The SST report:
The serial paedophile at the centre of a name suppression stoush between the Human Rights Commission and the Sensible Sentencing Trust appears to have lied on oath about his job status and where he was living.
The man also lied about his identity when approached by the Sunday Star-Times last week.
The paedophile, who claims he has name suppression for sexually assaulting young girls but cannot produce a court record to prove it, denied he was the man in question when confronted at his workplace.
The man’s lie may be an attempt at damage control because it contradicts a sworn statement he made in support of a bid for interim name suppression being sought by the commission.
Trust spokesman Garth McVicar said the paedophile’s statement, sworn earlier this month, said he was living in the Wellington region and was unemployed.
But a source said the man and his partner took over the running of a central North Island motel about 14 months ago.
Company records show the man described himself as the “manager” of a company believed to be leasing the motel. Other records list his contact phone number as the same as the motel’s.
Yet the Human Rights Commission is using taxpayer money to take legal action against the Sensible Sentencing Trust for revealing he is a paedophile.
If there was some proof of a suppression order, then of course it should be obeyed. But to take action against the Sensible Sentencing Trust purely on the basis of the paedophile’s allegations that he has name supression is outraegous.
The fact that there is now evidence that the paedophile is also a liar, may cause the Human Rights Commission to reconsider the wisdom of taking him at his word.
Neither the commission nor the paedophile have been able to produce a court record to show the man was granted name suppression but documents from the commission show it is largely relying on the paedophile’s word that his name is suppressed.
The commission said a newspaper report of the man’s sentence of a year’s jail in 1995, for five counts of doing indecent acts on girls aged 10 and 14, did not name him.
The man had interim name suppression, but there is no record of it having been made permanent.
An interim name suppression application for the man, who, it is understood, has already received a payout of about $15,000 from police after his police record was anonymously sent to the trust, will be heard on Wednesday in the Auckland District Court.
The Sensible Sentencing Trust repeatedly told the commission it would not publish the man’s details if he could show he had name suppression.
A very reasonable position.