Enjoined
March 29th, 2011 at 9:32 am by David FarrarA v Fairfax NZ Ltd Judgment 280311
The complainant in the Hughes case has gained an injunction prohibiting publication of his name. I have to confess I thought his name was suppressed anyway as the complainant is alleging a sexual crime, but it seems this only applies once the Police lay charges.
Regardless I wouldn’t name him anyway (I have been aware of his identity since before this matter went public) as it would be a scummy thing to do.
The injunction names six defendents, being Fairfax, APN, TVNZ, Mediaworks, Danyl McLauchlan and myself. This isn’t because any of us have named him, but that they were specifically worried we may do so – or that a commenter on our site will.
The suppression applies to everyone who becomes aware of the order though – not just those named. So anyone who names him, or supplies information which can identify him, will be in breach of the order.
One interesting thing in the injunction is that it confirms the complaint is “sexual assault” rather than “indecent assault”. That is a more serious matter. of course it doesn’t mean that charge will be laid, if any are laid at all.
Related posts:
- Labour’s $9 billion hole
- Dear John
- BSA rejects Labour’s complaint on all grounds
- Christchurch CBD Buildings
March 29th, 2011 at 9:48 am
The verb form of injunction is “enjoin”. Its simple past form is “enjoined”, not “injuncted” (which has, but which won’t be able to see, one of them red squiggly lines under it in my browser =)
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 9:50 am
But not Whale Oil?
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 9:50 am
Hi David
Thanks for putting this up. I don’t think the injunction confirms that it is sexual assault? I only read it very quickly but it looks to me like it refers to “sexual offending” which I would take to be an umbrella term.
Also (being a pedantic prat) the verb is to enjoin.
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 9:57 am
Perhaps he knows that the bilious one has learned his lesson about contempt of court issues…?
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 10:03 am
“The verb form of injunction is “enjoin”. Its simple past form is “enjoined”, not “injuncted” (which has, but which won’t be able to see, one of them red squiggly lines under it in my browser =)”
Graeme, it seems that both forms are accepted these days, but like you I prefer to refer back to the verb as ‘enjoin’, which means to require an action by someone. Injunct is a bloody ugly word, and probably originated in the good ol’ US of A.
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 10:05 am
Who is Danyl McLauchlan ?
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 10:06 am
I’m also surprised Slater wasn’t enjoined too. But I also think they should have enjoined the Labour party. I wouldn’t trust them not to run a smear job on the complainant.
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 10:07 am
So now its at least confirmed that its a case of Sexual assault. Lets see the media run with that moving forward.
Chris 2 – Dimpost
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 10:12 am
what actually is sexual assault?
Vote:rape, fellatio, digital invasion, unlawful connection with objects or does it cover all such things?
I presume that means without consent or when someone is incapable of giving consent?
March 29th, 2011 at 10:12 am
scratch my comment – I see the ref to sexual assault. Yikes
I don’t think it’s a major that WO or Labour isn’t named – it purports to bind anyone with notice.
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 10:21 am
Who is Danyl McLauchlan ?
Who indeed?
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 10:25 am
Who indeed?
Surely you, of all people, Danyl, can recognise an Atlas Shrugged reference?
[unless, of course, your response was an Atlas Shrugged reference I didn't recognise?]
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 10:33 am
The injunction is a bit late someone has already as good as named the victim on this blog. Unlike me he did not get any demerits. Mind you saying something that goes against librarian ideology is far more serious than someone almost identifying as sexual assault victim.
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 10:37 am
You were aware of “A’s” identity before it went public? How did this happen?
[It was, sadly, fairly common knowledge at Vic Uni.]
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 10:41 am
Those librarians really are a worry, Chuck
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 10:41 am
That can not have been unintentional
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 10:42 am
Enjoined? Enjoy!
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 10:53 am
Way to go DiM.
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 11:10 am
With the greatest respect to the complainant, he was probably either unaware of Whale or it slipped his mind to include Whale. It could be something as simple as the lawyer being unable to find Whale’s service address in the very short time available.
Interestingly the media has been circumspect in not disclosing his identity – the order was most probably made as a precautionary measure ‘urbi et orbi’, not to just those named. I am sure most people hope the young gentleman’s studies have not been too seriously impacted, that he is receiving good support from fellow students and would wish him well for the future.
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 11:15 am
We have all the names we need already.
Darren Hughes, Phil Goff, Andrew Three Hats, Anette King… yadda yadda yadda. We’re good.
