The 46 year old name suppression case
January 20th, 2011 at 10:54 am by David FarrarVictoria Robinson reports:
Continued name suppression for a 46-year-old celebrity charged with disorderly behaviour has been slammed by the Newspaper Publishers’ Association.
The entertainer, who faces the charge after being arrested in downtown Auckland on December 29, has been accepted into a police diversion scheme.
Judge David Harvey, in Auckland District Court, adjourned the celebrity’s application for non-publication of his name, which media is expected to oppose, until February 9.
It is worth noting that the Judge here has not granted name supression. It has been applied for, and interim supression cotinues until the hearing on Feb 9th. The problem lies with the defendent trying to gain permament name supression, and the inability to schedule a substantive hearing more quickly.
The defendent has either had some shockingly bad advice, or has ignored some good advice/ If he had never sought name supression, the incident (which was minor and he got diversion for) would have been a page five or seven story lasting one news cycle.
But the use of name supression has meant half the country wants to know who the 46 year old is (the other half already know), and you’ve had other 46 year olds deny it is them.
So the end result for the 46 year old is a tonne more bad publicity that if he had never had name supression.
Newspaper Publishers’ Association chief executive Tim Pankhurst said yesterday that media companies should challenge the suppression to protect the principles of open justice.
“The courts in this country are far too ready to offer suppression. A justice system operates the most effectively in full sunlight and any sort of suggestion that people of influence … are protected, undermines the system.”
I agree with Tim Pankhurst that media should challenge this, but note that the Judge has not yet made a decision on suppression. Also worth noting that the Police did not oppose interim name supression. This is part of the problem – we need a culture in the Police where they challenge name suppression in almost all cases.
Related posts:
- Christchurch Name Suppression
- The pillow attack case
- Dom Post et al on name suppression
- Suppression Orders and the Internet
January 20th, 2011 at 11:03 am
The devil is in the detail – stupid fool should have manned up, said soz I can’t handle my Martini’s Mr Bond – instead he tries to bury it.
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 11:07 am
I am at a loss as to why name suppression is being sought, disorderly behaviour is hardly the crime of the century and he is a bit of a “B” lister anyway.
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 11:07 am
In this guy’s case I suspect he is gaming the name suppression so that when his name finally is revealed it will boost his profile and ratings.
Vote:Interesting to note that TVNZ have not announced whether or not they will challenge the suppression order (h/t whaleoil).
January 20th, 2011 at 11:11 am
The last thing I would describe this vain tool as is “celebrity”.
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 11:11 am
A classic case of an idiot making a mountain out of a wormcast.
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 11:16 am
Is he getting poor legal advice or acting against legal advice? In other words, who is the idiot?
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 11:24 am
Oh, the poor devil. If he is a celebrity, I’ve never heard of him myself. (I saw his name somewhere else),
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 11:27 am
make all requests temporary in nature
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 11:27 am
“Also worth noting that the Police did not oppose interim name supression. This is part of the problem – we need a culture in the Police where they challenge name suppression in almost all cases.”
True, I agree with you, the difficulty is that the courts grant suppression so matter of factly that Prosecutors try and save their oppositions to cases where it really matters, such as likely repetition of offending ,or where publication will bring forth further evidence or complaints about the offender, but you are right a culture change is needed.
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 11:33 am
I would say that anyone who was interested, already know who he is .. Uncle Johnny wouldn’t be singing his praises over this, that is for certain
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 11:36 am
Can some legal bod tell us what interim name supression actually means, and who it applies to? Hypothetical example is I’m in a bar and someone tells me the name of the “celebrity”. If I then state in the comments section of a blog that “I was in a bar the other night and this person told me it was xxx”, is this breaching interim name suppression?
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 11:43 am
make all requests temporary in nature. don’t expect very long if notorious.
obviously hes created real attention. plonker
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 11:45 am
At least his on and off screen personas are consistent.
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 11:47 am
I thought I had heard of him but looking at his Wikipedia page it appears I was confusing him with his uncle. The revisions history of the Wikipedia page is a bit of a laugh – it appears there is an ongoing battle between one editor who keeps noting the incident and another one who keeps taking it out.
Whether Wikipedia is subject to NZ suppression laws or not – and presumably you would have to edit it from outside NZ for doubt to arise – the removing editor does have a point in that the inserting editor can’t actually cite a reliable source for his information.
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 11:48 am
“DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?”……..
