Interim-Interim Name Suppression? Court makes a mockery of the law as they stick up for pedo

The District Court in Auckland today has taken the extra-judicial step of applying”Interim-Interim Name Suppression” on the details of a convicted pedophile who is going to war against the Sensible Sentencing Trust using taxpayer funds via the Privacy Commission.

The Taupo motelier continues to say he has name suppression despite a court minute that contradicts his claim. The Privacy Commission continues to stick up for pedophiles.

What is truly bizarre is you now have a lesser court applying a name suppression over a conviction that was entered in the High Court. Truth published this mans details in 2009, and again last week. In this weeks Truth the mayor of Taupo has his say on the matter. So far only Truth has published his details, the other media are cowards.

The Human Rights Tribunal has ordered that a convicted paedophile cannot be named while it hears an urgent application for an interim suppression order of his identity.

Chairman Roger Haines, QC, made the ruling today at Auckland District Court where the Human Rights Commission is seeking an interim name suppression order for the paedophile after his details were published on the Sensible Sentencing Trust’s online offender register.

The HRC claims the man’s details were suppressed following his conviction at trial in the mid-1990s.¬†

However, a court minute says there is no evidence of any such suppression order existing and the Sensible Sentencing Trust is fighting the claim.

Mr Haines made the “interim-interim” ruling this morning that media could not publish the name of the man until he had heard the evidence and made a final decision on the overall interim name suppression.

The hearing is expected to conclude today and Mr Haines said he hoped to publish a decision within days.

It is outrageous that considerable taxpayer funds are being applied to this case in order to protect the interests of a pedophile. Meanwhile the Sensible Sentencing Trust is having to fund its own legal defence.

 


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.

  • I read the article in Truth last week and the parts about a family friendly motel run by this guy were a bit chilling; I think anyone checking into a motel on holiday with their children needs to know if the kiddies are in danger from some sex maniac.

  • blokeintakapuna

    Too true… The hypocrisy and double standards are almost unbelievable!

    SST / victim has to fund legal arguments themselves…
    Pensioners are treated worse than prisoners…
    Marijuana is illegal despite not a single death from its use anywhere worldwide, but alcohol and tobacco are legal and cause immeasurable personal and societal harm…

    I voted for National and Key on the basis of “pragmatic, practical” government and I haven’t seen it on these issues yet.

    Mr. Key, I’m quite a fan… Especially when contrasting you and National against Comrade Clark and Labour… But these double standards need sorting and practical, pragmatic solutions are needed. So, with the greatest of respect… Pull ya fuckin’ finger out man!

    • tarkwin

      Hit the nail on the head there Bloke.

    • Honcho

      Its not Mr Key’s fault, JK didn’t grant this sick piece of work (interim, interim) name suppression, a district court judge did.
      What sickens me is the so called human rights commissioner, didn’t for a second think of the victims of this criminals behaviour, or the rights to protect those who may well be future victims.
      The people I am incredibly angry with are the district court judge, and the human rights commissioner.

  • metalnwood

    Next around taupo race you might think about leaving the kids behind, as well as wondering if there is a camera looking at you from some wall.

  • Justsayn

    Is the victim the offender’s kid(s) / some other relationship where disclosing his name might lead to their identification? If not, name the sick fucker.

    But I’d like to be sure of the facts rater than trust the judgment of the SST – sensible is not their middle name after all.

  • Kacanga

    And judges claim to think like us. Yeah, right!

  • Anonymouse Coward

    Hasn’t the kiddie fiddler heard of the Streisand effect. If he had just kept stumm and never stood for a school committee or volunteered for St Johns or the Scouts people would hardly ever have learned of his past.

    But I guess such things never occur to self absorbed ars*h*les with a sense of entitlement.

    • School committee
      St Johns
      Scouts

      He’s certainly actively trying to work his way back into a position where he has maximum exposure to other people’s children (and their bodies)

  • Justsayn

    Again, is the name suppression to prevent the victim being identified. Whale, SST… please consider the victim(s).
    If naming this sick fucker may lead to the identification of his victim(s) then it is not a good idea. If you don’t know whether the victim’s identity may become known, then I find your publication of the sicko’s name reprehensibly irresponsible and shameful.

    For the sake of clarity, if the name suppression is not for the benefit of the victim, then name the sicko I don’t give a shit about him.

    • No it isn’t. He never had name suppression from his trial, you are just making it up. The victims have never and will never be named…his crimes occurred in 1975 too…so the victims are now adults.

      You are a fucking weasel coming here and moralising and protecting a pedo who does not have name suppression. Section 39 was never applied in this case. So fuck right off.

      • Justsayn

        If you don’t know who his victims are then shut the fuck up and don’t be a fool.
        If you do then why not tell us that there is no risk of his victims being identified by you naming him (of course you are not going to NAME them, but you and I both know that is not the point is it). So what if they are adults! Don’t be stupid.
        What is your problem about all of this? So seem too invested in it to think rationally.

      • Justsayn

        And for the sixth time, I don’t give a shit about the pedo, I care about what you may do to his victims to further your own agenda.

38%