A primary school that sacked a teacher for possessing child pornography and bestiality images had failed to tell the Teachers Council.
The Hutt Valley man, who has permanent name suppression, lost his job after his offending was revealed in 2008 and was last year convicted of 46 charges of possessing objectionable images.
Teachers Council regulations say that all employers must report the dismissal of a teacher or if they believe that a teacher is engaged in serious misconduct.
Council director Peter Lind said yesterday the organisation became aware of the charges against the Hutt Valley teacher through a media article.
After the council made inquiries, the man’s former employer reported the matter, which triggered the formal disciplinary inquiry. The teacher has now been deregistered.
The school was not disciplined for failing to report the matter, Lind said.
“We just keep educating our members and we sent the school a reminder of its obligations,” he said.
They wouldn’t nor shouldn’t have to rely on employers reporting sickos like this if they couldn’t hide behind name suppression.
Meanwhile the hiding continues amongst police, lawyers, teachers, doctors, rugby stars, tv comedians, and ex-MPs
Cop accused of indecent exposure
New Zealand Herald
The detective has been given interim name suppression by Judge Sharon McAuslan. No reasons were given. got homesick and called his Mum to come and pick him …
At least one judge seems to see it clearly, if a little belatedly.
A 43-year-old Christchurch man wept today as he was jailed for 12 years for the sexual abuse of two small girls.
Christchurch District Court Judge Michael Radford also ended Andrew Shane Walker’s name suppression, telling him: “This offending is so repugnant that the strongest possible deterrence is required.”
Walker pleaded guilty to two charges of indecent assault and two of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, the Christchurch Court News website reported.
Judge Radford said he rejected any suggestion by defence counsel Nick Rout that the offending was less serious because it involved oral sex rather than rape.
“The degradation that you imposed on these children is appalling,” he said.
The charges involved offending more than once against each girl. One of them was aged only six when an offence was committed…
…The judge told Walker: “I cannot think there is any good reason to suppress your name. There will be no order for name suppression.”
Why did he have name suppression in the first place? It can’t have been for the protection of the complainants because he has been named now, destroying any argument that name suppression of the offender is somehow there to protect the complainants.
The Law Commission’s report is woefully inadequate, their answer is to increase penalties for breaching name suppression. I think the simple solution to the farce that is name suppression is to remove it altogether.
Labour (Trevor Mallard) currently has an online poll asking for your opinion on the matter. FIGJAM won’t listen because he knows all, but Labour might, go and vote in their poll.