Any reason he hasn’t “enjoined” any of those names above? Seems to me he’s at more risk from them than any of us. We know he certainly didn’t enjoy at least one of them.
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 11:16 am
Does it usually take this long for the police to lay charges? Its been 3 weeks since the complaint?
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 11:29 am
The term sexual offending could encompass a range of things including indecent assault. I would read nothing into the use of that term.
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 11:30 am
dime, perhaps they’ve been told to draw it out until November 27
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 11:32 am
A complaint of sexual assualt has been made and someone ended up naked in the street.
The phrase “I’ve done nothing wrong” as a reaction wouldn’t be my first expectation tvb.
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 11:35 am
Could it be the Commissioner is waiting for instructions from some lofty office in New York? “Paree” Hughes must be protected.
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 11:35 am
“Does it usually take this long for the police to lay charges? Its been 3 weeks since the complaint?”
I very much doubt it in any case with as much evidence as is already in the public domain. I would expect the police has more evidence than has been made public.
As I have said previously there is no way charges would not laid if the victim was a 18 girl who ran naked for someones house.
I read in Stuff about another letter about more allegation against Hughes.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4819297/MPs-reject-coup-rumours-amid-Darren-Hughes-fallout
How much more evidence do they need?
I would guess that legal injunction would have cost $1000. Peterwn may have a better idea.
If charges had have been laid the matter would not have been allow to be discussed and the injunction may not have been necessary.
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 12:34 pm
So Goff’s path was wise perhaps? Maybe it was a good guess that quietness was required.
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 12:47 pm
Visit studentville sometime. you might find some of our customs surprising.
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 12:48 pm
Is there any proof that the allegedly naked young man allegedly seen in the street in Hataitai in the early hours of the morning was the complainant?
The ‘naked young man in the street’ appears to have been the product of a media interview by Jonathan ‘did-Amanda-Hotchin-really-say-what-I-said-she-said-or-did-I-make-it-all-up’ Marshall with unidentified staff at an unidentified Wellington business who said they were quoting their unidentified boss.
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 1:05 pm
I would have thought an injunction on anybody associated with Labour would be more appropriate, some of The comments acting as support and apologists of howdy doody and snide remarks about the complainant have all come from the left and Labour
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 1:32 pm
Barnsley, have you got any examples of the left making snide remarks that imply the complaint was in any way at fault? If so would you name the blog and where the remark was made.
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 1:50 pm
Chuck, at least one of Darren’s friends wants the complainant hanged.
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/pages/Hon-Darren-Hughes/13010008646
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 2:05 pm
Murray the High Court Judgment uses the term SEXUAL OFFENDING, not sexual assault. I suggest you read it and that is the first authoritive statement on what sort of complaint has been made and the High Court Judge carefully used the term “sexual offending” which is a neutral term. I accept that the comment “I have done nothing wrong” by Hughes suggests something could have happened but it was not criminal.
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 2:06 pm
Pretty much any thread about it on the stranded
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 2:13 pm
“String the lil bastard up D! I’ll bring the rope! Kia kaha bro!”
Thanks, I found the comment. I have not seen any others but the ones that go on about the “truth” will prevail imply the victim is lying.
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 2:40 pm
Chuck – Would cost $900 to file the thing, plus more for the hearing let alone the lawyer’s fees. If any defendant wants to make an issue of it, a further hearing would be required and it could quickly run into a five figure sum. If the judge cancels the order after a further hearing (very unlikely) the complainant would need to meet a portion of defence fees. Could run to 5 figures very quickly. I doubt legal aid would be available.
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 2:49 pm
Mind you saying something that goes against librarian ideology is far more serious than someone almost identifying as sexual assault victim.
Librarians are indeed merciless opponents of competing ideologies. Didn’t know DPF was an adherent though.
snide remarks about the complainant have all come from the left and Labour
Pity they can’t emulate the courtesy and restraint with which Worth’s victims were treated by right-wing bloggers, perhaps?
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 2:54 pm
Tvb
Section 10(a) of the injunction makes it clear that the complaint is one of sexual assualt.
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 3:04 pm
Psycho Milt “Pity they can’t emulate the courtesy and restraint with which Worth’s victims were treated by right-wing bloggers, perhaps?” – please tell me you’re not alleging Neelam Choudary was a victim.
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 3:25 pm
If there were no victims of anything, do tell us what Worth was sacked for, RightNow – we’d all love to hear it.
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 3:42 pm
I understand why you’re asking that Milt, and I don’t know the reasons any more than you do, but I really think it has nothing to do with Neelam Choudary, who IMO was a willing participant in a honey trap.
