Whale guilty on 9 out of 10 charges
September 14th, 2010 at 3:29 pm by David FarrarJudge Harvey has found Cameron Slater guilty on nine of the ten charges relating to name supression. The judgement is here – Police v Slater. I’ll do a fuller post tonight or tomorrow analysing it n depth, and especially any implications for the wider blogosphere and media. It is pretty long for a district course case – 70 pages.
The fine is $750 per charge plus $130 costs, so total cost is $7,920.
There are some proposals from the Law Commission that are with the Government, which are worth implementing. One of them makes it harder for people to get name suppression, and the other will make it easier for media (and bloggers I hope) to access details of suppression orders so that you are less likely to accidentally breach a suppression order (as has happened to me on occassion).
I hope we do see some law changes in the near future. While I don’t endorse deliberately breaking the law, I do endorse the intent of the campaign – which is to to have a more open justice system.
UPDATE: Have also placed the pdf on Scribd, below:
Related posts:
- Funniest moment from the Whale trial
- Whale in Court
- Whale to Jail?
- Will TVNZ be prosecuted for One News tonight?
September 14th, 2010 at 3:40 pm
haha. that is all
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 3:47 pm
How will he pay for that as a beneficiary? Will the fines be transferred to community service at $200/hr like what happens to other beneficiaries?
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 3:48 pm
will will be interesting
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
The implications for the wider blogoshpere are nil. If you don’t knowingly violate a supression order its not an issue.
Now I’d like to know why only Slater was targeted by this police exercise in selective control. Numerous people have violated supression orders in public with impunity. One law for all.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 3:52 pm
Didn’t John Key say that he knew the name of one of the offenders because a staff member had told him? If so, I’d like to see the staff member charged. It shouldn’t be hard for the police to identify the person since Key will be happy to cooperate.
[DPF: Telling one person verbally does not constitute publication. Also the PM did not say it was a staff member who told him]
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 3:54 pm
I think the christchurch earth shifted again; I agree with Murray.
davidp (1,340) Says:
September 14th, 2010 at 3:52 pm
Didn’t John Key say that he knew the name of one of the offenders because a staff member had told him? If so, I’d like to see the staff member charged. It shouldn’t be hard for the police to identify the person since Key will be happy to cooperate.
Nope, no breach here as a private conversation is not publishing.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 3:54 pm
Not unhappy with this judgement.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
I’d like to see people who don’t use indicators suddenly explode david. Doesn’t mean its going to happen.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
Interesting in reading the start of the decision
Constable Traviss identified parts of Cam’s blog that breached the suppression order in naming the offenders
How did he know that
The person’s name it suppressed. Constable Traviss is not allowed to know anyone’s name
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
I didn’t care before, still don’t care now.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 4:03 pm
$130 costs.
Wow our courts are cheap to run
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
Can’t say I’m surprised about the outcome.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 4:08 pm
I’m sure we can open a fund to donate towards the penalty? SOmeone do it!
[DPF: You can donate over on Gotcha]
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 4:09 pm
Will any more suppression orders be breached ?
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
good job.
shame he cant get jail time.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
The Court simply affirmed that Blubber Boy is not above the law. He thinks he is, but he isn’t. It also affirms that bludging from the taxpayer is no reason to hold back on a hefty fine. A win all around for the law abiding and honest, hard working folks, IMO.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
wreck1080 – there is already a fund – see Gotcha! There is the issue of moral hazard expecting to be bailed out for deliberately breaking the law when this would have generated significant traffic.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
$130 is the cost of the filing fee charged to the police to: 1. file an information; and 2. set it down for hearing.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 4:21 pm
“The implications for the wider blogoshpere are nil. If you don’t knowingly violate a supression order its not an issue.”
@Murray.
I call bullshit on that one, there are some very interesting implications for the web in the document DPF posted, especially the stuff around linking to content on 3rd party sites.
[DPF: Yes, just been talking about that on Radio NZ]
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 4:23 pm
This fellow placed himself above the law and skited about what he was doing.
Now watch him whinge like a little girl because he got what he wanted.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 4:27 pm
You can donate over on Gotcha
Or you could give money to the victims of the Christchurch earthquake, or the floods in Pakistan . . .
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 4:29 pm
DPF> Telling one person verbally does not constitute publication. Also the PM did not say it was a staff member who told him
You are correct on the staff member aspect:
“I can’t divulge my source, but it is not an official one,” said Mr Key. “I asked someone who I thought might know, and they told me.”
But the law really is a farce if it allows suppressed identities to be passed around via a system of Chinese whispers but not via the internet. And the fact remains that there are things that will see you fined if you talk about them on your blog, but the list of things is secret. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but we’re expected to be non-ignorant about things that are secret.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 4:30 pm
You’d a thunk he would have got the fines applied concurrently instead of cumulatively as that is the way they seem to apply jail time.
At least he was worth a bulk discount.
What happens if he doesn’t pay or is declared bankrupt? $7k would translate to about half a week community service if “boy racer discount rates” were applied.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
c’mon danyl, it is still a free country after all.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
Well that’s odd. According to Stuff…
When rapists go on a rampage and violate several different women, their sentences are usually concurrent, not consecutive.
Why has Slater been handed consecutive sentences for relatively minor offences?
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 4:52 pm
I can’t help but wonder if those who are condemning Cam Slater today are the same people who were rushing to Gotcha late last year and early this year to find out who The Entertainer, The Olympian, The Comedian and The Prominent Palmerstonian were …
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 5:03 pm
It has thus been judicially determined that bloggers (and tweeters, facebookers and any others that publish anything on media that are more or less publicly accessible) face the same regime and consequences as the ‘traditional’ media.
Vote:One wonders if by extension, they now also will have the rights that are enjoyed by the media, such as sitting in press galeries, special access to information etc?
September 14th, 2010 at 5:04 pm
It’s fair to say that the publicity this has generated is worth a lot more than $8000.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 5:11 pm
The fines seem on the high side for a relativly minor offence he wasn’t facing contempt of court as far as I can see unless breaching a suppresion order is contempt. I guess there is a deterent aspect but I would have thought a couple of hundred would have been enough per offence. Slater has always stated he isn’t a beneficiary and he hasn’t asked for anyone to donate to help pay the fine only to help pay his legal bills can’t see any moral issues with that if you agree with his stand.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 5:15 pm
I’m sure the court wouldn’t mind if he paid them all at once..
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 5:28 pm
The law is an ass and some asses sit on the bench. The fines are stiff coz Judge Harvey is peeved at Whale. I hope Whale appeals and applies for legal aid. That way, he’ll keep the matter in the public eye, until the asses in gummint change the law.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 5:29 pm
c’mon danyl, it is still a free country after all.
Um, yes. Didn’t Danyl just express his free opinion?
Rouppe the offences were committed on separate occasions and are not, in my vew, relatively minor. They are breaching a court order. To give you an idea of how breaching court orders go down I just watched someone get 6 weeks for failiing to do their family court directed stopping violence course. Had been warnd by the Family Court but my understanding was this was the first proseuction they had faced – thanks for coming, hope you’ve got your toothbrush. Not suggesting Whale should have been binned just don’t accept flouting court orders is minor.
Anyway back to the question the Judge would have had to take into account the totality of offending in coming to the penalty. Alternativley he could have said 9 breaches of suppression is worth circa $7k in fines and made it cumulative – the result would have been the same.
For serious offending (eg: kidnap and rape) then the sentence would be concurrent because the offences were part of the same criminal offending. In many respects the kidnap charge is an aggravating feature of the rape so a sentence might be starting point of, say, 16 years for rape and concurrent sentence of, say, 4 years for kidnap (but the reality is the kidnap has caused a significant uplift in the rape). But, to use the same example, say the prisoner had another completely unrelated conviction for assault (different day, different victim) but was being sentenced together then that sentence of imprisonment would be cumulative. Not sure if that makes sense but FES will be awake soon so he can sort it out!
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 5:43 pm
As far as I am aware the offences are not punishable by gaol I would suggest that defines them as relatively minor GPT 1.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 5:43 pm
Who was he acquitted of naming?
(Allusions please, like the well-known comedian, rather than the actual name).
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 5:58 pm
70 pages of free publicity for Whale’s campaign in Albany – priceless.
Complex matters of tax fraud in the High Court have been decided with less gibberish from a Judge. 70 pages! He must have had a busy time typing that out at lunch. Sticky fingers indeed. Or was it already set to go before this morning when he decided Whale had a case to answer? Seems a wee bit predetermined.
As for the fine I’m sure like Mikey Havoc, Whale can apply to have it transferred to community service in his field of professional speciality – blogging.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 6:02 pm
Is this just one strike for him ?
I have no sympathy for him – he’s an ego-driven attention seeker – his well-known psych problems probably explain some of it, but he deserves this.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 6:11 pm
Whale does us all a service…and snivelling little surrender monkeys come on here to have a snipe at him. This judge has overreacted and Whale can take some satisfaction that he rattled the cage of this pompous little twat and the whole, failed so called justice system in NZ.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 6:19 pm
A hearty big thanks to Judge David Harvey for postponing the case to today, three days out from the postal ballots being mailed.