That line has to come with the reply…..
“YES, A PRIZE TOSSER”.
What a silly little fucktard, why can’t he just fes up and take the suspicion of the other 46 year olds.
So much for the saying, “better the devil you know…..”
I don’t think so here!!
TV3 needs to keep pushing the courts.
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 11:49 am
Or maybe it is exactly what he wants. There is no such thing as bad publicity.
Vote:From what I hear he is a D list “celebrity”, most people wont even have ever heard of him when his name comes out.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:55 am
Its a struggle to have any interest at all and think what interest does exist is because the media say so.
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 12:07 pm
Ironic this so-called celebrity expected the staff to know who he was but doesn’t want the rest of us to know.
Vote:We know it’s going to be some second-rate media hack or sportsperson. Name suppression is a joke when people are in the public eye anyway and expect to trade on it as this plonker does. And he really shouldn’t be throwing tantrums at his age.
January 20th, 2011 at 12:11 pm
I thought I had heard of him but looking at his Wikipedia page it appears I was confusing him with his uncle.
Check the pages history.
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 12:17 pm
So aaahhhh….who is it?
Do tell…lol
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 12:51 pm
Well I dont know who he is the hints are that he has an Uncle called John who is known and his name is John. can I have some more hints Its so frustrating trying to think of all the 46 yo Johns who could be celebs.
Please help its frying my brains!!!!!!
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 12:56 pm
Took me 5 minutes to find, 46 years old, wikipedia have a list of people nz’ers ( famous ? ) born in 1964, not many likely candidates & then check the history.
Odd he’d try & cover it though, seems innocuous.
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 12:59 pm
Dazz, lms, check whaleoil for clues
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 1:03 pm
Yes, not that hard… Wonder what David Tua would think of him?
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 1:07 pm
This is only interim name suppression. The defendant is to be considered innocent until proven guilty/pleads guilty. There is a difference in name suppression following a first appearance and name suppression following guilt. If it were some random member of society who received interim suppression there would be little interest. In fact, if it were a random member of society without suppression the case would likely never be reported. “Celebrities” get far more coverage than any other defendant yet they are just as entitled to a presumption of innocence as any other person. Unfortunately, when someone is charged, the public often assumes guilt. Where they are later found not guilty the damage is already done, and this can be very hard on someone with a public profile. Where someone is later found guilty, a person with a public profile ultimately ends up with a far harsher penalty than those without a profile as not only do they get the sentence imposed by the Court, they are also subject to the public scrutiny and backlash.
Vote:That said, I do not understand why this person asked for suppression, as such an application automatically brings attention. If they had simply remanded the matter through the registrar, the press probably wouldn’t have even caught onto it.
January 20th, 2011 at 1:10 pm
Lastmanstanding – his name isn’t John.
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 1:17 pm
QU, I’ve always taken the view that seeking name supression is a guaranteed way to attract attention from the media. Not seeking it is the legal equivalent of hiding in plain sight as giventhe volumes of customers the courts have, especially in Auckland quite a lot of stuff that is far more interesting than this case goes un-noticed.
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 1:17 pm
@quirky: yes but you have neglected that continued and permanant suppression can be used as a “get out of jail free” card. Think of think of the entertainer & the olympian, for example…
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 1:32 pm
Heh, having just found out who it is I’m surprised he hasn’t just come clean.
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 1:38 pm
Pete George said
I believe that he may have been getting PR advice Pete, and that it may not have been of the best quality, especially when it now emerges that the probable provider of the advice also witnessed the incident. The advice was of a similar quality to that wisdon dispensed by TVNZ when Paul Henry dissed the Govenor General; “It’s just Paul Henry being Paul Henry”
But “household name” – neh; not on your nelly; a legend in his own liquid lunchtime more likely
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 1:52 pm
Interesting to see that two “high profile” 46 year olds, John Campbell and Simon Dallow, have both gone on the record to claim it isn’t them. In the interests of eliminating doubt, I should point out that, despite being 46 years old, it isn’t me either.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10700794
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 2:02 pm
High profile he is not.
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 2:23 pm
The smart devil should come clean.
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 2:25 pm
Most of you do not know who it is.
[remainder deleted by DPF. Demerits in future if you breach suppression orders here]
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 3:06 pm
If I was an agent for such a person it would seem ‘name suppression’ would be great advice for a flagging profile.
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 3:11 pm
Bruv, that’s sailn’ close to the wind!
