Tag: name suppression

What makes this imprisoned paedophile so different?

I want to see the Criminal Procedure Act changed.  I want an addition to Section 200 on suppression of names, and I’ve made it easy for the incoming government by writing the draft clause.

 In proceedings related to the sexual abuse and exploitation of minors and the possession of Child Sexual Abuse Material, the name of any person sentenced to a term of imprisonment may be permanently suppressed only when the interests of the juvenile victims of the offence would be compromised by publication.

You may be able to guess what has prompted the call. Frankly, I was outraged when I saw the front page of the New Zealand Herald last Friday and the headline ‘Wealthy offender to keep name secret’.

The offender in question had been jailed for two years and five months after being found with more than 11,000 ‘objectionable publications’ depicting sexual exploitation of children ranging from toddlers to prepubescent girls. Some images were sadistic and one depicted bestiality. He was granted permanent name suppression, as were the name of his family and their high-profile company, and given a discount for making $50,000 charitable donation days before his sentencing date.

The Crown appealed the permanent suppression but last week it lost that appeal. Justice Michael Arthur’s decision said the experience of being arrested and the fear of going to prison was “stressful” for the man and had precipitated a decline in his mental health. Information put before the court showed the man had a long history of mental health difficulties, pre-dating the discovery of his crimes. Reports expressed serious concerns for the man’s mental state should he be publicly identified, and the guilt he would carry about his offending negatively affecting his family and their business. The decision supported the sentencing judge’s decision in suppressing the company’s name after ruling that publication could cause the firm undue hardship and reputational damage “because it might be unfairly linked with the offending”.

I cannot disagree more profoundly. It is yet another example of wealth proving a factor in the way the guilty are treated by the courts.

I am going to set out a number of cases where men have been sentenced to imprisonment on charges relating to child pornography and, in each case, the defendant was named. Then I will invite you to answer a question. Continue reading “What makes this imprisoned paedophile so different?” →

Open and shut cases: Execution and name suppression

It is disconcerting, in the course of eating a single breakfast muffin, to be confronted by polar opposites to the concept of open justice.

I begin my day with a quick survey of my emails, and I was alerted to a Substack commentary by David Harvey. I number the retired judge among my friends so, after a quick bite, I read his Halfling column.

It was devoted to executions and, in particular, to the forthcoming death by firing squad of Nidal Hasan, who murdered 13 people at a military base in Texas. Last week, the US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced the killing would be livestreamed on a public platform.

I was among the many who publicly expressed their outrage at the decision, which is fully endorsed by President Trump. I said on Facebook:

How, in the name of common decency, can the people of the United States continue to allow their once great country to continue its spiral into primitive savagery? I am disgusted beyond belief. New Zealand must treat the video in exactly the same way as it handled the terrorist’s video stream from the Christchurch mosque attacks. Viewing and retaining the material in this country should be deemed illegal.

David Harvey is a learned man, and he argued convincingly in his column that there was nothing in New Zealand law to prevent the execution being viewed live in this country because we lack a statute censoring something that does not yet exist. I do not doubt he is right: The New Zealand censor’s ban on the mosque attack footage was after it had been livestreamed. He went on to argue against the use of prior restraint, on the grounds that “it strikes at the heart of freedom of expression”.

I, too, have an aversion to the use of injunctions and as an editor spent a number of Friday nights fearing a call that might prevent publication of a lead story in the Weekend Herald (the call never came).

I won’t put words in David Harvey’s mouth, but I think it is fair to say that he subscribes to the C. Edwin Baker school of thinking on free-speech absolutism. Baker, an American First Amendment scholar who died in 2009, asserted that the responsibility for harmful speech lay not with the speaker but with the reactions of the recipients. In other words, we must take responsibility for our own actions after we (not the state, or the justice system) choose to receive information. The Halfling column made the point that people could choose not to view the livestreamed execution, and David Harvey would be among those who opted not be watching it.

There is much in Baker’s writing with which I agree, and I have four of his books on my bookshelf. However, on this point I disagree with him and with David Harvey. One of the nice things about friendship is that it is possible to disagree and remain friends.

I subscribe to a school of thought articulated by legal scholars such as Stanley Fish and Jeremy Waldron. Their concern is about the undermining of public good and the assurances that society will protect its most vulnerable. This extends, they say, to harmful communication (which includes images). They maintain that free speech is only one of a number of values that need to be balanced against each other within boundaries set by society. Continue reading “Open and shut cases: Execution and 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” →