More silly name supression
The Dominion Post has a big story today on the inquest into the suicide of Margo McAuley. As with any suicide, it is all very sad.
What caught my attention was this:
Wellington coroner Ian Smith held a two-day hearing into Ms McAuley’s apparent suicide in October 2008. He suppressed the identity of the high-profile New Zealander Mr MacIntyre married within three months of his wife’s death. Mr MacIntyre’s new wife publicly denied the pair were having an affair before Ms McAuley’s death. That was repeated by Mr MacIntyre during the inquest.
I had not realised that the coroner had imposed name suppression. With all respects to the coroner, that is a silly and futile action.
I am sure the vast majority of New Zealanders know who MacIntyre’s new wife is, or at the least can find it with a 10 second go on Google. Does the coroner think we all have amnesia?
It also seems to be stretching the sort of info which gets suppressed. I am a bit staggered that for the duration of the suppression order, it is an offence to state who Kim MacIntyre’s wife is.
If the name suppression is permanent, does that mean his wife can never be named?
Again, how very futile. But don’t drop hints as to the name in comments unless you like demerits. I am sure anyone who wants to know can find the name on the Herald or Stuff websites in a few seconds via Google.
April 3rd, 2010 at 4:11 pm
I agree with you David as the reason has more to do with her celebrity than anything else.
Personally I think she’s a lovely lady and have enjoyed talking with her in the past.
I think there needs to be a way of challenging the underlying assumptions used by the judges as to suppression as this is getting beyond a joke and is bringing both the courts & it’s officials and the Justice dept into disrepute in the eyes of the public.
April 3rd, 2010 at 4:24 pm
No I think we should leave this lie. Yes its very easy to find out, but what end is served other than prurience?
Relationships end, and some people are more fragile than others. Frankly its none of our damn business.
April 3rd, 2010 at 4:45 pm
You are right David
It came up in about 10 different pages
April 3rd, 2010 at 5:03 pm
I don’t know why this inquest is even being reported. There are hundreds of suicides each year and we hear nothing about them and aren’t allowed to know how they did it. This reporting is delving into all the details – is this not covered by the “we must talk about suicide” rules?
Is this one only being reported due to the tenuous “celebrity” link?
April 3rd, 2010 at 5:27 pm
Rachael, that is the only reason this inquest is being reported.
April 3rd, 2010 at 5:28 pm
I agree, DPF – a judicial decision that is rank indeed.
April 3rd, 2010 at 5:38 pm
Not worth suppressing, not worth reporting, leave these people alone to get on with their lives.
April 3rd, 2010 at 5:46 pm
Rachael Rich notes:
Indeed there are. But imagine if, for instance, a woman who had no public profile – because she hadn’t sought one, as in this case – asked in one such case that her name be suppressed so as to avoid reminding a much smaller public – their friends, acquaintances and relatives – of her potential influence on the suicide of her new partner’s otherwise unknown wife.
Think she’d receive a similar level of mollycoddling? Would she heck.
Or perhaps the woman whose name is suppressed in this instance didn’t even need to ask. Perhaps the Coroner tripped over himself rushing to assuage her delicate sensibilities – sensibilities that weren’t evident in her former line of employment, dealing with some of society’s most vulnerable people.
Either way, yet another example of how NZ has one law for the connected, and quite another for those not in the inner circle.
April 3rd, 2010 at 5:48 pm
That the person with name suppression has enemies on the left is more than enough reason for left-leaning “journalists” (and EPMU members) to toss crap in the hope that some sticks.
April 3rd, 2010 at 5:57 pm
If the two of them go out together then does she have to wear a burkha to avoid violating the order?
April 3rd, 2010 at 6:24 pm
I guess how you define NOT having an affair is. But to get married within 3 MONTHS of your wife dying tragically suggests something must have been going on, people simply do not drop into a new relationship THAT quickly, people often take years to form a new relationship after losing a partner.
April 3rd, 2010 at 6:28 pm
When it was reported last year that Margo had committed suicide the woman in question was mentioned a couple of times in the online article on the Dominion Post website. I was unaware of the name suppression till today as the name was there for all to see months ago!
April 3rd, 2010 at 6:43 pm
toad:
April 3rd, 2010 at 7:14 pm
Ian Smith – that rings a bell. I wonder if this is the same Ian Smith who used to run a modest one-man law practice from premises located above a bar in Hardy Street Nelson?
April 3rd, 2010 at 8:27 pm
Typing “kim macintyre marriage” in to Google reveals the name of the person with the suppression order. Am I allowed to point this out, or is stating the blatantly obvious a crime in NZ?