Remember in Albany, Vote Slater.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 6:21 pm
someone mentioned somewhere that the fact Whale knew the names of these people suggests the name suppression was useless anyway
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 6:28 pm
“You can donate over on Gotcha
Or you could give money to the victims of the Christchurch earthquake, or the floods in Pakistan . . .”
Or to the Labour Party staffers so that they don’t get tempted to steal booze from private parties.
Or to Mr Scampi Quota himself, or the Helen Clark multiple House ownership funds.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 6:29 pm
Whaleoil’s campaign on name suppression has helped me make a moral judgement. I will now not listen to George FM and I will not be watching the NZ Music awards.
I found out the name of the “entertainer” on THIS blog. Surprised DPF was not before the courts.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 6:35 pm
RIQ
I’ve been having a hunt around cases but put the question to the floor, what is the longest District Court judgment in NZ history?
Because 70 pages must be giving it a darn good shunt.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 6:38 pm
I’ve been found guilty of breaching name suppression by posting just a name, I wonder then when the cops will go visit these folks.
http://www.qantasfilmandtvawards.co.nz/index.asp?pageID=2145883677
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 6:46 pm
Regardless of the trumpted up charges (hey what about, was it the Herald,who did the same thing) like Cactus I am amazed that a judge in all his splendidness could muster up 70 pages over lunch. Has to have been a predetermined write up.
That suggests a miscarriage of justice surely?
Now I haven’t read them and don’t intend to, for Cactus surely will, as will others, but even with speed reading and speed typing whist researching other cases of law for reference, as Judges surely do to build a judgment, this case stinks/smells of prejudgment and a predetermined out come.
Not confidence inspiring I’m afraid.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 6:52 pm
Does one smell an appeal? I would have thought the amount of the fine was manifestly unjust.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 6:56 pm
Fines are always levied on a per charge basis. As some commenters point out, this is different to, I think, most of the other sentences that are up the heirarchy. If you look at the Sentencing Act 2002, you will see that all of the higher sentences have a specific section authorising concurrent sentences of whatever type is being imposed. Fines do not.
Graeme is better on legislation than I am so may have an exception, but I can’t think of it off the top of my head.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 6:57 pm
It will be interesting to see if the police will charge him over his latest breaches from earlier in the month
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 7:15 pm
Not sure what the big deal is, Whale was open about what he was doing and why, he was charged and found guilty. Said he would do it, did it, tried a few excuses that weren’t accepted. What’s next, try to get off on technicalities? That’s not likely to achieve much.
I guess there is opportunity for some entertainment, John Campbell may suggest that someone with multiple convictions isn’t fit to be a local body politician – but at least this is all out in the open, revealed before the election, but I’m sure they will find a hypocrite somewhere in this.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 7:23 pm
No doubt Whale thought what he was doing was morally right, so why was he charged. What’s the difference between what Whale did and those clowns who slashed the dome on the Waihopai spy station. They claimed what they did was morally right and got off, why did whale not argue the same case?.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 7:40 pm
how can you be to ill to get a job.. but run for council. sickness benefit should be removed asap
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 7:43 pm
The difference? About a million Dollars as I recall.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 7:46 pm
Special credit really should be given to Whale for getting the Simon Power nickname FIGJAM into published case law.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 7:53 pm
CAMERON HAS BALLS AND POSTS (charged and convicted)
Vote:the rest of you(WHIMPS) just post on kiwi blog, david(kiwibog) luvs you lossers, kiwibog whimp central
September 14th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
“how can you be to ill to get a job.. but run for council. sickness benefit should be removed asap”
Vote Whaleoil for Council and he will have a job. That’s the answer isn’t it?
Too ill to get a job? Well he hasn’t got one yet has he genius? He’s trying……hard to get elected and therefore be employed.
The million dollar question Dime Boy – would you want Whale at your workplace? No didn’t think so…a dose of shut the f*** up should be in order unless you are prepared to have him in your workplace 8 hrs a day.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 8:01 pm
so youre saying hes unemployable? how does that qualify one for the sickness benefit?
if hes actively seeking work, hes on the wrong benefit.
he seems to have the same ethics as your standard issue lefty
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 8:06 pm
All those people who think that Whale should be punished for this are apologists for the rapists and paedos that Whale was trying to get punished properly. That includes Danyl, Dime, Mike S etc. Shit Danyl, you’re on a roll lately – applauding the death of Ron Trotter and now supporting rapists.
