Suppressing the wrong details
March 24th, 2011 at 9:00 am by David FarrarJonathan Marshall at Stuff reports:
The television star who performed a drunken sex act on a four-year-old continues to be employed by at least two big New Zealand companies.
The comedian, whose name is suppressed to protect his victim’s identity, entered a surprise guilty plea in Auckland District Court yesterday.
He admitted performing an indecent act on a child, after originally being charged with the more serious offence of unlawful sexual connection with a person aged under 12. …
If the case had gone to trial, the man’s lawyer, Marie Dyhrberg, intended to tell a jury her client was so intoxicated that he was not aware his victim was a child.
Really? You thought a four year old was an adult because you were drunk????
It is wrong the comedian will have permament name suppression. With respect, the wrong details are being suppressed. What should be suppressed is any details of the crime which would identify the victim. Suppress the fact that it occcured at his partner’s house, rather than his name.
Related posts:
- Search Terms
- Why we need a register of name supression orders
- Ex MP charged with indecent assault
- Funniest moment from the Whale trial
March 24th, 2011 at 9:12 am
Again – this is the case where the child got into bed with Mum & Mum’s partner, wanting cuddles isn’t it? And Mum’s partner was allegedly so drunk he didn’t know which way was up, let alone which way his partner was…
It’s hard to get your tut-tutting on when you only know half of what isn’t suppressed. Or maybe it isn’t hard…?
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 9:20 am
Also the obsession with paedophilia in this country is quite sad.
I hesitate every time my partner’s little girl wants to come to bed with us for cuddles, because I know from discussion forums like this what the fallout is likely to be if she mentions sleeping with Mummy and RRM last night to people at school.
I am always disappointed in myself for worrying about this, because I think of my partner’s little girl as my own, and she deserves cuddles in bed with Mummy and RRM every once in a while. Stupid, paranoid public attitudes really should not influence her home life, but in small ways like this they do…
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 9:24 am
I agree DPF, the judge really screwed up suppression.
The judge has virtually allowed the victim to be identified , since this guys name will eventually be leaked on the internet.
Noone wants to know who the victim was, they only want to know who he was. Releasing his name and conviction but suppressing everything else would have been far more effective.
One of my uni courses covered information security. Certainly judges should go on a similar course.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 9:37 am
I want to know who it is. I have a right to know. I want to know the name of the shit who fiddles with a 4 year old girl and when I find out I will tell everyone. Relax DPF it wont be on your site. The law is an ass.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 9:48 am
There’s enough detail in the Stuff report for a lot of people to work out who he is.
Those who can’t may be suspecting perfectly innocent TV comedians of the offence.
So yeah, better to have named the guy and suppressed the other details that would identify the victim.
Starboard: if you ‘tell everyone,’ you will identify the child. Do you really want her to grow up knowing everyone knows what happened to her as a child?
Does your ‘right to know’ outweigh her right to privacy?
If someone had messed with you as a child, would you want someone telling the world about it?
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 9:54 am
I know who the offender is and is was very easy to find out. What I think is strange is that a four year old is about 20kg and amybe 1.2m tall. Is his wife / partner a similar size???
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 9:58 am
Not so much who it is but what the details were. RRM raises a good point, was this a case of blatantly sticking it anywhere or a case of drunk, in the dark, mistaken identity as such. There is nothing to say that what may have started was ever finished, or any mistake made was quickly stopped. There are too many unkowns and the judge/media leave everybody’s furtive imagination to fill in the blanks.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 10:08 am
So pissed that he couldn’t tell the difference between a four-year-old and a fully-grown child-bearing woman? Give me a break!
W0rse still, he’s negotiated a plea-bargain that will see him escape jail time, and he will probably have permanent name suppression. Justice denied, IMHO. Still; it’s doubtful that he’ll ever be on TV again, although his DVD’s are still for sale.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 10:08 am
Ive tried to find it Monty , Ive googled everything but to no avail…all the guys at work have tried..we cant find it anywhere.
Vote:There is no way you would confuse a 4 year old girl with an adult , no matter how pissed you are. The mans a liar as well as a kiddie fiddler.
March 24th, 2011 at 10:17 am
starboard, well he did stand for a political party in the 2008 election, to be wanting to be a politician you must first be a liar. So natural fit.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 10:18 am
TVNZ coverage yesterday evening rules out short comedians. Name suppression may protect the victim, but makes victims of all other comedians’ children [except, now, short comedians], few as there may be.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 10:19 am
starboard I can tell you it’s not Ben Boyce of WANNA-BEn & Pulp Sport fame
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 10:30 am
[DPF: Deleted and 20 demerits. He did not say what you said and that is defamatory]
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 10:36 am
RRM did not say fuck the kiddies.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 10:42 am
I agree with you DPF.