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 3:19 pm
What ever do you mean ciaron?
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 3:31 pm
BB, that was edgy, to say the least.
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 3:40 pm
Bit late for playing innocent… Pray tell; have you posted the same at yours?
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 3:56 pm
Oh well, he didn’t kick his wife in the back, partially crippling her, so I don’t imagine his employers will be too concerned. The bar has been set very low.
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 3:56 pm
@ Cairon 1.17pm – My recollection of the olympian was that naming him would identify the victim?
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 4:08 pm
@ Quirky; the legitimacy of that whole line of reasoning needs adressing, especially when the offender has prior form.
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 4:43 pm
I’m confused.
My dictionary defines “entertainer” as “one who entertains”. And “entertains” as “to hold the attention of pleasantly or agreeably; divert; amuse”.
Yet the accused has never pleasantly or agreeably held my attention (indeed he’s occasioned an uncontrollable impulse to immediately reach for the “off” switch), nor has he diverted and most certainly has never amused.
I’d wager most people upon whom his antic were inflicted would have had the same reaction.
I can only conclude there’s someone of the same name who is actually entertaining, and is suffering greatly as a result of the mix-up, poor fellow.
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 4:46 pm
… Everything I want, want
Vote:Everything I need, need….
January 20th, 2011 at 4:50 pm
@ Rex; this case in not about The Entertainer, or even The Comedian;
The Household Name who’s identity has been suppressed will be forever known as The Smarty Devil In Disguise
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 4:52 pm
Big Bruv broke the suppression order at 2.25pm. It’s now 4.52pm. David is slow today
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 4:54 pm
…..We can take it to the top, top, Jump into my seat,
Vote:We can ride, off into the night,
We can ride, if she’s by my side……
January 20th, 2011 at 5:00 pm
Plenty of people outside of their glass houses today I see
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 5:02 pm
….Girl, too much to find, you and me,
Vote:Here tonight, totally,
Satisfied, You got,
No another plans, but to, …
January 20th, 2011 at 5:04 pm
ROFLMAO thanks bigbruv.
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 5:12 pm
I’m also 46, so just want to say that it isn’t me. I don’t think that it was Heather Roy either.
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 5:23 pm
Tsk, I2… have you stopped to consider what life would be like sharing a cell with big bruv?
I briefly thought of breaking the suppression order on my own, much under-utilised, blog as I did when the political candidate had his name suppressed but then I realised that this fellow is, in effect, nobody.
Only in his own mind is he a “celebrity” whose “reputation” will be ruined when a bit of raucous nonsense is exposed to the public… after which he’ll no doubt more than recoup the fine with Wimminz Daze exclusive on “My five minutes of holding cell hell – they left dirty ink on my fingertips!!”
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 5:29 pm
You know after all the hints the other day I still didn’t get it, and when I did my first thought was: Who is he?
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 5:44 pm
I wonder how [deleted by DPF, don't play stupid games on my blog] is managing this matter
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 6:01 pm
the uncles name isn’t John, it’s Johnny
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 6:16 pm
David’s woken up. The Bruv is deleted. Still, several hours he lasted there!
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 6:38 pm
This is a secret right?
Wrong
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 6:58 pm
DPF admitted a bit smart arsed but also a legitimate question. And not wanting to appear a sook but look at a few other posts mine was positively cryptic in comparison – needing the Enigma machine at the very least
- we are talking an offence that is not even punishable by imprisonment, I believe as a political blog you should railing against abuse of the legal system, this suppression has nothing to do with protecting victims. he’s a yahoo anyway and when his mates got in strife he couldn’t shut up. He’s good at what he does and this carries the stigma of a speed camera ticket
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 7:19 pm
@Pauleastbay…..it currently isn’t punishable by imprisonment….but wait Simon “FIGJAM” Power has changed the law on the fly…despite his press release and the new penalty for breaching suppression orders will be….6 months in jail….no fines.
I kid you not….
In fact most of the law changes bear no resemblance to his press release.
Having an Enigma machine or not doesn’t save you either. I was convicted of breaching name suppression even though I encoded in several different ways details. The comments that David has edited would easily have drawn the attention of the Judge in this case, a)since he reads this blog and b) he is also the judge that convicted me in his massive 70 page missive….which is being appealed BTW.
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 7:40 pm
Whale
No shit, you can burgal, assault, kill driving pissed and not get sent to jail and Clutch Cargo wants to add jail to this shit.
