Family Court

It is only a matter of time before questions are going to be raised under parliamentary privilege.

A senior political figure and his ex-wife are arguing in the family court over who gets the couple’s two dogs.

The names of the man, his new partner, his ex-wife and their dogs have all been suppressed.

Evidence of an alleged dog-napping by the man’s ex wife, to be referred to as D, was given at the Auckland Family Court yesterday.

D spotted the dogs being walked by her ex-husband’s new partner in an upmarket suburb of Auckland last November.

D was with an employee at the time. The employee fought back tears as he described to the court what the dogs meant to D. He also cannot be named because doing so could identify the parties.

“I’m aware the couple never had children, so the couple’s dogs were kind of like kids,” he said.

This is going to explode, sooner or later. The more it is reported and the more suppression remains the more people will be interested to know who.

It is actually farcical that name suppression is being used in the first place. Sure it is in the Family Court but name suppression in the Family Court is designed to protect children not the political and personal reputation of adults.

Similarly why is the NZ Herald not seeking an urgent overturning of name suppression in this case like they did over Mark Hotchin 7 years after teh fact. This case is far more relevant as it is happening right now not seven years ago.

The NZ Herald spent over $100,000 with their top shelf lawyers having the name suppression of Mark Hotchin and Kerry Finnigan overturned, why aren’t they now in court demanding openness and transparency in the court process concerning a senior political figure?

The front page of the Herald this morning has the appalling story of a man desperately afraid of his own name.

A man who is now a marriage guidance counsellor threw his wife into a door frame, splitting her head open, then dragged her down the hall by the neck.

The attack on the woman was watched by her 6-year-old son, who grabbed his stepfather around the leg, yelling, “Leave my mummy alone.”

The man was convicted this week on two charges of assaulting his ex-wife and was sentenced to six months’ home detention – enabling him to keep working as a counsellor.

The trial, in the Manukau District Court, lasted three weeks.

The attack happened 15 years ago but the victim took years to build up the courage to face the man in court.

She had also grown frustrated at his rising profile in marriage guidance.

Judge Semi Epati granted the 50-year-old man name suppression, a decision which angered his victim.

I have been contacted by the support group of this man’s victims. they are disgusted by the whole justice system and process they have just endured.

What hasn’t been reported is the directions the jury were given during the trial by the judge. At the start of the trial the judge informed the court and the jury that he had a long standing very good friendship with the defence counsel. It was couched very much in a nudge, nudge, wink, wink kind of way.

What is worse though is that the two complainants have said all through the court process that they did not want nor need name suppression, and that they opposed his name suppression, the judge ignored them and he ignored the Crown representations on the matter.

But it gets even worse. The judge refused to allow one of the complainants to read her victim impact statement. This is an outrage. We have government policy and advertising campaigns that “It’s Not Ok” and in a classic case of spousal abuse from not one but two complainants the judge just ignores all that.

Then he sentenced him to 6 months home detention, in his luxury property so he can carry on business as a leading light in the marriage guidance industry.

He is so high profile that many media and news outlets go to him frequently for comment on marriage couselling and aspects of the law surrounding this.

Hypocritically the man also has decried the secrecy surrounding the Family Court.

This case is yet another outrage and a prime case for the removal of name suppression. It appears that this man has got his name suppression solely because of the personal relationship between his lawyer, and Judge Epati.

I have also had calls from concerned trainers/tutors at tertiary institutions who refer student to counsellors for work experience wanting to make sure that they aren’t referring students to him. This is a man with 3 failed marriages and several more failed relationships who has built a reputation for himself in marriage couselling, and a luxury business too, I might add, that is based on dirty dark secrets that no one is allowed to know.

I wonder too if the Baptist Church shouldn’t also be in the dock for aiding and abetting the continued hiding of this man, sending him clients and recommending him to parishioners. They too have ignored the stories of his serial abuse, and they too have hidden the abuse not just of women but also of children by this man. He still advertises what a great christian man and pillar of the Baptist Church he is.

It sickens me. It appalls me that our justice system is so easily manipulated.

That is an outrage.

The Police, at the behest of the Solicitor-General, who is trying to make a point that he is the toughest guy in the land, have been pursuing me for breaching name suppression. I have to say I don’t think that their heart is in it, and certainly I don’t think the Crown prosecutor’s heart is in it either from the standard of disclosure of evidence presented thus far.

Nevertheless, no matter how stupid the law is I guess they must up hold it. Which then begs the question, Are they going to charge themselves?

A 51-year-old Pacific Island man has been awarded $6000 after police handed a list of his criminal record to the lawyer of his former partner.

The Human Rights Review Tribunal ruled that in handing over the charge sheet, police breached the man’s privacy.

The tribunal heard in Auckland that the man was involved in a Family Court proceeding involving access to his 14 month-old daughter in December 2008.

All parties have name suppression to protect the identity of the child and other children.

The mother’s lawyer had written to police asking for details of any domestic violence relating to the man.

But according to the tribunal, police provided much more besides.

They included a complete list of relatively minor criminal matters with which the man had been charged even though all but four had occurred more than nine years earlier and in some cases the offences were more than 17 years old.

In addition many had ended when the proceedings were discontinued, dismissed for want of prosecution, withdrawn, or after the plaintiff had been convicted but then discharged.

The tribunal noted that there were only six convictions for common assault or assault on a female, the last in 1999.

By a two to one majority, the tribunal agreed that the man’s privacy had been breached.

Seems a clear cut case….goose, gander and all that.