A very similar situation existed with former Christian Heritage Leader Graham Caphill’s child sex crimes, and he did not get name suppression.
The Judge in the current case needs to be reminded of this, and lift name suppression so the last 250 people in NZ who do not already know the offender’s identity, can be informed.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 10:52 am
There is an added dynamic to this. Since the offence THE COMEDIAN’s media and legal people have circulated the story of what happened, using the “it happened, but it was an honest mistake” line.
Because of this, it is pointless trying to protect the victim’s identity, because The Comedian has ensured that the only way for her identity to be protected is for HIS name to be suppressed. That to me is the most base form of cowardice, and I question the motives of those who have advised him.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 10:53 am
@Murray – I rarely agree with Ryan, except on matters of spelling. But he is sort of right. RRM didn’t say fuck the kiddies. However, if the flowerpot man was able to get it up he should be able to figure out who is trying to get it into. RRM raises a point about pedo-scare paranoia.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 10:55 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candidates_in_the_New_Zealand_general_election_2008_by_electorate
Here is a list of 2008 electoral candidates.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 11:01 am
RRM did not say fuck the kiddies.
But Murray provides a helpful Exhibit A of exactly how ignorant people go off half-cocked with the conclusions they go to.
Did the perpetrator hold the victim down and have actual penetrative sex with her? Or did he quite accidentally put his hand somewhere he shouldn’t have? Or was it something in between? Does Murray know? Does anyone know?
But hey, let’s not let ignorance of facts get in the way of a good lynching!
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 11:07 am
And thank you for your allegation that I think sexual abuse of children is ‘just fine’ Murray. Showing your quality there.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 11:10 am
Jeeze Murray, I read RRM’s comment x 3 to see what I missed, sorry pal, but you have grasped the wrong end of the stick on this one.
Your advice in regard to checking before pushing the submit button is apt.
@RRM, I inderstand your thought pattern we are the victims of social engineering and it has become almost impossible to turn back the clock.
I know of good men who are afraid to kiss their grandchildren in public, or even hold their hands in the supermarket because of “labels” How sad we have become.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 11:25 am
what area were they standing for in the 2008 vote?
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 11:32 am
RRM: I would agree with your concern about hysteria etc. Adults afraid to go to the aid of a lost child in a public place, in case it’s misconstrued, etc.
But this guy has admitted an offence – and with sexual assault, the trauma of even something ‘minor’ can last a lifetime.
Being drunk is the lamest excuse for any offence, btw.
Vote:What are courts supposed to say?
“I was really drunk.”
“Oh, well that’s all right then, we’ll let you off.”??
March 24th, 2011 at 12:09 pm
Mary Rose – the fact that he has been convicted suggests to me that no-one is being let off due to drunkenness.
The fact that he is on bail awaiting sentence suggests to me that he is not a dangerous, predatory rapist.
I doubt even Sue Bradford would try to claim there are no shades of grey and that anything “indecent” is the same thing as rape.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 12:11 pm
It’s one thing to stand in the general election, it’s another to stand in an electorate, ie could the person have been on a list for an electoral party.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 12:21 pm
@starboard
the number of clues and details that have been shown already in the media, have made the comedian’s identity transparently obvious I would have thought.
DPF though, makes some very good points. There may well be more privacy for the affected parties here if the details of the crime were suppressed- rather than the perpetrator’s identity.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 12:27 pm
RRM the original charge would indicate your 11 01 comment somewhat OTT mitigation-wise
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 12:28 pm
Strange but not unheard of to be so drunk as to act in mistakenly, even grossly so. That is quite different from acting out of character because of intoxication which is not a defence. A drunken intent is still an intent but a mistaken intent is still only a mistake.
In general terms it is much more likely that an intoxicated person is out of character because of disinhibition but perserveration (loosely going on automatic) is not unheard of. The bloke peeing in the wardrobe thinking it is the loo is an example,.
Whether it is perserveration or disinhibition is ultimately a jury matter and requires a review of the facts of the case. Length of inappropriate touching for example – the longer it goes the less likely it is a mistake. Drunkeness, circumstances, where the child is (their room vs defendant’s bed (for innocent reasons)) etc.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 12:34 pm
Unfortunately we here in the building must be all as thick as pigshite …we’re scratching our collective heads. Looked thru the list of election candidates no one stuck out. He cant be that well known or as famous as being made to be.
Vote:Never fear..with a little more digging..