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 3:53 pm
It is worth noting that there is no offence called sexual assault. see Crimes Act:
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM327382.html
Sexual crimes are clustered under s127-144 ”Sexual Crimes”
Assaults are clustered under s188-204 (and s9-10 of Summary Offences Act) but do not include those with sexual overtones.
There are three sexual crimes possibly relevant to this case:
s128 – s129 sexual violation (including rape) – including ramming a broomstick up someone’s backside
s135 indecent assault
s129A ‘sexual conduct with consent induced by certain threats’ might also be relevant here.
Given the heading ‘sexual crimes’ and the absence of a crime ‘sexual assault’, I consider the lawyer who drafted the application most probably used the term ‘sexual assault’ as a generic term to cover the three crimes I listed above. Because ‘consent’ is generally a defence to the first two (as complainant >18), police would generally need a formal complaint before laying charges.
Someone commented on delays with laying charges. There is probably some forensic work involved which takes time, and the police would almost certainly pass the completed investigation file to Crown Law to determine what charge and whether the evidence stacks up sufficiently. This too takes time.
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 3:58 pm
Chuck,
“…any examples of the left making snide remarks that imply the complaint was in any way at fault?…”
Another example is right here at KB where dear old magic bullet made the comment:
( http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/03/stories_on_hughes_and_goff.html#comment-812899 )
“One angle that has not been mooted here, is that Hughes was a victim of some entrapment scheme. It would explain why Goff was so unsure about the course to take. What a disappointment that would be for the blood-thirsty kiwiblog lynch mob.”
Nice piece of speculation there from MB to try and deflect focus. MB went on even further to speculate more wildly with:
( http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/03/the_nonsense_about_prejudicing_a_police_investigation.html#comment-812982 )
“Also – even the most sheltered 18 year olds know what it means when someone asks you to get your kit off.”
Which, of course, is speculating that the lad was actually asked.
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 4:18 pm
Point taken but because both terms – sexual offending and sexual assault are used in the judgment it would be unwise to draw conclusions as the the exact nature of the complaint.
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 6:18 pm
Not including Whaleoil in this showed a massive amount of insight from the legal fraternity and I applaud that they are finally learning how not to capture the attention of the mammal.
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 6:20 pm
tvb – the complaint would in this most probably be a set of allegations which may indicate that an offence (or attempt) occurred. It is unlikely that the complainant would cite the exact section of the Crimes Act in his complaint. It would generally be up to the police and Crown Law to decide what actual offence has been committed. It may well have to be ‘attempted’ something and there is IMO a significant chance of insufficient evidence to even charge with ‘attempted’ something. Agreed that it would be unwise to draw conclusions at this stage.
bhudson – entrapment here is too much of a long shot and can I think be ruled out. Complainant seemed to be a Labour loyalist and anyway it is a very long shot to be invited to the house in the manner that occurred if entrapment was being planned. Note that if he was invited round for a cup of coffee and then invited to spend the night, he could undress quite innocently to go to bed. Hence I would not read too much into why he undressed.
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 6:25 pm
peterwn,
I couldn’t agree more. The ‘left’ (at least in the form of the magic bullet) are intent on deflecting, distracting and generally osfucating in an attempt to defuse the wee issue for Labour.
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 6:59 pm
As a defendant you keep dubious company, Farrar.
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 7:11 pm
I didn’t expect such an excellent example to turn up so promptly, but sometimes you just get lucky.
Bhudson offers the following comment as an example of the vile way left-wing commenters blame the victim:
One angle that has not been mooted here, is that Hughes was a victim of some entrapment scheme.
Only a short while before that, RightNow wrote:
Neelam Choudary, who IMO was a willing participant in a honey trap
Pot, meet kettle. Serious over-supply of obnoxious imbeciles on both sides, truth be told.
Vote:March 29th, 2011 at 7:59 pm
Psycho,
“Serious over-supply of obnoxious imbeciles on both sides, truth be told.”
And while “it takes one to know one” might be a somewhat childish line for childish behaviours, you exemplify that which makes it an axiom
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 9:37 am
That’s kind of ridiculous, they included you as a defendant as they feared you would name the guy?
What about the tooth fairy and the cookie monster, I heard they had loose lips too?
All good publicity aside… a High Court judge actually made that order?
In case of future threat?
Just weird.
Vote:March 30th, 2011 at 9:56 am
At the same time though, it is an obvious compliment.
I mean I don’t think the High Court judge was going, um, who is David Farrar?
You powerful koala you!
Vote: