Dear Readers, RE: Name Suppression

Dear Readers,

A serious post.

I am shocked beyond words.  This morning I blogged Let’s get these names out far and wide before name suppression kicks in which quoted the Stuff article by David Carkson naming the two thugs that allegedly bashed up Jesse Ryder.  My choice of title was in jest because too often our courts are willing to protect the “feelings” of thugs and criminals and ignore the public interest of an open and transparent justice system.  I have worried before that we have lost a key element, that of shame for the criminals (and yes sometimes for their families), from our justice process.

Well blow me down, a few minutes ago I received a call from my lawyer informing me that Judge Gary MacAskill has granted interim suppression.  FFS.

Even worse, Judge MacAskill (who readers will no doubt be familiar with being not only bad but also a dudrefused to hear TV3 on the issue of suppression and the public interest.  That is, he ignored the law and refused TV3 it statutory right to be heard

As you probably know, as well as having plenty of fun on this blog, I also champion causes that I consider to be fair and just.  Breaches of name suppression orders (granted merely because the criminal is a high profile person) are something I have been in Court before about.  Currently I am defending defamation proceedings, which while I am confident of winning, is proving costly and stressful.  As much as today’s news angers me, and I strongly considered not taking down the names of [censored by Judge MacAskill] from my blog, I cannot afford to lead this cause again.

So while I am not going to break the law (or encourage anyone else to) I do encourage the media, and the Whale Army to take this one up.  Judge Gary MacAskill’s face should be on the TV news tonight, the front page of every major newspaper tomorrow, he should be known as the person protecting the “feelings” of the two thugs that handed themselves in for mindlessly attacking Jesse Ryder.

No doubt there will be some limp wrist that will argue that (notwithstanding [censored by Judge MacAskill] handing themselves in presumably because the Cops had them on camera) the thugs deserve a fair trial.

Right now I give up.


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.

  • maninblack


  • Kiwikea

    Are judges on performance pay? If not imagine if they got docked pay if their decisions led to reoffending, particularly on bail, I’m sure then we would see tougher judges.

  • Joe_Bloggs

    Simply extraordinary! Ryder has been bashed, held under the scrutiny of the public, criticised for drinking, criticised for not being humble enough (thanks to Scribbler), et-frickin’-cetera … while these two cunts get name suppression! FFS!

    And the judiciary want us to respect them?

    • Mr_Blobby

      No the judiciary don’t want your respect. They want you to fear them.

      The best suppression and vindication is a not guilty verdict.

      regardless the end result is the same. Wet, slap and bus ticket.

    • unsol

      Just see on the news that 2 top lawyers are defending them – talk about living up to the stereotypes eh!

      It’s pretty demoralising as one expects that the law at the very least hound be beyond disrepute including those appointed to implement it.

  • O’Neill, O’Neill, O’Neill. There, feel better? ;-).

    • Rachel

      Stuff’s still got the names on their site if you do a google search. They’ve taken the names out of the text but they’re still in the search list.

      • unsol

        Also comes up with WO if you do the search too….not much anyone can do about that?

      • Honcho

        Names are still on the front page of todays ChCh Press if you want to pick up a copy to find out.
        Goes to show how useless this judge’s decision to grant suppression is, no doubt they will get permanent suppression after they have been found guilty also.

  • Justsayn

    We should be a little cautious about this. It now seems there was no skull fracture, no punctured lung… how much more of the story we have been fed by the media is exaggerated?

    I’m no fan of name suppression but the way in which the media (aided by Jesse’s agent) has butchered this story is a good illustration of why interim name suppression in this case might be justified to let the frenzy settle down and reason to take hold – what say we find out in a week that Jesse took a drunken swing at this guy who then poked him on the noise and Jesse fell… end of story. Would you be calling them thugs then?

    • manuka416

      Yep, interested to see how the evidence pans out in the case. Certainly can’t rely on the media story, and yet the trial-by-media/blog is already underway for the now named accused.

    • Honcho

      Thats the bastard’s lawyers version of events, im sure the doctors or family or police would have a less deliberately watered down version of events. Fact was the injuries sustained were serious enough to keep him in an induced coma, he was found in a pool of blood and vomiting, when ‘he fell on the ground’ it must have kicked the shit out of him.

      • Justsayn

        Sure, their lawyer is just that, THEIR lawyer, but…

        People have died from such innocuous falls so a bit of blood and vomit doesn’t seem out of order. I’m not saying they didn’t bash him up and do all that some allege. I’m saying that there is enough wiggle room in this story (eg I have not heard “the doctors or family or police” as you suggest or anyone from the hospital for that matter confirm the injuries – just his agent) for us to be cautious about jumping to conclusions.

    • Of course Justsayn, our public hospitals routinely put people in induced comas in intensive care for 48 hours or more. As Honcho says, this is what a defence lawyer is saying; trying the case in the media, despite having successfully stopped the media from filming or photographing his clients because that might prejudice the case. If what Eaton is putting out to the public via the media isn’t prejudicial, I don’t know what is.

  • Builder OH neill and Carpet layer OH neill, and Oh Judge no idea MacAskill

    • unsol

      Aaah WO you have your work cut out for you now keeping up with all the tippy tappers racing along their keyboards to see who can spread their names the fastest!!!

  • Asa Cerveza

    Given that the facts stated in court today are wildly different to media reports about the incident, given the media coverage surrounding it, given the ‘jump to conclusions’ attitudes of so many, given that people should be considered innocent until proven guilty/correct charges are sorted out….
    You might want name suppression one day for yourself, family or friends. Don’t ya think? We really don’t know a WHOLE lot more about what happened since the time the story first broke. Though we’ve already declared attempted murder internet guilt.