March 24th, 2011 at 1:23 pm
Linked to the earlier Wikipedia article is a list of Party List candidates
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 1:32 pm
Starboard… I fugured this out and I’m usually the last person to know anything. I believe it is only illegal to broadcast the identity. If that is the case you can post an e-mail address and no one is breaking the law e-mailing you the details.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 1:33 pm
Was the person in a very, very small political party – like, less than 3 people
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 1:40 pm
@ SR – could well be, and it’s now a party of one…
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 2:53 pm
Mary Rose asks:
Of course the “pitchforks and burning torches” brigade would prefer the victim’s identity be kept private, Mary Rose, but not if it gets in the way of forming a good lynch mob. Because, for all the bleating about “remember the victims” that’s what most of those who adopt a tough stance want… a “respectable” way to vent the same misanthropic desire to harm others that motivates many of those they despise.
lofty notes:
So do I. I even know of one who’s been approached by some busy-body demanding he identify himself and his relationship to the little girl with whom he was holding hands (he told the old baggage to go and get something she clearly hadn’t got for a very long time indeed).
The only way to overcome this sort of hysteria is for every good man to refuse to be bowed by prejudice and to have their behaviour dictated by it. That’s the way negros (as they were then) beat prejudice in the US… by refusing to sit at the back of the bus. I know where you’re coming from, but a defeatist attitude means the pursed-lipped brigade have won.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 3:31 pm
I don’t know that you using emotive terms like pitchforks and burning torches is helpful here Rex.
You lump people together who have a perfectly good reason to insist on naming of convicted criminals in society with nutters.
Essentially you can be said to be painting them with those phrases to shut them up which is wrong. I hope you aren’t
This is a democracy and the fair thing is for someone convicted of a crime to be named, how this is effected doesn’t matter as long as they are named.
The problem is should this situation keep happening with name suppression, the faith and respect for the justice system will diminish (it probably is) and then people will ignore the system and just do whatever they want.
Whatever it is.
I must say I thought that the maintenance of faith in the justice system was one of the first things on Judges minds.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 6:25 pm
Well said David, now can I have my 30 demerits back for mentioning one aged ex politician please
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 9:43 pm
What the fuck?
Vote:He decided to bargin !!!!!!
Arsehole should be beaten within an inch of his life.
A little kid at home in its bed and its Father, the one who should protect it comes home pissed and abuses the 4 yr old.
All I can say is He had better not run into me because I will abuse him with as much mercy as he showed his child.
Home detention,fucken joke.
P.s. will they have a tui sneak into his home
March 24th, 2011 at 9:53 pm
It is ridiculous.
Why do the courts protect these criminals?
And what about the list of convicted sex offenders?
Shouldn’t neighbours be warned?
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 10:18 pm
Starboard – edhunter’s comment makes it fairly obious
Vote:March 25th, 2011 at 1:13 am
starboard, he is not on that list of candidates, but look at edhunters comment at 10.18am then do 2-1, and you should have your answer.
Vote:March 25th, 2011 at 1:24 am
Eh? What does 2-1 mean?
Vote:March 25th, 2011 at 9:13 am
“Really? You thought a four year old was an adult because you were drunk????”
It’s possible he recognised nothing at all. Before I gave up drinking I had nights that were a complete blank. Other times I was so drunk I couldn’t hear. It’s not so uncommon. Some people can’t remember weeks or months of their lives. Alcohol is a terrible drug in the hands of fools.
The story linked to is just an example of the sex innuendo-hysteria that sells papers. Very few facts, lots of sugggestion, no context. I’d say the same people gagging to know who he is are the same gagging to know who D.Hughes is involved with – passive peeping toms hiding under victorian etiquette, contradicted in their verbally abusive postings. While screaming about wanting to encourage some kind of financial boycott among their friends, they’ll be the same people who were gagging to know about Michael Jackson’s activities while happily buying his albums. The likelihood of them having the intelligence to turn off the TV is very low.
Vote:March 25th, 2011 at 6:17 pm
I know who it is and I know the political party. I couldn’t find either on the list that was linked to. Edhunter’s clue is pretty good but this is actually about a serious matter that warrants serious discussion and turning it into an after-dinner guessing game doesn’t seem to set quite the right tone. As far as wreck1080′s comment goes, though, it is already on the Internet. Anyone who really wants to find out can, without even a whole lot of effort, and it is precisely that reality that Simon Power and the majority of New Zealand’s judges can’t seem to get their heads around. Name suppression doesn’t work any longer, and continuing to pretend it does just makes a mockery of the entire judicial process. Politicians need to learn that they shouldn’t make laws that can’t be enforced.
Vote: