Tag: name suppression

Name suppression sends wrong messages

The irony in the lead story of last Friday’s New Zealand Herald was plain: One rich-lister was wrongly pilloried because another rich man tried to hide his wrong-doing.

Businessman and philanthropist Wayne Wright was the victim of a chatbot that proved that artificial intelligence is not always very intelligent.

Grok, the chatbot owned by Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter), named Wright as the man found with 11775 objectionable files, including extreme child sexual abuse involving bestiality, pre-pubescent children and toddlers. The defendant was sentenced to two years and five months imprisonment. The court permanently suppressed the man’s name, his family’s name, and the name of his business. Grok had been asked to find his name and did so by scouring speculation on social media.

Wayne Wright was named, but he was not that man.

Understandably, Wright has now called on the offender to apply to the court to have suppression lifted. Customs is also considering an appeal against the permanent suppression. The Herald has stated categorically that Wright is not the offender but, of course, is prevented from naming the guilty man.

The episode is yet another example of the damage that may be wrought by the use of imperfect AI by unaccountable platforms, and of name suppression tarnishing the public’s perception of the courts. Continue reading “Name suppression sends wrong messages” →

Trans-Tasman imbalance in court suppression orders

We all see the merit in Justice’s blindfold that speaks of all being equal under the law, but isn’t it high time we re-examined the gag on her mouth? The number of court suppression orders is inordinately high.

That assessment is based on a comparison of suppression data collected by the New Zealand Herald and by the Melbourne newspaper The Age.

Data assembled by the Herald’s data editor Chris Knox and revealed in Shayne Currie’s Media Insider column on Saturday shows that name suppressions have risen by 47 per cent in the past decade and last year stood at 1616 orders. That represents 2.5 per cent of all people charged, up from 1.3 per cent a decade ago.

The fact that suppression has risen almost by half since 2014 was worrying enough, but what made Knox’s figures all the more disturbing was a story I had read in The Age a couple of weeks ago. Continue reading “Trans-Tasman imbalance in court suppression orders” →

Name suppression: Wallace’s wallet hid the truth

The end of the long and tortuous road to revealing multi-millionaire James Wallace as a convicted sex offender will be a tipping point.  It will be the final straw in a growing stack of calls for reform of a system that allows the rich to use court processes to hide from the public.

Suppression of Wallace’s name was finally lifted last week after he exhausted his last avenue of appeal – the Supreme Court – and the public learned he was the “prominent businessman” now serving a prison sentence of two years and four months for sexual offences against three young men.

Three of New Zealand’s metropolitan newspapers led their front pages with the news that he could be named. ‘Knighted arts patron named as sex offender’ said the New Zealand Herald, while the Waikato Times baldly declared ‘Predator’s name revealed’, and The Press disclosed Wallace was the ‘Jailed businessman behind restoration’ of an inner-Christchurch mansion.

Wallace, who was first charged in February 2017, used every avenue of appeal against conviction, sentence, and name suppression. Had our judicial system still allowed appeals to the Privy Council in London, he would doubtless have sought that avenue as well. He could afford the legal costs: The ‘rich-lister’ is said to be worth $165 million.

And, of course, the Covid pandemic – when court activity was reduced to a minimum – further stretched his period of anonymity. Continue reading “Name suppression: Wallace’s wallet hid the truth” →

A shiver down the spines of the rich and famous

Justice Minister Kiri Allan’s call for a review of name suppression in New Zealand courts should send shivers down the spines of the rich and famous. And rightly so.

She was asked on TVNZ1’s Q&A whether the current system appears to favour them, and she agreed.

“If you’re well-funded, well-resourced, then you can seek to have your name suppressed for a range of different reasons,” she said. “I don’t think that leads to just outcomes.”

Allan told the show’s stand-in host Jessica Mutch McKay that she has sought urgent advice on this particular area of the law and added: “I don’t think it’s just, I don’t think its fair, and I don’t think New Zealanders looking in on the system think the system is working adequately either.”

The straight-talking minister deserves a rousing round of applause. Continue reading “A shiver down the spines of the rich and famous” →