Devlin catches on
January 25th, 2011 at 9:00 am by David FarrarVaimoana Tapaleao in the NZ Herald reports:
Sports broadcaster Martin Devlin – the celebrity who was arrested and charged with disorderly behaviour – says he sought name suppression to protect his children from embarrassment. But doing so only made things worse, he admitted yesterday.
Yep. If his lawyer advised him to do so, he was very badly advised. The quest for name suppression generated far more publicity for Devlin, than he would have attracted for a very minor offence. And it was of course ineffective. Even though there were no blatant high profile breaches of the suppression order, his identity became well known through word of mouth.
“I sought name suppression in an effort to try and protect my children from being identified and embarrassed by my behaviour,” he said in a statement to media. “Obviously the only effective way to prevent that was not to do it in the first place.”
Indeed.
Tags: Martin Devlin, name suppression
January 25th, 2011 at 9:10 am
See? I said that it wasn’t me!
Vote:January 25th, 2011 at 9:14 am
While seeking suppression heightened interest and speculation, mainly because of sensationlist headlines,( 46 year old Celebrity blah blah) If he had been named from the start I still believe the same amount of publicity would have resulted.
Vote:Except the headlines would have been “Devlin of the Deep End!” or “Drunk and Disorderly Devlin Dents his Drivetime slot”
January 25th, 2011 at 9:24 am
It’s a double edged sword Martin, you know, a bit like a game of two halves.
Jesus has anyone on that show NOT been arrested?
Vote:January 25th, 2011 at 9:34 am
What a fucking crock.
Vote:Name suppression, no name suppression, who gives a shit? Only those who like to mind wank all over other peoples lives.
This is as newsworthy as me blowing my nose.
January 25th, 2011 at 9:36 am
At least he didnt cripple his missus like that poisonous fucker Veitch
Vote:January 25th, 2011 at 9:41 am
On the radio he always seemed to me like the sort of bloke who would fess up and own it.
Of course the tut-tutters will be out in force. But Jesus he got a bit loose while he was out on the turps, he’s hardly a pariah.
Vote:January 25th, 2011 at 9:57 am
Would love to know who Devlin was advised by. Perhaps they are now seeking name suppression.
Vote:January 25th, 2011 at 10:04 am
He sat on the bonnet of a car. While sober. It was his wife’s car.
Vote:January 25th, 2011 at 10:12 am
I stand corrected. Funny from some of the reporting I thought it was booze related.
Vote:January 25th, 2011 at 10:13 am
theodoresteel (10:04am): …in the middle of the road. Plonker.
Vote:January 25th, 2011 at 10:19 am
Who the hell is Martin Devlin?
And why was the media blmaing the court for granting name suspression when in fact it did no such thing.
Also why did the media say he outed himself when in fact he had had name supression denied?
finally why are we funding TVNZ to report in this shoddy manner?
Vote:January 25th, 2011 at 10:19 am
According to Laws on the Radio this morning, name suppression is an integral part of the diversion process which would apply to any first minor offender. So while I’m dead set against the concept of giving suppression to celebrities because they’ll be impacted more than Joe Average ( tough, that’s just the other edge of the sword), this doesn’t seem to fit that bill.
Vote:January 25th, 2011 at 10:19 am
His kids go to [deleted by DPF]. I don’t believe that his kids will face ridicule from other kids when school starts in 2 weeks time after this revelation.
Vote:January 25th, 2011 at 11:06 am
Name suppression in a diversion case is not unusual, indeed it was often granted by some judges. However in this case the name suppression became counter productive with several celebrities having to deny it was them. Innocent people who have no involvement in the case should not be placed in this embarrassing situation.
Vote:January 25th, 2011 at 11:26 am
If the version of events as given is correct one could question whether it amounted to disorderly behaviour at all – although when you acted like a plum and diversion is available the temptation to argue would be reduced.
Vote:January 25th, 2011 at 11:35 am
If the version of events as given is correct one could question whether it amounted to disorderly behaviour at all
I wondered that too – why would cops even get involved? But it is Devlin’s version isn’t it? It could be watered down a tad. Or he could have omitted a bit about his reaction to police involvement?