I hope that one day you personally have your rights infringed by celebs who will hide behind name suppression to protect their “good” name.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 8:09 pm
Jock
That’s unfair, as much as we tease David, he has been supportive of Cameron’s campaign in person, as a friend and including donation. Which you can make, on his website http://www.gotcha.co.nz.
Cameron’s campaign has been brave and yep he has balls…of steel…. Agreed. Suffice to say, a large part of his ability to run the campaign has been his lack of accountability to an employer, government or a profession.
A lawyer for example would run the risk of being disbarred for running such a campaign. Someone in David’s position would have been heavily punished financially, run a large risk of not being appointed to Boards etc and dare I say it fined a hell of a lot more than Cameron was.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 8:14 pm
Dime – the definition is quite (very) wide, that’s how he qualifies…and a Councillor isn’t even a full-time job….:
“not be in full-time work, is willing to undertake it, but because of sickness, injury or disability, is limited in his or her capacity to seek, undertake, or be available for full-time employment”
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 8:15 pm
CK. How relevant is it to any case, when a judge(s) pen their judgement(s), prior to the case been fully heard? Thanks.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 8:27 pm
Very relevant in this case.
Because Whale’s lawyer presented evidence today (large amounts of it) defending him on the charges. The last time Whale was in court his lawyer simply argued he had no case to answer.
The Judge today ruled first up today that he had, then Whale’s lawyer had to make his case on all the charges.
Clearly he had his judgment at least 95% prepared this morning before he had heard Whale’s defence. How do I know? Whaleoil sent me the material from his lawyer last night to read.
There is no way the Judge could have taken this into account properly over lunch.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 8:37 pm
Sideshow Bob: “They claimed what they did was morally right and got off, why did whale not argue the same case?”
That is not what they claimed at all. They said they had an honest belief that what they did was lawful. That is nothing to do with saying anything was morally right. Whale knew that what he did was unlawful, and tried to argue that he didn’t, technically, identify anyone. The judge didn’t agree. Simple as that.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 8:38 pm
Mr Burns for police, say no more. A judge can digest a defence submission in one mouth full Cactus. The law is a sick game eh Mr Smith? One should go to Hollywood for a law degree for it’s all one big sad act! Hey judge get a braincell.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 8:41 pm
“There is no way the Judge could have taken this into account properly over lunch.”
Welcome to the criminal justice system. If what Cactus says is the case, then the judge must have read it and then rejected it in toto.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 8:42 pm
Hey Mr Smith it is true judges make decisions after tossing the coin at wine and lunch?
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 8:44 pm
Thanks CK. Nothwithstanding any other matter then, could this (in your opinion), be grounds for an appeal?
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 8:54 pm
Other problem for Whaleoil is that he had a Judge who has a slightly more than passing interest in the law rather than the Bain jury.
CK – I am not sure your reference to the speed of the decision is fair. My read of the decision and media coverage is that there was no new evidence presented at all. Indeed, in the Judgment the DCJ notes that most of the points raised by Mr Thwaites were points that went more to the no case submission (the judgment for which he would already have prepared) than liability. That is Judge code for ‘counsel just rehashed the same arguments’. No defence evidence was presented so it would have been a relatively simple thing to deal with the liability submissions and have the Judgment ready to go.
Personally I am still chortling about the DCJ referring to Whaleoil be Hooked at para 139.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 8:55 pm
Isn’t Christine Rankin in the news again? Isn’t she an Interesting Name? Lots of media outlets in trouble if the same standards are applied.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 9:00 pm
Nor me. I’ve always wanted to argue it, but I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t fly.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 9:06 pm
Danyl Mclauchlan (845) Says:
September 14th, 2010 at 4:27 pm
You can donate over on Gotcha
Or you could give money to the victims of the Christchurch earthquake, or the floods in Pakistan . . .
Typical f*cking socialist telling us what to do with our money… plus the floods in Pakistan don’t need any help… although the people do.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 9:08 pm
If I remember correctly, some of the names he published were those of people who had not been convicted of anything, only charged.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 9:23 pm
GPT1 – I’m sure Whaleoil will post all the supporting documents and arguments when he can so you can see for yourself. Including excel spreadsheets and memos.
FE Smith – maybe the Judge is a speed reader. And has a even speedier typist. The Judgment itself is quite rampant.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 10:28 pm
Thrash Cardiom (nice post about breakfast, made me hungry)
Whale also named people that were arrogant enough to think they would be able to get away with people never knowing about their misdeeds. Whale has taken the ultimate bullet for us all, and some people think it’s awfully clever to revel in his punishment. Mainly those who think it is funny are the types who are too gutless to ever make a principled stand on anything in their lives.