BTW some of your clues were reasonable and you had to make an effort. trouble is with suppression orders, its such a small country so the name is never more than one phone call anyway.
DPF – I do seriously believe that you should make a bit of noise over this one. There is no victim . TV3 if they had any nuts would just publish and be damned. He got diversion anyway so there is no conviction and he has admitted guilt otherwise he wouldn’t have got diversion. Section 25 of the Bill of Rights deals with this but its for trials and serious stuff not a rat arsed disorder offence.
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 7:46 pm
This is a secret right?
Wrong
As usual the D+++++++ is in the detail.
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 8:18 pm
Aww, come on DPF, it was just a poem, no attempt by me to flout a suppression order.
After all, that would be breaking the law.
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 8:49 pm
Moron. Its not funny. You put Farrar at risk of prosecution for no reason other than your own vanity.
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 9:05 pm
Everyone knows who the musician, the former MP, the comedian and the broadcaster are – New Zealand is too small. And now they are spending the rest of their lives known as the celebrity who did (insert crime) and got name suppression.
However, Peter Williams was convicted of drunk driving, Matthew Ridge was convicted of aggravated robbery and then had it overturned on appeal … They don’t get tagged with that for the rest of their lives.
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 9:15 pm
Russell
” You put Farrar at risk of prosecution for no reason other than your own vanity”
That’s a bit rich coming from somebody who talks about themselves in the third person as much as you do, take a deep breath and relax you silly old man.
Perhaps while you are reflecting on what an idiot you are you could take the time to answer a couple of questions.
1. What have you achieved in your ten year war against the left?
Vote:2. What Ford do you drive that cost $70,000?
January 20th, 2011 at 9:31 pm
Red, I dont think DPF would be prosecuted, he has done nothing to breach the order, this is his forum but no reasonable Court would expect him to have a 24 hour overview on. When he has been worried (unnessarcirily(sic)) and found comments he has deleted, he certainly has not encouraged people to breach the orders and not left clues
Anyway David I would worry more about the some of the treasonist comments that are here by some rather than a bit of word play
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 9:41 pm
The irony is (and why I like objective blogs) that anyone who gets name suppression in the future is probably going to get more internet coverage than if they hadn’t.
And it does seem that with Wikipaedia and so on they will be identified in a minute anyway.
NZ is a very small country. Everyone knows eventually.
So internet has changed the power and effectiveness of supression orders for offenders at least.
That is a good thing. If you commit a crime you should be identified. If it kills your career and reputation, then that is part of the repercussions of the action.
If there is a real issue of victim protection then that is different.
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 9:47 pm
I dont think DPF would be prosecuted, he has done nothing to breach the order,
Maybe, but I think it’s an abuse of the blog for posters to openly flaunt the suppression laws and put it at risk – it’s quite different when bloggers like Whale do it on their own blog, it’s their own risk.
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 11:23 pm
I agree with red, bb was being an idiot, though I never read the post. My issue would be if dpf was unable to get to the blog for some reason for a day or more, then bb could way to easily have got dpf in real strife.
I actually think the person in question is very talented at what they do, but dumb dumb call going for suppression.
Vote:January 20th, 2011 at 11:32 pm
@QU, AM: what you say about seeking name suppression is generally correct HOWEVER this matter was in Court on 30 December – a slow news week for the Herald, and reporters were already in Court aware of the incident and waiting for him. So the defendant KNEW 100% that the media would make a story out of it, and paint the incident in the worst possible light. The incident involved a dispute with his partner, so embarrassment/fall-out from the story was going to affect both of them at a most inopportune time. Unsurprising that the lawyer asked for name suppression in these circumstances.
Vote:January 23rd, 2011 at 9:27 am
Which blog/s?
These cases seem to bring out a rash of blog bravado.
Vote:January 23rd, 2011 at 3:38 pm
We aren’t allowed to say who he is. But we are allowed to say who he ISN’T. It isn’t John Campbell, people. This one of the reasons is why there is a case for name supression being lifted- it’s not fair on other 46yo ‘celeb’ NZers.
Vote:January 23rd, 2011 at 10:33 pm
Is it Michael Galvin?
Vote:January 24th, 2011 at 12:25 pm
It is probably easier to count those who didn’t know who the “celebrity” was.
Vote:http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4574358/Devlin-outs-himself-in-disorderly-behaviour-case