    • They weren’t facts presented in court, they were the opinion of a defence lawyer.

      And no I’d never want name suppression

      • BJ

        You might for your son or daughter

        • unsol

          I wouldn’t. If anyone I knew including my child was involved in something they shouldn’t then they deserve to be held account to the full extent of the law.

          The only time it can get grey is false accusations, especially around rape & child molestation. But then how many good decent (mainly men) people are in a position when they are falsely accused?

          • Asa Cerveza

            Does the ‘grey area’ also include incidents involving a hyped up media with a story they’re pretty sure they can sell? There’s a difference between justice and ‘trial by retarded media’.

          • unsol

            Nope. The only so-called grey are is whether they tried to kill him or whether they just threw one punch….there seems to be no doubt that they were there.

          • BJ

            I’m talking about name suppression until they’ve had their day in court and my reference to a son daughter is covering all bases including if they were a victim of a case before the courts

          • unsol

            I still don’t see the need for it; it is very rare that truly innocent people wind up in the papers & in court allegedly having committed a crime. If victims make it clear they want it then fair enough otherwise no way.

            Seems odd to have a system where victims have to apply to get it lifted so they can tell their story. The system seems to value & respect their needs the least.

            And I doubt Jesse wanted them to have name suppression….it’s not like he has ever had it!

          • BJ

            Who said they were innocent and of what crime? The public don’t need to know their identity yet – it’s just we seem to think we have a right to.

          • manuka416

            All the ones who are falsely accused, obviously. Best to be generous with name suppression before the verdict, and stingy with name suppression post-conviction.

      • Asa Cerveza

        Is “he didn’t receive a fractured skull” not a fact?
        Is “he didn’t suffer a collapsed lung” not a fact?
        Is the fact that police are alleging injury with reckless disregard (ie unintentional) in regards to one not an….erm…fact?

        I’m going to hold off jumping to conclusions/spouting hatred until I understand more about the case. Then I will slam my gavel…I mean mouse, down.

        And yes, I believe you would lap up any media coverage regarding any charges laid against you. My “you” was also meant in a general sense for all to consider.

  • Dave

    Cam from my perspective you mentioned 2 people who had handed them in 2 police, and were charged to appear. One of NZ’s most professional media businesses named them, you used that to post well before the suppression came in to effect. I have not heard of any legal precedence saying a person of interest can not be identified by the media prior to a trial/court appearance and to the best if my knowledge there was no announcement from their lawyer suggesting they were seeking name suppression until the court appearance. Can’t see how they can ce after you on this one.

    Lets hope the suppression is lifted in the interests of public interest openness and a fair trial, after all the victim of this has no rights!

  • unsol

    Defamation proceedings – given you seem to always be one step ahead I can’t imagine you would lose. But yes fighting the good fight is always extremely costly – if not in money definitely in time & sanity so good luck Cameron.

    In terms of taking up the good fight with these 2 thugs – I think you took care of that all by yourself this morning as their names are out there. After all, how many people read this blog each day? Thousands & most have friends (I assume, perhaps not some!), Facebook, Twitter etc so I think you can safely assume the good word has been spread.

    What does annoy me is a sportsman gets so much coverage yet this kind of thuggery happens all the time to innocent everyday people & no one gives a toss.

    My husband knew a man who was walking home completely sober at about 8pm at night & for no reason whatsoever was accosted & very badly beaten (almost to death) by complete strangers. He hadn’t engaged with them, they didn’t steal anything, they just beat him because they didn’t like the look of him – and he was (yes he has since passed away) just your average looking guy.

    Yet MSM said nothing & blogs had no idea. These guys also got name suppression.

    • unsol

      I have also done some digging – as stuff gave their names, ages & occupations I was soon able to put a face to their names.

      Silly judges – name suppression is just dumb in this day & age.

      How many of us don’t know who the pedophile “funny comedian” is, the so-called amazing violent “sportsperson”, perverted “entertainer” & Mr B (the latter did take me a while I admit!) are? I suspect pretty much all!

      So when the media have already named the accused then it is too late to bring it back – easy pickings.

      Lucky for these thugs most of us are (again some of you I do wonder about) are not vigilante pissssychos.

      • manuka416

        There are plenty of wannabe cyber vigilantes around. Sometimes posters on this blog get in to the angry-mob mentality. Ragers, haters, full of bravado, wanting to be judge, jury, and executioner. Sad, really.

        • unsol

          Yes I have seen plenty of that!

  • TV3 should not be too surprised about Judge MacAskill refusing to hear them.
    I was once involved in a civil case where MacAskill was the Judge; Gary MacAskill (wait for it…) thinks November 8th 2001 occurred earlier than November 3rd 2001 (I kid you not!) and refused to hear legal arguments to the contrary before issuing a ruling to that end (I still have a copy of it) – and then got all snarky when I and others started laughing at him.
    Took all of 2 minutes for that ruling to be overturned on Appeal.

  • BJ

    With such aggressive persecution displayed here just from keyboards, I doubt whether the judge is at all concerned with their feelings – more likely he’s considering their safety.
    What needs to come out of this is some awareness campaign jointly by the Police and Health Ministries to make the public aware that punching someone in the head, with or without involving a head hitting the ground, risks both a victims life and the perpetrator having a life in prison. It needs to be totally unacceptable to hit someone in the head/face – education is needed: to not let a heated moment eventuate in a potentially grave outcome.

  • DreaF

    took 20 seconds to find out the names on a online auction message board, Name suppression is a joke these days. I wonder when judges are going to realise this and just give up