More on Palmerston North name supression case

Keeping Stock blogs:

This is of course the man convicted of possession of some 300,000 images, some of which were of child pornography. We believe that his sentence of four months’ home detention is woefully inadequate, and the order is, as we blogged yesterday, just plain wrong.

We have been made aware of the identity of the Prominent Palmerstonian- from several independant andunrelated sources. We were also made aware of something yesterday which, working in the ECE sector, we found rather chilling. After much internal debate between me, myself and I, we decided that this needed to be put in the public domain, but in a manner which would not breach the Court-ordered suppression.

So we ask this question; did Judge Grant Fraser know that the Prominent Palmerstonian’s business premises share the same street address as a pre-school? We believe that this is a very important question in the context of Judge Fraser’s decision to allow name suppression. This is indeed a case of public interest.

Ponder this; do the parents who send their children to the pre-school involved have a right to know that its neighbour had an unhealthy interest in children? For us, that’s a no-brainer; we can’t think of a clearer case where publication of the defendant’s name IS in the public interest.

I can only agree with ’s concerns. I would add to that, that the person’s occupation also adds to concerns over public safety that the granting of name suppression has caused.

Comments (86)

Login to comment or vote