation into Vanessa Pickering’s death had been questioned about the unsolved murder of a Christchurch prostitute.
The man, who has interim name suppression, was among those quizzed during the Mellory Manning inquiry, Detective Inspector Greg Williams said.
Manning was found dead in the Avon River just over a year ago.
That information is, in my opinion, far more likely to prejudice a jury and risk there not being a fair trial. If it goes to trial over Pickering’s death, and jurors recall he was questioned over another death, that will incraese the chances of a guilty verdict as who wants to let out a potential serial killer (note I am not saying he is – I am saying this is what jurors will fear).
So maybe instead of trying to supress the name, they should have suppressed the information about being questioned during the Manning inquiry. I wonder if this info was already public, and why did the Police release it or confirm it?
The SST also looks at whether the secrecy is putting the public at risk:
New Zealand’s name suppression laws are under fresh scrutiny, with two recent cases revealing the difficulties authorities such as police or schools face if they wish to protect the public from harm.
Last week, the Sunday Star-Times reported that a top Auckland primary school was unable to inform parents that one of its teachers had been accused of sex crimes against boys, as the man had interim name suppression.
Now, court documents show police were hindered by the name suppression granted to a man who was last year convicted of intentionally injecting his wife with HIV-infected blood.
The man was last month sentenced to eight years’ jail for the crime, but the Star-Times has learnt the man also had unprotected sex with a number of other women before his arrest. Police wanted to inform the women of the man’s offending and his HIV status to encourage them to seek HIV tests but were unable to do so because he had name suppression.
Not good.
On a related case, I reported from another blog that the person in the Palmerston North child porn case had his office in the same building as an unnamed early childhood centre. It turns out this is not the case, so any Palmie parents do not need to be concerned about any institution there.
Related posts:
- The 46 year old name suppression case
- Dom Post et al on name suppression
- Name Suppression and the Internet
- Suppression Orders and the Internet
February 15th, 2010 at 10:28 am
In this case it may well be a hail mary tactic by the defense in the rather optimistic hope that they will get name supression then cry that he can’t possibly get a fair trail due to the fact that we’ve seen his face and know his name.
Soething about lawyers I’ll never get is that their job is to provide the best defence, not to get their client off. In some cases the best defense is to say yep you got me.
Vote:February 15th, 2010 at 10:42 am
IMO the best thing would be for the justice system to give up on suppression where the objective is to keep information from potential jurors. Instead, jurors should be relied on to use their common sense, and it be accepted that as a fact of life jurors may ‘introduce’ material other than that presented in court. Defendants could also have an option of having cases heard by judge alone, or judge and skilled assessors if they lack confidence in a jury.
I suspect that juries continue to be favoured because of the opportunity of trying to pull the wool over jurors’ eyes (and this included prosecutors).
Vote:February 15th, 2010 at 10:44 am
Next, the judges will be giving name suppression for suspects on the run.
The cops will no longer be able to ask for public assistance, since they won’t be able to name the ‘alleged’ offenders.
Simply crazy.
Vote:February 15th, 2010 at 10:53 am
wreck his lawyer asked for it and appealled so its automatic until he can make his case. Wgich will fail. Your proposition is absurd.
Vote:February 15th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
I still find it somewhat ironic that at the same time as the NZ Police is prosecuting Cam Slater for breaching suppression orders they have aided and abetted the publication of the name of an alleged offender, short-circuiting his right ot apply for (but not necessarily receive) name suppression when he got to Court.
Vote:February 15th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
The factoid that the accused Pickering murderer is also being looked at for the Manning Murder will be prejudicial if and only if he is charged for both crimes and tried separately (which is unlikely to happen). It is more likely that if he is charged for both murders they will be dealt with at the same trial.
Vote:February 15th, 2010 at 1:19 pm
But what if he is only charged for one?
Vote:February 15th, 2010 at 3:03 pm
Hmmm he’s ‘helped’ police with one enquiry into a murder & is now potentionally about to be charged in connection to another. Coincidence? Unlucky? Wrong place at the wrong time?
Vote:I don’t think so, but yet some gravy chasing QC will take the case, his client will enter a not guilty plea, the case will be dragged out for months, the victims family will have their loved ones name dirtied slandered & dragged through the mud, the tax payer will foot a million dollar plus bill for a trial which should be open & shut. And we call that justice?
Reckon the chinese would already have opened, shut & shot the case.
February 15th, 2010 at 4:45 pm
DPF: “I have no idea what the defence hopes to achieve.”
Murray: “His lawyer asked for it and appealled so its automatic until he can make his case. Which will fail.”
His lawyer is attempting to protect his client from the prejudice that follows from a jury knowing about previous convictions and involvement with Police. There are three seperate streams of info which could lead to such prejudice: the previous convictions; the involvement with the Manning inquiry; and the other charges faced. In many other cases suppression has been granted for just one of theses reasons. The present case has three.
The recent case of Zion King shows how prejudicial prior offending can be.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/zion-king/search/results.cfm?kw1=zion king&kw2=&op=all&searchorder=2&display=10&start=0&thepage=1&st=gsa&mediatype=Any&dates=Any
The lawyer in the present case will no doubt remind the Court of how jurors could use the information to leap to the conclusion that he is guilty without pausing to fully consider the evidence (if any) that is actually probative of his guilt. If I was his lawyer I would be putting this blog before the Court to establish how easy it is to leap to the (as yet unfounded) conclusion, as DPF points out, that he is a serial killer. WhaleOil may well make an appearance in the submissions too.
I hope this does not turn out to be a weak ‘Scott Watson’ type case based on circumstantial evidence, because the prejudice of prior convictions and the like in such a case may be the decisive factor.
Much as I dislike suppression, I see it as completely necessary in this case.
Vote:February 15th, 2010 at 4:49 pm
And so much for your post-Bain decision to be a little more circumspect about cases before the Courts. A little of WhaleOil’s dutch courage seems to go a long way.
Vote:February 15th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
His lawyer is attempting to protect his client from the prejudice that follows from a jury knowing about previous convictions and involvement with Police.
What bullshit. Name suppression and suppression of prior criminal convictions are separate things.
Much as I dislike suppression, I see it as completely necessary in this case.
Which shows how little you know. Name suppression has been lifted.
Vote:February 15th, 2010 at 5:16 pm
But what if he is only charged for one?
Which only indicates that there wasn’t enough evidence to charge him (he was earlier ruled out because of an alibi). The papers also reported that the police questioned Jason Somerville about Mellory’s murder yet nobody screamed about the prejudicial effect then.
Vote:February 15th, 2010 at 5:21 pm
I don’t think so, but yet some gravy chasing QC will take the case, his client will enter a not guilty plea, the case will be dragged out for months, the victims family will have their loved ones name dirtied slandered & dragged through the mud, the tax payer will foot a million dollar plus bill for a trial which should be open & shut. And we call that justice?
These types of criminal cases usually involve the defendant claiming he wasn’t the guy wot dun it, *not* the victims had it coming to them.
Vote:February 15th, 2010 at 5:24 pm
I hope this does not turn out to be a weak ‘Scott Watson’ type case based on circumstantial evidence, because the prejudice of prior convictions and the like in such a case may be the decisive factor.
Nice insinuations there. If you had any familiarity with the case, you would know that there are at least two eye-witnesses and such cases can not be by definition weak cases based on circumstantial evidence.
Vote:February 15th, 2010 at 7:36 pm
All immaterial now as suppression has been denied but you can’t post his picture even though its been all over the papers and TV.
Vote:What appalling thinking from all those twats in Christchurch.
February 15th, 2010 at 10:22 pm
“some gravy chasing QC will take the case”
Unlikely. There is only one QC in ChCh who does criminal defence, Chris McVeigh, and he rarely sets foot out of civil work these days.
Anybody charged with murder in ChCh these days will be questioned in relation to an unsolved murder that may have some similarities. It is the same anywhere in the country.
The right to seek name suppression is open to all. Whether he/she gets it is up to the judge and only the judge. I suspect that if the police had, at the initial application, said that the person’s name was already on their website then he wouldn’t have got name supression as it would have been pointless. Once it is granted, however, then the process needs to be worked through for it to be removed, including any appeal. It is called the rule of law and it is the basis for our representative democracy. Personally, I much prefer it to the rule of the mob, or, more accurately these days, the rule of the lynch mob.
Vote:February 15th, 2010 at 10:27 pm
I suspect that if the police had, at the initial application, said that the person’s name was already on their website then he wouldn’t have got name supression as it would have been pointless. Once it is granted, however, then the process needs to be worked through for it to be removed, including any appeal.
Name suppression was refused at the original hearing. What happened was that his lawyer had then appealed which was an automatic suppression even if the grounds for doing so were clutching at straws.
Vote:February 15th, 2010 at 10:33 pm
Thanks for the info, metcalph, which I see is correct, but what you have missed is that it appears that the duty solicitor was acting at the first hearing, so that would have been an appeal indicated by the duty based on a brief set of instructions from the defendant. The duty is only the man’s lawyer for a few minutes, so that a legal aid application could be processed. If the defendant wanted to continue to seek suppression then the duty wasn’t really in a position to argue.
Also, it may seem that the police have hit on a way to get around name suppression- put the matter on the website after arrest but before charging (to avoid sub judice rules) and you suddenly have no real reason to grant name suppression!
Vote:February 15th, 2010 at 10:33 pm
“the rule of the lynch mob.’
Hang em high Mr Smith. I couldn’t resist, sorry but I will build the platform if like your honour . Lunchtime in the square public viewing stuff and all that eh. No picture of the killer! Do some ChCh judges have brain suppression? I suppose David R will defend in this case?
Vote:February 15th, 2010 at 10:40 pm
but what you have missed is that it appears that the duty solicitor was acting at the first hearing
I was aware of that.
Vote:February 15th, 2010 at 10:43 pm
“I was aware of that.”
cool. in that case you will have it all sorted!
Vote:February 15th, 2010 at 10:46 pm
Of course this piece of shit used a duty solicitor, do you think this spaced out deranged killer would have a decent brief on the payroll? Pigs fly eh judge!
Vote:Legal aid and trial cost compared too rope and tree, good rule of law Mr Smith.