Anyway… One of the Google links shows that John Key named the woman. Since name suppression orders aren’t handed out on a completely arbitrary basis, it must have been obvious that a name suppression order was going to be enacted in the future and Key must have considered this when he named the woman. He knowingly violated a future name suppression order! Has he been charged for this offense? I haven’t read of his arrest, but it is possible that is because Key has name suppression and he has been appearing in court along with Whaleoil.
April 3rd, 2010 at 8:38 pm
Yes, it does seem utterly pointless, if you don’t already know then just google the name and you get the answer immediately. It might have something to do with the natural narcissism of many judges -the need to exercise power and control over what the public should and shouldn’t be allowed to know.
April 3rd, 2010 at 11:04 pm
# Flashman (172) Says:
April 3rd, 2010 at 7:14 pm
“Ian Smith – that rings a bell. I wonder if this is the same Ian Smith who used to run a modest one-man law practice from premises located above a bar in Hardy Street Nelson?”
The very same. Previously HM Coroner for Nelson.
April 4th, 2010 at 6:13 am
At the inquest into McAuley’s suicide, Kim MacIntyre said that McAuley could be “controlling, nasty, moody and impossible to reason with”. The marriage was “really doing my head in”, he said. What a nice guy, speaking ill of someone who cannot defend herself. And this was someone he supposedly loved!! Maybe his latest wife, married for the fourth time, might reflect on the comments of her husband and wonder if this really is the man for her.
April 4th, 2010 at 7:59 am
What was the point in the name supression – was it to draw attention to her, as it will make the three people in NZ who didn’t know want to find out.
April 4th, 2010 at 8:40 am
Ok, so, firstly, this was in a coroner’s inquest, so Coronor Smith is not a judge. Before someone comes back at me on this, I agree that the position is quasi-judicial.
Secondly, being an inquest there are different rules that apply to requests for name suppression. Basically, any witness who wishes to have name suppression gets it unless there is a really good argument otherwise (regardless of position in society, Rex). Even if there is a really good argument otherwise, somebody at the hearing has to make that argument (which is rare) and even then the coroner is likely to grant name suppression. Some inquests take place where almost anybody, regardless of who they are, get name suppression, even if the aren’t a witness. It means little and matters less. This is not a place where the principles of open justice need necessarily apply, because the purpose of an inquest is to determine how a person died. Culpability is an issue for the criminal courts.
The thing about name suppression is that it keeps a person’s name out of the media. While a portion of the population will be interested enough to try and circumvent the order, most people won’t care beyond reading the article. That is how it works for most cases where there is name suppression. For example, I neither know who the woman is and nor do I care, so I will not be trying to find out.
But I repeat: This is not a criminal court and different rules apply. Different, and far less strict, criteria is used.
I must take issue with Ross’s comment at 6.13am: Why has NZ suddenly got all squeamish about witnesses (and accused persons) saying bad things or making bad allegations about dead people? What was the bloke supposed to do, Ross? Lie to the Coroner? Or simply take the old route that, if you can’t say anything good, don’t say anything at all? A coroner’s inequest is about finding the truth, a criminal court is about justice. Both settings will, from time to time, have bad or unpleasant things said about people who are not present. That’s life, get over it. Seriously, to criticise the bloke for telling the truth under oath is totally petty. Inquests and Courts are places where unpleasant events are recounted. Sometimes the truth is unpleasant, sometimes opinions are. Either way, while it may not be the done thing to speak ill of the dead (although even that principle is selectively applied, really, isn’t it?), in the court a witness must not be afriad of telling the trute, and the public should not condemn them for doing so. Even if we don’t like what they have said.
April 4th, 2010 at 10:52 am
1. For some time it has been my hobby to identify all those ‘celebrities’ with name suppression. So far I have succeeded in every case, usually with very little effort.
2. Had the names not been suppressed, I very likely would never have known who most of them were, as I tend to skip over this kind of ‘news’ anyway. My only real motive for finding out was being told I wasn’t allowed to know. I’m sure I’m not the only one motivated by this kind of challenge.
3. I fully agree this latest example is particularly silly, since I only had to type MacIntyre to find out instantly who it was. Regardless of the reason for the suppression, this kind of nonsense just further undermines the credibility of the entire legal system.
4. Traditional media, especially newspapers, are struggling to survive in the digital age. The main thing name suppression and other censorship achieves is to make them even more irrelevant, as more and more people turn to the Internet for their news.
April 4th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
A sad family tragedy. I agree with Rachel Rich……..Why feature it.
April 4th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
i realise the supression issue is a personal crusade for the author of this and other blogs, however do we really need to know all the intricate details of what is a very tragic and private event? Its nothing but tabloid voyeurism, stick to the real issues around name supression- that is the favourable treatment, given by the courts, to those of wealth and influence.