Vote:January 25th, 2011 at 11:47 am
This is where the name suppression issue gets murky. People like Simon Power is jumping all over the place to get rid of name suppression based purely on a person’s fame or public profile. But at the same time the only reason that this is even in our major newspaper is purely because of the person’s fame or public profile. It is usually media organisations that are fighting in court for the removal of name suppression supposedly in the public interest. Naturally it is only so they can engage in gutter journalism. While I am all for the removal of special privileges for celebrities in our legal system it must be balanced with news media acting responsibly. One way they can do this is by not reporting minor misdemeanors because a person is a celebrity but only report these stories if it is newsworthy when regular people commit the crime. If I want gutter journalism and rubbish about celebrities sitting on bonnets of cars and arguing with their spouses I can pick up a copy of Womans Day or search out other stupid gossip sources. Naturally I have better things to do
Vote:January 25th, 2011 at 11:56 am
PG – my guess is that his version is factually correct but it doesn’t refer to whether his actions caused traffic delays, how long he was on bonnet and whether he complied with instructions to get off. Surely warnings would have been given (and ignored) before an arrest.
Vote:January 25th, 2011 at 3:03 pm
I disagree that he never should have sought name suppression. He rocks up to court to face his disorderly charge on a slow news week, no Registrar’s court running, only a Magistrates court. The journalists are circling like vultures around the courtroom, having already been alerted to this case. he knows damn well the type of exaggerated and sensationalist headlines that are already floating around in their heads and soon to be splashed across the newspapers – and in this internet age – everywhere. With no chance to take stock of his situation – or necessarily even understand the legal consequences – eg do I have a defence to this? should I plead guilty? will I get diversion? is diversion even being offered? etc if the duty solicitors did not advise him to give serious thought to seeking name suppression on the day, that would be negligent. I believe any lawyer actually at court that day would have advised him to seek it.
Vote:January 25th, 2011 at 3:19 pm
“..Jesus has anyone on that show NOT been arrested..”
heh…!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:January 25th, 2011 at 5:09 pm
Apparently:
Now Noel Leeming is “reviewing his contract as voice-over man” for their ads as it’s “not a good look”.
Now I don’t think much of Devlin as an “entertainer” but who hasn’t had a row with the missus on occasion? I recall being in the opposite position to Devlin and deciding to reverse away from the argument (so looking over my shoulder) only to realise that the lady in question had tried the same trick as he did (sitting on the bonnet) and was now clinging to the windcreen wipers assuming I was trying to kill her. Luckily no police were around at time.
Why did this even get to court?! If the police happened to be on the spot they couldn’t let the whole thing pass without intervention, I suppose, but there was once a time when an officer would have said “Come along sir, don’t make a bloody idiot of yourself”, and escorted him to the side of the road to calm down.
They still might have, I suspect, but possibly realised they had a “name” on their hands they could “take down a peg or two”, thus wasting the taxpayers’ money and causing a vast amount of unnecessary angst to Devlin and his family. Well done Mr Plod.
Vote:January 25th, 2011 at 5:11 pm
Spoken like someone who was there and saw everything.
Or maybe the officers at the scene felt the action that they took was appropriate?
Vote:January 25th, 2011 at 5:37 pm
Spoken, RRM, like someone who was treated differently by police because at one point I had a public profile and about whom a senior officer openly admitted to my business partner “he’s got it coming”.
If on the other hand the officers genuinely thought that making Devlin’s brief moment of moronic but harmless behaviour into an expensive court action was “appropriate” then they need retraining. Is this really what we want our police force spending their time doing, when they can’t even be bothered turning up to burglaries and the like?
Vote:January 25th, 2011 at 6:07 pm
Anybody else starting to get the feeling that this incident has been stage managed from the very beginning by Devlin and the people around him in an attempt to resurrect a failing career?
Vote:January 25th, 2011 at 6:32 pm
it’s interesting. recently my friend and I were subjected to a road rage incident where a woman attacked the car, kicked it, tried to get in, threatening violence on the occupants i.e. us! – and broke off the rear windscreen wiper, running off down the street with it (in a CCTV area). we got the registration number of her vehicle and went straight to the police station armed with that info to make a complaint. we were told off for not dialing 111 and now police would have to do an “investigation” – it was thus too difficult for police to follow up. as far as I am aware the person was never charged or prosecuted. yet surely the public interest is served by “following up” that type of thing? instead of this type of thing?
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 5:10 am
I have met Martin Devlin, and he was a nice guy as far as I could see – I suspect he received some very bad legal advice indeed. I dont know what happened in this incident as I was not there, but it appears to have been relatively trivial. I doubt it would have even been newsworthy but for the name suppression aspect. And tarrant is correct – that road rage incident he describes should have been acted upon, such a person should not be on the road on a bicycle let alone a car.
He has done the right thing in fronting up, and I imagine this will all blow over in short order now as it would have even more so had he declined suppression in the first place. Certainly should I ever find myself in his position (and there but for the Grace of God go any of us) I would decline name suppression, both on principle and for the purely practical reason that it doesnt work any more most of the time. I am, thankfully a nonentity at least.
Regards
Vote:Peter Jenkins
see http://www.sensiblesentencing.org.nz