Honour the victim’s wishes, he doesn’t have name suppression anyway

Two victims of a pervert want him named and are going to court to seek to overturn the gutless coward’s name suppression..that he doesn’t have anyway.

Two Christchurch women who were sexually abused as children will next week go to court and fight to have their name suppression lifted.

The sisters believe their abuser is using suppression orders to protect himself.

Nearly two decades after he was convicted and four decades after the abuse the women – now grandmothers at 48 and 52 – are going back to court to try and have their own name suppression lifted in the hope it’ll help expose him.

They believe he’s using the suppression to protect himself and want to warn parents.

“I could basically be arrested if I was to speak my name out, that’s how dumb it is,” one of the women says.

Both were shocked when news broke he was taking the Sensible Sentencing Trust to court for naming and shaming him on its offender website. 

He doesn’t have name suppression and when I was editor at Truth we named and shamed him.

The director of human rights proceedings is now taking action in the Human Rights Review Tribunal on the man’s behalf, funded by the taxpayer, for the alleged privacy breach.

The man wants suppression to be made permanent and $300,000 in compensation.

He runs a family friendly motel in Taupo…I wouldn’t be staying there if I had kids.

This gutless coward is seeking to re-litigate his past by using the wombles at the Human Rights Commission to help him. They seem to think that aiding and abetting criminals is their role in life.

Perhaps they could be disbanded rather than protecting pedophiles.

  • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/ Travis Poulson

    300k in compensation?? Now that’s just taking the piss. How about 140gr ballistic tip instead.

  • Pissedoffyouth

    I think the overhaul should be:

    1.Name suppression for everyone until they are proven guilty in court – this is to stop the ruined reputations of innocent people

    2. Unless the victim requests it it should be lifted every single time upon a guilty verdict
    3. All court cases with a guilty verdict in NZ unless under said victims name suppression should be listed on a MoJ website where they can be named and shamed.

    • Super_Guest

      Like the first two. The third I’d limit to violent crime because I don’t really care if some dude is wasting his time shooting up heroin.

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

      1. No, prevents more victims coming forward. Proven time and time again…as soon as James Parker’s name was known more kids came forward.

      2. Agree, but better still just suppress the victim’s details.

      3. Yes

      • Pissedoffyouth

        With that though, you want the offenders to only be charged for the first crime, and once charged get the next crime added to the length of his sentence. Or community service added once he gets out of jail etc. None of this bullshit concurrent sentences

        I hate it when they are all chucked in one big case and given one sentence. The offender should be found guilty, and once he’s guilty and his name is out there people will come forward – especially if they know that it will increase his jail time.

        Another thing is when say a teacher is accused of rape and his name is out there, if he proves himself innocent then his name is still smeared.

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

          We need to deal with reality not what if. Your example would be rare in the extreme whereas teachers who fiddle with kids isn’t that rare if you read the news week after week,

          • Mr_Blobby

            Concurrent sentences are not rare they are more the norm.

        • Mr_Blobby

          With you youth.

          The Police support it because it is easier for them, if an offender owns up to more things in return for effectively no penalty.

          Once convicted , if more victims come forward you charge them again and give them a new sentence that is added to the current sentence.

  • Michael

    Because of all the hoo-ha he created, I know who he is. Otherwise I’d have been oblivious. And of his motel.

  • Steve R

    Hang on , they’re not just protecting the name of a criminal . They are repeating what we see the church do on a regular basis . They are trying to hide a pedophile . And a convicted one at that .
    Let me guess . He’s served his time . Fuck I hate that saying !!!!!

  • Honcho

    Ohhh this piece of human scum again. Bit of a back story, his name WAS in the public domain, but he started claiming he had name suppression (he didn’t) and took his ‘concerns’ to the human rights commission who not only sided with him, but got him granted interim name suppression (although he claims he always had suppression), in the end SST got the shaft, the victims got the shaft, and the public got the shaft in having their safety compromised and public funds wasted by means of the action the human rights commission has taken to protect someone we should all be protected from. FYI, he was publically named (legally) by The Truth back in 2009.

    http://truth.co.nz/human-rights-commission-sticks-up-for-pedophiles-helps-get-him-name-suppression/

    • Mr_Blobby

      Yes it is time for the Human Rights commission and privacy commission to go.

      An expensive waste of time.

  • Col

    A Bullet?

  • LesleyNZ

    What part of Taupo and what does the Motel’s name begin with? There can’t be too many Motels in Taupo. All Motel owners in Taupo will want name suppression lifted.

97%