April 4th, 2010 at 6:56 pm
FE Smith points out:
That’s true, of course. And I didn’t realise the Coroner was so free and easy with his name suppressions. perhaps it’s an aspect of the law Simon Power might want to review.
But it does leave the rhetorical question… if the Coroners Court grants anonymity to anyone who seeks it, and criminal culpability in someone’s death is a matter for the criminal courts, in what forum is someone’s moral culpability examined?
Not just in this case (where I’d say a fair bit resides in the anonymous lady concerned) but in, say, a case of bullying or some other situation where a person’s actions fall short of criminal culpability but are nonetheless questionable?
April 4th, 2010 at 9:18 pm
FE Smith, you ask: “What was the bloke supposed to do? Lie to the Coroner?” I never suggested he lie to the coroner. But please tell me how MacIntyre’s disparaging comments about McAuley have helped the coroner. They don’t seem to have added anything. If he disliked his ex-wife so much, why did he marry her in 2008, just a year before he left her? You are concerned that the truth be told but we don’t know if MacIntyre’s comments are true or not. His comments could simply be a justification for his subsequent behaviour. If I were the coroner in this case, I would treat MacIntyre’s evidence with some scepticsm bearing in mind his vested interest.
April 4th, 2010 at 9:32 pm
F E Smith said: Secondly, being an inquest there are different rules that apply to requests for name suppression. Basically, any witness who wishes to have name suppression gets it unless there is a really good argument otherwise
I know this isn’t a legal question, but what I cannot work out is why MacIntyre’s repugnant current wife would wish to have name suppression anyway, given that anyone can find out who she is in 30 seconds on the internet and that her identity was blazed around the MSM months ago.
April 4th, 2010 at 9:42 pm
” MacIntyre’s repugnant current wife ”
That is a cheap shot Toad, why do you lefties always revert to abuse just because somebody does not agree with your politics?
April 4th, 2010 at 10:36 pm
It is not just her politics bruv. I could tell you a lot more but cannot legally, given the suppression order.
April 5th, 2010 at 9:31 am
Rex: You ask in what Court does moral culpability get decided? The answer, of course, is the Court of Public Opinion. A Court that is hostile, quick to come to judgment regardless of the facts, and one that often resembles a lynch mob rather than a considered forum. It is one where I and my colleagues at the defence bar have been judged to be fraudsters (if we accept legal aid) and criminal sympathisers (because you must be, to defend criminals, musn’t you? After all, the police never charge an innocent person).
In regards the more specific content of your question, then in the answer is in a complaint to the appropriate tribunal, professional body or, if the person has made use of harassment laws, in the civil Courts.
Ross: well, considering he was on oath when he made those comments, one would hope they are true. If they are not then he has committed perjury. Of course, I do question the usefulness of making people take the oath before giving evidence, seeing most of the country seems to judge whether a person is telling the truth according to their own opinions, prejudices and experiences, rather than simply accepting that, unless the evidence shows otherwise, they are actually telling the truth. However, the comments the man made would have been in response to questioning by a lawyer on behalf of a party to the proceedings. So, it could be counsel for the coroner, or the police (if they have an interest), or the dead woman’s family, or perhaps the witnesses own lawyer (because every witness in the inquiry is called by the coroner, not by a party to the proceedings). So, when a question is asked the witness is entitled to answer it, and should answer it, truthfully. Don’t presume he wanted that bit of information to get out. Who knows, perhaps somebody thinks he killed her and is trying to get at motive, so pursued him on that issue? I don’t know, but there are many instances when that type of evidence can crop up both in coronial inquests or in criminal trials.
Toad: I don’t know either, and, like you, I can’t work it out. Perhaps she just decided she didn’t want her name in the press reports and didn’t think through the possible responses from the public. It just doesn’t make sense. But then, in the quiet of a coroners court people can get divorced from the reality of life!
Graeme E might have better access to the information about the decision than I (given his location) but I can’t see how this suppression order can affect you telling us more about the woman. Actually, I can’t see how the suppression as reported can work at all, seeing as it would tend to suggest (as DPF points out) that it applies to her in connection to the inquest and no more. It cannot be a blanket suppressionfor all time, otherwise she would be breaching it every time she told somebody her name. So, if you were to talk about the man’s wife, even naming her, but did not refer to the inquest or (possibly in a wider context) the man’s deceased wife, I cannot see how you could possibly be breaching the suppression order.
I don’t know if the woman gave evidence, but if she did then the Coroner would have been wiser to suppress reporting of her evidence, rather than her name.
April 5th, 2010 at 6:29 pm
Toad – a very clever pun – rank indeed !