Vote:September 15th, 2010 at 6:20 am
Clint
I have been frustrated by the suppression of celebrity and other names of convicted people as well. I understand why Whaleoil did it. I don’t condone it though as what he did is effectively vigilante justice though of course without the violence of the usual vigilante. Where would we be if everyone who was frustrated with the law took it upon themselves to administer their own?
I don’t agree with the naming of people who have not been convicted. That doesn’t help his cause at all.
Vote:September 15th, 2010 at 6:53 am
This system seems to be so much like a cheap and cheerful NZ alternative to the “Super Injunctions” so popular in the UK right now.
The problem that the legal beagles have is that we just don’t rely on the newspapers, and the twitter generation can ‘out’ an expensively well buried story in about 15 minutes.
Getting to be almost pointless.
Vote:September 15th, 2010 at 6:57 am
And Whale was arrogant enough to think he could choose who was “deserving” of having their identities revealed, and whose families would be identified.
No, he didn’t. He may end up helping by putting pressure on name suppression law change, along with a number of other people who are pushing for change through lawful means.
To some he made a strong stand, but his defence was weak, and has copped the consequences. He has also shown that strength and boldness from his own privacy behind a computer does not necessarily translate into strength in the public glare.
Not many are reveling in his modest punishment, not many are laughing. Some see it for what it was, part pushing a cause, part attention seeking – and see he is still trying to exploit his “fame” with the publicity. So I think many people will have mixed feelings about it. And some might have strong feelings, some of those associated with the revealed identities who thought the law would protect them.
Vote:September 15th, 2010 at 7:18 am
“He has also shown that strength and boldness from his own privacy behind a computer”
I have read some shit on here over the years and I can say that you are the Grandmaster of Horsehit rhetoric petey gal. Do you have a spine like normal folk? PLEASE DO NOT ANSWER.
Vote:September 15th, 2010 at 7:20 am
What is it in New Zealand, that keeps Judiciary heads buried in the sand instead of getting their collective arse’s together to discuss these issues, which affect the confidence of the courts? The Judiciary have themselves to blame if they do not make judgements which are consistant and fair and which reflect the concerns and rights of society, which they are paid to uphold.
Vote:September 15th, 2010 at 7:26 am
Paul – the judiciary and media circles are a law unto themselves. When charged you can have your name splashed all over the front page of your local paper and when trial time arrives the keystone cops drop the charges? All good stuff in the land of the bent judiciary and media creeps. Justice is absent from our Kangaroo courtrooms.
Vote:September 15th, 2010 at 8:38 am
GPT1 @ 5:29
I meant relatively minor compared to a serial rapist. The point remains: A serial rapist (separate offences) will often get concurrent sentences. Personally I think all convictions should be consecutive but it still seems inconsistent that CS had his all added together
Vote:September 15th, 2010 at 9:43 am
News flash for you MikeE and you can join in DPF, being a blogger doesn’t put you outside the law.
I was subject to the supression laws before Slater had his little hissy fit and i am now. Implications nil.
Vote:September 15th, 2010 at 9:51 am
“I’ve been found guilty of breaching name suppression by posting just a name” – you know it is about context.
Vote:September 15th, 2010 at 10:29 am
Not sure about the relevance of the judges Web 2.0 Tim Berners-Lee footnote on paragraph 45 ?
Vote:September 15th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
(cough)David Garrett(cough)
Vote:September 15th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
Does a name suppression automatically cease as soon as the person makes a public admission?
Does it break suppression laws if a media organisation effectively forces someone with name suppression to make a public admission?
Vote:September 15th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
The proceedings of Parliament can be reported under qualified privilege.
So Garrett is a victim? Good grief. This really has become Bizarro World.
Vote:September 15th, 2010 at 2:55 pm
That’s a bit over the top.
It’s an interesting situation. He legally had name suppression. Media (possibly by proxy) have put him in a situation where he had little choice but to out himself. There is public interest in what a party law and order spokesman has previously done. What takes precedence?
What if Whale had been the one that outed him? Or fed enough information that TV picked up the baton?
Vote:September 15th, 2010 at 3:13 pm
So Garrett is a victim? Good grief. This really has become Bizarro World.,/i>
How so?…he WAS the victim….he was attacked from behind and suffered serious injury.A silly,bad joke conviction in a corrupt court in Tonga doesn’t change that.
Vote: