I think our current name supression laws are -
- Too loose - too many people get their names suppressed (61%, 238 Votes)
- Grossly unfair because rich people are much more likely to have their names suppressed (18%, 69 Votes)
- Unfair and everyone should get their name suppressed until convicted (13%, 52 Votes)
- About rght (8%, 30 Votes)
- Too tight - more people should get their names suppressed (0%, 4 Votes)
Total Voters: 393
Loading ...
Name suppression should be automatic unless the defendant lifts the requirement. Innocent until proven guilty should mean just that. No one should be punished by having their name revealed unless convicted.
Loss of reputation should not be an acceptable reason for name suppression. It is unfortunate to be accused but means in a lot of cases celebrities get name suppression while normal people do not and normal people will equally lose the reputation of those around them for going on trial. It is also largely pointless to name suppress in many cases today because it will be leaked on the internet you just have to know where to look Cameron Slater only got stopped because he also went after non-celebrities.
congratulations Trevor on picking up and supporting debate on Whale-oil’s crusade
I generally support the recommendations of the Law Commission. They wanted less name suppression in general, a tightening of the rules around it, and an improvement in consistency in applying those rules.
Of course, this does beg the question of whether name suppression is still viable in our increasingly connected internet/social media age. It seems clear that name suppression, at least for well known people or cases of high public interest, is effectively over.
Mud sticks. Hence even if someone is innocent and exonerated people will still remember and some will consider that the innocent party ‘got off’ with something. Reputation tarnished forever.
This is particularly the case for the more unpleasant sort of offences.
Everyone has a social environment in which they operate, and disgrace/embarrassment in that is a significant thing whether you’re a roadsweeper, a TV personality or an AB.
Hence I think that everyone should have name supression until the end of a trial, and permanent name supression if not found guilty.
For those found guilty the only reason for continued name supression should be to protect the innocent party, at their request – e.g. in offences of a sexual nature where embarrasing details have come out in the trial.
The same rules should apply to all.
@George – hey, why stop at name suppression until the verdict? The trials are in public buildings so someone might recognise the accused. The jury might talk so let’s have secret trials conducted by secret judges. Let’s go further, let’s imprison those who disclose names to ensure the secrecy. We’d suppress their names though until the key turned on the cell lock. How about a special Name Suppression Police Force that goes about (in secret) and listens in to conversation to ensure the accused’s name’s secrecy.
Or, how about having an open society. Seems much better to me.
I recall vaguely, from the mid-seventies, some short-lived attempt (was it Martin Finlay?) at not disclosing an accused’s name until conviction. It was ill-conceived and short-lived and in the Internet age, it’s even more so.
@Rob, I’m undecided on the celebrity thing, but I look at it this way, public hatred for an innocent celeb who some believe really is a r apist would magnify the crap thrown at that person.
You make some good points J ohn, but jurers are supposed to keep their traps shut away from their duties.
One of my concerns around name suppression is that for some crimes, publication of a name can bring other victims forward.
On the whole I believe we have to stick by innocent til proven guilty. No name suppression once found guilty, for anyone UNLESS a victim requests it for their own peace of mind and to get their life back. I was appalled to hear a victim recently state she was told a man got name suppression to protect her identity and she was NEVER consulted.
John how about a change in what is regarded as “public interest”, an All Black or a celebrity or that ilk is not a “public interest”, a GP, perhaps, in that they have patients in their care. I would like to see journalists/media take some responsibility and stop seeing celebrities as easy stories, especially around criminal charges. Just because people demand to know about someone’s private life doesn’t fit the tried and true criteria of “public interest”, imo.
The public being salaciously interested is not the same as “in the public interest”
Tracy – for once I agree with you wholeheartedly
Good points Tracey
Tracey is bang on. It has to be about what the VICTIM wants.
What we don’t want are situations where victims don’t come forward because the person who assualted them is famous and by having the accused’s name in public it means theirs is too. This is why I don’t support Whale Oil’s campaign, he has absolutely no concern for what the VICTIM’s want, it’s just his own personal crusade.
It concerns me that it took a few comments before the rights of the victim were even brought into this discussion – this whole thing is become sensationalist not based on how best to support people who have been the victims of sexual assault.
Tricky one as we are talking about two types of suppression before and after the trial
I am for suppression before (inoccent till proven) only suppession after if it is needed to shield a victim
Agreed Raymon
I worry about people who make up lies about someone, who if given the choice, would drag someone’s name through the mud.
Everyone facing criminal charges should have their name suppressed, but only until and upon conviction at which stage ALL names should be published, except where the victim(s) object. Such a position would return a skerrick of power back into the hands of the victims, protect those falsely accused, and prevent the selective trial-by-media situation we have today.
Agreed BLiP and excellent point about the trial by media!
Raymon – just to clarify – I assume that you’re only suggesting that name supression lapsed after the trial if the defendent was found guilty?
You have it George
So Blip,
How does that fit with the supposed open justice system we are meant to have?
Courts are public buildings, anyone can enter and sit in a court-room, just how exactly would you propose to enforce your suggestion of total name suppression before conviction?
Block off the courts o public access? Hell, why not just have a hidden court as well, so no-one knows where it is just in case someone gets seen.
In a recent case the publication of the name of a child rapist led to 14 other victims coming forward and additional charges, this wouldn’t happen in your perfect world.
Oh and for those who think I don’t care about victims, I have literally hundreds of emails of support from them saying that they never were asked, and never wanted protection, it was assumed and actually proffered as the reason by the defendant for requesting name suppression.
The plain and simple fact that seems to escape quite a few is that you can’t keep anything secret in New Zealand, it is just too small.
Everyone knows someone, who knows someone else…and that is about it. Reality must be faced and consequences accepted. Name Suppression is used by offenders to hide behind their victims.
Good on Trevor for putting up this poll, and the results speak for themselves. Waiting for Simon Power to do anything remotely brave could take a long time. I’d support Labour, and actually help them introducing something to kickstart him into some action.
There’s a huge difference between a couple hundred people in a courthouse and 4 million!
It’s great that other victims come forward, but publicity of an innocent person could ruin their life.
The reason I’m not coming forward myself is because of your ‘campaign’ Whaleoil.
Just sayin.
Trevor
You are trying to ask questions as though it is question time in the house.
How many of your respondents actually know what are the grounds for name suppression? If they do not know this, then how can they make a reasoned answer to your question
Why not 4 million in the court room, ever heard of live streaming? If you have ever been in a courthouse you will realise just how utterly broken our so-called justice system is. Go try it, trot down tot he Manukau or Auckland District court and watch, spend a day there pretending like you know what is going on.
Now that would be open justice.
Rachel, I never made it a campaign, the police did when they charged me. Plus I have not named a single victim, why would I?
Just to say thanks for improving the poll by giving rather more options than yes/no (voted somewhere in woolly woofter land in he middle – can see arguments both for and against)
“Why not 4 million in the court room, ever heard of live streaming?” – True, but I don’t think any case – short of something truely horrific / funny would ever pull anywhere near that level of viewers.
Okay, I accept your challenge to visit a courthouse at some point.
You will find it to be an eye-opening experience Spud. Judges generally apply one hell of a lot of commonsense, and arrive at good results, despite what some would have us believe.
no person, under ANY circumstances, who is convicted of a crime should have their name suppressed.
We can argue about pre-conviction to protect malicious accusations. But post-conviction there is NO justification.
If the justification is to protect the victim then it should only be the victim allowed to apply for it
My view is the best way to deal with name suppression is the graham capill case
No name suppression for him but name suppression for the victims
Name suppression should be automatically removed upon conviction. What rights should a convicted sex offender have for instance? None!