Guilty on 9, 1 dismissed

The Judge has decided to find firstly that I had a case to answer and secondly that I am guilty of breaching name suppression. He has gone to considerable effort to write a lengthy discourse about the case in an attempt to clarify the law.

In my opinion it is far from that, in fact it smacks of closing the stable gate after the horse has bolted.

Essentially I have been found guilty of knowing a secret that shouldn’t have been known then talking about that secret loudly. Worse his judgement now tells everyone that if you hold a piece of a puzzle as to the identity about someone subject to  suppression order, then you are vicariously liable for publication because you hold a piece of the puzzle.

In 4 of my charges I simply put a single name on my site. That is now held to breach name suppression orders. So any time a piece of the puzzle, like for instance the whitepages is published then they too would be liable. So too is the court when it publishes the court roster.

The thing is, and the prosecution and the judge both mentioned it, you can inadvertently breach and order, the reason you can is because you aren’t allowed to know it exists.

Anyway, I’ve got my slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket and you can read Judge Harvey’s judgement here.

Police v Slater

  • boris

    You broke the law and potentially put the privacy of the victims in jeopardy.

    “….for instance the whitepages is pub­lished then they too would be liable. So too is the court when it pub­lishes the court roster.”

    Stop being so childish , you were intentionally breaking the law when you posted those names and your attempt to escape the law on a technicality (like posting them in binary) shows you were fully aware what you were doing was illegal.

    I hope this narcissistic crusade has been suitably cathartic, because you have achieved nothing but wasting the courts time. Enjoy you fine.

    • titanuranus

      Of course all the rapists and perverts in our society are`nt wasting court time are they?They are creating gainful employment,thats why they are treated so leniently and protected by name suppression ,lawyers and judges are not going to cut off their main source of income by killing the golden goose.

  • gaskranken

    So what happens when you hold any piece of the puzzle and reveal it on a web site hosted overseas and said site allows you to post your particular piece of said puzzle anonymously?

    And are you committing an offence by directing anyone to such a site?

  • http://whaleoil.gotcha.co.nz Whaleoil

    According to Judge Harvey then yes you can, so long as they can find you.

  • titanuranus

    The boyracers don`t have to pay their fines ,so there is no reason why you should have to.
    Tell the bailiff to fuck off,whats he gonna do? Fuck all thats what.

  • juan651

    if your feel so obliged to name these people, next time use a proxy server to start up another blog, then just link to it from here (unless u want credit for it???).

  • maddog

    You must have a huge ego.

    Hopefully, next time instead of getting a mere slap over the wrist with a wet bus-ticket, a judge will have the balls to do you for contempt of court and throw your arrogant arse in jail for a week or two or three.

  • hagues

    I have a question about the process….

    The Judge had obviously decided you were guilty and written up his findings before today. So why did you have to appear before him this morning to be told you had a case to answer, and then go back in the afternoon to get the verdict? Wouldn’t it have made sense for him to do it all at the same time?

    • titanuranus

      Oh cmon,Hagues, judges get paid by the minute you can`t have important issues like this rattled off in one sitting, it has to take all day . Its the law ,you know,very important without we would have anarchy.

  • muldoon

    Pay up and take it like a man.

    Oh incidentally, there is no such word as “firstly”.

    • moab

      Firstly, that is bullshit. The Free Online Dictionary offers this definition of Firstly:

      In the first place; to begin with.
      Usage Note: It is well established that either first or firstly can be used to begin an enumeration: Our objectives are, first (or firstly), to recover from last year’s slump. Any succeeding items should be introduced by words parallel to the form that is chosen, as in first . . . second . . . third or firstly . . . secondly . . . thirdly.

      Secondly, WhaleOil should stop blubbering, pay up and take it like a man. At current rates his lick-spittles will have raised the full amount of the fine for him in about 30 years.

      • muldoon

        Before you shoot your mouth off and look like a complete fucking idiot,, go do some more research about the use of the word “firstly”.

        Hopefully, you will learn something.

        • http://whaleoil.gotcha.co.nz Whaleoil

          Before you shoot your mouth off make sure you aren’t dumb enough to use an email easily googled.

          Right Ron. Now fuck off

        • http://whaleoil.gotcha.co.nz Whaleoil

          Hopefully you will learn something.

          http://www.zippitynz.com/MyProfile.htm

  • lordmontrose

    As I have already mentioned, the very same judge seems to be saying here (anonymously) that if the name of the accused person is already well known, there is not a case for name suppression:
    http://groups.google.co.nz/group/nz.general/msg/510114260b68c377?hl=en

    Does this situation not apply to all or most of the cases involved here? Those names have already been in the media somewhere.

  • geoff

    ”Accord­ing to Judge Har­vey then yes you can, so long as they can find you.”

    From my experience with outlawed software this is overcome by suggesting interested readers
    should google to find further information on the topic in question.