Name Suppression

Wanker holds on tight with the help of his lawyers

Name suppression remains in force for a former teacher who masturbated in an empty classroom, so a judge can decide if there should be a permanent order.

The man was found guilty last month in the Auckland District Court of an indecent act in a public place.

The judge decided his name should be made public, but his lawyer took the matter to the High Court.

At the High Court in Auckland today, lawyers discussed whether there were grounds for suppression orders.

The judge reserved her decision, and continued the existing orders until she decides.

You people know how I feel about suppression.  And I think this guy shouldn’t have it.  But what is perverse is that his case is at the more benign end of the scale, whereas teachers who have had sex with students, or have been sexually assaulting them, continue to have their suppression upheld automatically against the wishes of the victims.

We’re making slow progress, but this is still very annoying.




Public shame a critical component of justice

The son of a New Zealand rich-lister has won a fight to keep his name secret after he allegedly punched a female police officer in the face.

The police officer suffered a black eye, serious swelling to her face and needed hospital treatment.

The man was charged with aggravated assault, resisting arrest, assaulting a security guard and damaging a window during the March 26 incident outside the popular Dunedin student haunt Shooters Bar.

He appeared in Dunedin District Court four times, without seeking name suppression, before the case was transferred to Auckland District Court.

But after questions from the Herald on Sunday, the man’s lawyers filed an application for interim name suppression.

On Tuesday, Judge Anne Kiernan ordered that the man’s name be kept secret for the next three weeks.

Details around that hearing have also been suppressed, but it can be reported that Judge Kiernan found publishing his name could prejudice his right to a fair trial.

That argument can be said to be true for anyone then.  What it also means is that the judge presupposes that a jury would ignore the facts just to notch up a win against the privileged.   Read more »

He’ll be seeking a National Party position next


This bloke has all the right credentials.

The estranged husband of a well-known New Zealand celebrity is on trial in the Hamilton District Court for threatening to kill and assaulting his wife, and assaulting one of their children.

Suppression orders cover the name of the man, his wife and their children.   Read more »

What’s the point of reporting on these any longer?

Newstalk ZB “reports”:

A man has appeared in a district court facing sex charges.

A blanket suppression order has been put in place and will be argued in three weeks time.

The order not only covers the accused and the charges, but even the court he appeared in.

From now on, all people that get name suppression will have this standard “news” report

An individual that can’t be named appeared in court somewhere on charges that can’t be detailed.

I mean, what’s the point? Read more »

Numbers getting name suppression drop, but more sickos hiding behind suppression

Back in 2010 I mounted a campaign against name suppression, copping 9 convictions and $8000 in fines for what was then a summary offence for breaching name suppression.

Every single person I named ended up convicted and they were either wife beaters or pedo scumbags.

As a result of my campaign Simon Power change the law to make it harder to obtain name suppression and since then the number of people obtaining name suppression have dropped.

Figures from the Ministry of Justice released under the Official Information Act show it has become harder for criminals to keep their names secret, with the number of permanent name suppression orders granted falling from 882 in 2009 to 329 in 2014.

Of the 329 people granted permanent name suppression in 2014, 185 were convicted of the offence they were charged with.

Suppression provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 came into force in March 2012 – and the number of suppression orders has dropped since then.

The changes were in response to a growing concern that the grounds for making the orders were unclear, and that suppression was granted too readily and inconsistently.

Read more »

How do babies get sexually transmitted diseases?

Stories like this make me feel sick to the core, angry and despair.

Several cases of babies being sexually abused and contracting sexually transmitted infections (STIs) have come to the attention of a Tauranga-based support service.

Last year 153 children aged 15 and under were referred to Bay of Plenty Sexual Assault Support Service for sexual abuse in the Bay. Of those, 69 were aged 8 or under.

Bay of Plenty Sexual Assault Support Service general manager Kylie McKee told theBay of Plenty Times Weekend sexual abuse was getting worse in the Bay and the types of crimes were “incredibly violent”. The service had seen multiple cases of babies with STIs such as gonorrhea and chlamydia from sexual assault in the past 12 months.

How do you even deal with that as a doctor?  Somewhere between crying and wanting to beat someone to death I suspect.   Read more »

Sledge of the Day

National are jittery at the moment and Anne Tolley reacted poorly to the proposed bill to remove name suppression for filthy pedo scum.

Darroch Ball of NZ First sledged her out hard.

After refusing leave yesterday for the Rt Hon Winston Peters, the Member for Northland, to introduce a Bill removing the right of paedophiles to name suppression, Social Development Minister Anne Tolley has today described that Bill as “a knee-jerk reaction”.

“I never thought I’d see the day when a National Party Minister would be so soft on crime and the causes of crime, that she would block victims from having the right to lift paedophile name suppression,” says New Zealand First’s Spokesperson for Social Development Darroch Ball.   Read more »

Government crushes Winston’s pedo exposure bill

Parliament today refused leave for the Member for Northland Rt Hon Winston Peters to introduce a Bill to remove the right of paedophile’s to name suppression when the victim wants their attacker named.

A host of National MPs objected to the Bill being introduced.

Mr Peters says he is disappointed the government is content to allow paedophiles to hide behind a cloak of secrecy.

“This is often imposed on the basis it protects the victim,” he says. “But in cases where the victim wants exposure of the crime and not secrecy our Bill will remove the subjudice rule, name suppression, and the legal cone of silence.”

The New Zealand First Leader sought leave for the Bill, Criminal Procedure (Removing Paedophile Name Suppression) Amendment Bill, to be introduced and debated on the next members’ day. Read more »

Name suppression for “prominent New Zealander” charged with sex crimes continues


A prominent New Zealander facing 12 charges of indecent assault has retained name suppression.

Judge Roy Wade denied the man name suppression in February in the District Court but the man lodged an appeal last week.

That appeal was heard on Thursday in the High Court by Justice Raynor Asher.

Asher ruled that suppression should remain through to trial. Read more »

Northland feels like a neglected spouse and has decided to sleep around a bit

…what a right royal mess Peters has kicked up in the sand for National. On Monday he was wooing the teachers. Tuesday it was the farmers in Dargaville. Wednesday was the ladies, at Ladies Day at the Whangaroa Golf Club. Peters’ man on the ground in Dargaville was Rob Stevenson, a farmer who had supported National.

He even sought selection for National for the seat after Sabin resigned. Now this farmer was Winston’s “for a range of reasons”. He wasn’t alone – Focus NZ was formed by farmers and its candidate, Joe Carr, has now endorsed Peters. When even the farmers are revolting against National, things aren’t going well. National also clearly knows that. Its candidate, Mark Osborne, said on Sunday he had not been privy to the party’s internal polling. The only reason for that is because it must be appalling.

Peters’ latest line is that voters are simply taking him on a trial basis. “I’m not asking for your loyalty for 77 years, or even seven,” he told them in Paihia. “I’m just asking for 2.5 years and if I don’t do better than the lot that’s in there already, you can kick me out.” He’s picked the right time and the right lines.

Everyone knows that Northland isn’t anything but True Blue. Read more »