An Interesting Verdict

A man I was convicted of naming was today convicted of indecent assault.

Mr Mystery Man is a kiddy fiddlerA former prominent figure was today found guilty of indecent assault on a girl after a trial in the Nelson District Court.

The man who faced three charges of indecent assault has name suppression.

The jury took 14 hours to reach its guilty verdict on all three charges after a three-day hearing.

The Crown says the assaults happened at a Nelson house on December 30, 2009.

The Crown said the man touched the girl on the breasts while they were alone watching TV in the living room.

The man indecently assaulted the girl later when she had gone to bed, by touching her leg and genitalia with his fingers and then kissing her on the back when she rolled away, the Crown said.

The defence maintains the events did not take place. The man was remanded on bail until June 16 for sentencing.

So now a man convicted of indecent assault is roaming free on bail in Nelson until his sentencing. No one is allowed to know who this sexual predator is. Why can he not be named? Surely the Cappill precedent could be used.

I wonder if the Herald will spend more $100,000 pursuing this man like they did with Mark Hotchin?

The other thing is this man breaks one of Whaleoil’s Rules of Politics.



THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • kram

    “A former prominent figure” Oh the ignominy, a has been no less, forget the the conviction. The shame of being yesterdays man must be insufferable. i understand the suppression order. Poor thing.

  • medusa

    Jeeez, as if we poor Nelsonians don’t have enough to put up with having Nutjob Smith AND Maryanne Street!

  • gazzaw

    There’s a feeling of deja vu with this whole scenario. It just reeks of the old boy network.

  • giblet

    Those of us who know who this piece of shit is, would dispute the media’s assertion that he was ever at any time a “prominent figure”.

    The first time I was interviewed on TV, I was described as an “expert”. I never knew I was an expert, until the media told everyone that I was.

  • brents

    Cam , you big fat useless cunt, why dont you drag your big fat lazy ass out of bed and grab one of ya firearms, and do us all a favor and shoot yaself in the head, you are a no good, boil on the asshole of life, even ya missus gets fucked by other men coz you aint a real man, you sorry ass loser, get a life of ya own and stop Judging others, Oh and while im at it why dont you tell the people about your own child tampering allegations you faced many years ago….. you fat useless dog

    • What a coherent, reasoned argument. Are you a lawyer?

    • Ronnie Chow

      Channeling Beau or Matt ?

  • kehua

    Hello brents, you sound like a very nice bloke, got any good recipes?

  • giblet

    Kehua – he probably has a few nice organic recipes he could share.

  • peterwn

    It may be that the main reason for name suppression is to protect the identity of his victim. If an adult the victim’s wishes should be respected and if a child, suppression would be necessary since the interests and welfare of the child are paramount (s4 Care of Childrens Act).

  • giblet

    I would like to know more about the concept of giving an offender name suppression for the sole reason of protecting the victim’s identity, especially children.

    Is this also common practice in the UK, USA, Australia, etc? And if not, how is it handled in those countries. Grateful for any comments on this one.

    • It is somewhat unique in New Zealand. Name Suppression is very difficult to get in the UK, and Australia, impossible in the US and Canada.

      It is complete tosh that name suppression of the accused is to protect the victim. In any jurisdiction that doesn’t have this the victim rarely if ever gets named and so it is a law that isn’t necessary. Those close to or associated with the victim know about it anyway so it isn’t needed.

      If it was really about the protection of the victim then the law should reflect that. It could be easily achieved by suppressing details completely of the victim, including the relationship to to the accused and name, age details. That really would protect the victim instead of the stupid situation that exists now.

      • giblet

        Thanks Whale, very useful.

        What I find curious is that the lawyers of perpetrators of sexual offending against relatives seem to be able to so readily convince a Judge that granting name suppression is to protect the victim’s identity, not their client’s.

        Whereas if the same offender grab a stranger off the street and committed the same crime there would not be much chance of their being granted name suppression.

        So it seems that it is the family connection that allows an offender to be granted name suppression.

        But the courts don’t apply this to all sex crimes committed against family. If a guy rapes his ex-wife he is not likely to be granted name suppression, but if he rapes their daughter he will be granted name suppression.

        So perhaps it has to do with the age of the family victim?

        If so, why is it if the offender instead thrashed his daughter with the electric jug cord he would not get name suppression, but if he raped her, he would?

        Does the law believe there is embarrassment / humiliation / shame for a child victim of sex crime that necessitates extending name suppression to the offender, but not for a child victim of a beating?

        It seems that in the eyes of the law, it’s OK for the public to know a child was beaten up by her father – perhaps to within an inch of her life. But it’s not OK for the public to know she was raped by her father.

  • I don’t know who it is!