Dogs get name suppression
April 15th, 2011 at 6:57 am by David FarrarBelinda McCammon at Stuff reports:
A leading political figure has given evidence about allegations of dog-napping and assault on a street in an upmarket suburb.
The man, his ex-wife and his new partner cannot be named because of strict suppression orders. Even the two dogs have name suppression.
How silly. Did the dogs ask for name suppression?
Related posts:
- Dogs shot by Police
- Christchurch Name Suppression
- Name suppression of sexual offenders
- Suppression Order Breaches
April 15th, 2011 at 7:10 am
If everyone knew the dogs names were Spot and Fido they would know straight away who the people involved were.
Vote:April 15th, 2011 at 7:14 am
But being leading political figures maybe they were called Nash and Savage.
Vote:April 15th, 2011 at 7:17 am
I wonder if his ex-wife & new partner appreciate being called dogs.
Vote:April 15th, 2011 at 7:57 am
Nice to see the judiciary so completely disrespect the natural rights of men and women to speak. I have to say I think this must be a new low for name suppression and indicates to me the judiciary has lost touch with reality. Actually it is a big deal to take the power to lock people up for breaching name suppression and then use that power for this. The only reason the judiciary is getting away with this is because New Zealanders let them with their near total apathy.
Vote:April 15th, 2011 at 8:13 am
To Pete George …
Or maybe Gnash and Savage.
Vote:April 15th, 2011 at 8:14 am
Actually they’re a pair of of pooodles that go by the names RRM and Luc.
There, stick your supression order!
Vote:April 15th, 2011 at 8:19 am
“Nice to see the judiciary so completely disrespect the natural rights of men and women to speak. ”
Vote:This was a Family Court matter. Since when did everyone have the right to attend the Family Court and report at large?
It does not appear to involve a criminal prosecution so why the public interest other than gossip?
If, as the report suggests, this is just the tip of the iceberg and there is a great deal of underlying personal anguish here, what bloody right do you think that you have to demand that their personal problems are hung out on a public clothes-line?
Does it not occur to you that the simple naming of the dogs might be enough to trigger instant recognition?
April 15th, 2011 at 8:27 am
Since it is obvious that all involved are barking mad let’s have it out in the open.
Vote:April 15th, 2011 at 8:31 am
It all seems a bit ruff really.
Vote:April 15th, 2011 at 8:34 am
They’ve been muzzled.
Vote:April 15th, 2011 at 8:42 am
Laugh all you want, but many pedigree dogs (including larger terriers) get stolen each year to be bred with more aggressive breeds to produce bigger dogs for dog fighting. I’m glad to see it get some attention.
Vote:April 15th, 2011 at 8:44 am
The only famous political dog I know is Muldoon.
Vote:April 15th, 2011 at 9:02 am
Well Muldoon had Peters on a leash.
Vote:April 15th, 2011 at 9:18 am
Forgive me but “dog-napping”?
Surely it’s theft?
Our media are very poor.
Vote:April 15th, 2011 at 9:41 am
Name suppression is often a bone of contention.
Vote:April 15th, 2011 at 9:49 am
After the Herald rushed off to Bell Gully to get them to overturn Mark Hotchin’s name suppression you’d be hoping they show some consistency and do the same in this case.
Vote:April 15th, 2011 at 9:56 am
Some-one must have leaked this to the media as ordinary Family Court cases are just ignored by journos.
Vote:Seems like much ado about nothing.
April 15th, 2011 at 11:21 am
Maybe the newshounds sniffed out this shaggy dog story themselves.
Vote:April 15th, 2011 at 11:45 am
Perhaps the dogs are local celebrities and their names might identify the owners?
If it’s Remuera or Kelburn, I’m picturing the lady is often seen out on the street in her nightie, early in the morning after the dog escapes from the house, running after it and calling out at the top of her shrill voice: “MISTER FLUFFLES**! MISTER FLUFFLES**! COME BACK HERE RIGHT NOW, YOU NAUGHTY DOG!!!”
(** Not the suppressed name of the actual dog in the court case)
Vote:April 15th, 2011 at 12:40 pm
Dogs are equal members of a family too. All dogs should be given steak for dinner when having a BBQ. It is entirely fair they have name suppression, even if they don’t know what name suppression means.
Vote:April 15th, 2011 at 2:39 pm
You do shoot from the hip on name suppression to be fair. It would seem likely that the dogs are suppressed under “and any other details likely to lead to the identification of the witnesses”. In this case it would seem that there is a specific direction for avoidance of doubt. Not that silly at all.
Interesting point is that one of the arguments against name suppression is often it might bring suspicion on to others in same area. As I got the a High Court Judge to agree recently if the suppression order is framed correctly this can be avoided. For example (and this was NOT the case) if a ear nose and throat surgeon operating out of burwood is accused of sleeping with a donkey it is a fat lot of use having a suppression order preventing publication of his name but allowing “Burwood Ear Nose and Throat Specialist Accused of Buggering Donkey”.
And, for the record, my view remains that suppression where there has been conviction should be nearly impossible to get (save for victim identification) but the standard for an accused should be much lower.
Vote:April 15th, 2011 at 2:46 pm
“The only famous political dog I know is Muldoon.”
I believe Richard Prebble might have been known as “mad dog” in his 80′s Labour cabinet role. I recall a cartoon with him wearing studded dog collar
Vote:April 15th, 2011 at 3:58 pm
The dogs names were Banana and Republic.
Vote:April 15th, 2011 at 4:51 pm
Oh, and its a family court matter – suppression applies all over the place for that or do you really think that personal affairs should be dragged out in public? (Most cases are open to media but parties names cannot be published)
Vote:April 15th, 2011 at 6:57 pm
If it happened on a public street then it already was dragged out in public?
Vote: