Another name suppression travesty

A man who filmed members of his family in the shower then shared the footage with other paedophiles and voyeurs online has been granted name suppression – against the wishes of his victims.

The man in his 40s, who was responsible for maintenance on an island camp, was jailed for a year and nine months last week after previously admitting 29 charges at Manukau District Court.

The name of his workplace was suppressed from the outset and after sentencing, Judge Frances Eivers made an order permanently barring publication of the defendant’s name too.

Her ruling, which she said was to protect the identities of those he films, was supported by defence and police but victims in the public gallery were unimpressed.

“We don’t care,” his sister-in-law said. “We don’t want that.”


Why does a judge implement name suppression when all his victims want him outed?  

The defendant’s wife found a cell phone belonging to her husband and to her horror, the screensaver was a naked photo of their niece.

The 22-year-old niece later trawled through a slew of homemade porn on the phone, which included recordings of her 14-year-old sister, her mum, her aunty and others.

She was also shocked to find her uncle – who had been the DJ and MC at her wedding – had installed a camera in their South Auckland bathroom as well as filming them in the shower while they stayed with him on the island.

Her teenaged sister was similarly devastated by the fact her image had been shared online with paedophiles.

“The first person to see me naked will be not my husband but my uncle, the man I trusted, the man I loved and the man who was always there for me,” she said.

Judge Eivers said the man had even crawled into the roof cavity of a property on the island to film one of his colleagues while she showered.

This is a gross breach of privacy for all concerned.

Why is this beast allowed to hide from the world?

Why is it that only the criminal wants the name suppression, and the judge seems to be able to justify this against the wishes of all the victims?


His wife was now living in a caravan, looking after the kids and trying to make ends meet, but she was determined to move on.

“I’m going to make the rest of my life the best of my life – a life without you,” she said.
Mr Chambers said his client was a broken man and should be given a sentence of home detention.

However, the judge said the only suitable response by the court was imprisonment

There is a small blessing he wasn’t allowed home detention with 24/7 access to the Internet.

But I can not get my mind around the name suppression.


– Rob Kidd, NZME


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.

  • The only possible reason I could see for name suppression is because of ongoing investigations trying to track down the bastards he shared the images with….that does not seen to be the case here.

  • Wheninrome

    I would think any personal, mental or other damage to the victims has already occurred, part of the restorative process for them is to see the man publicly shamed by all his colleagues and other people who “trust” him as an upstanding member of society.

  • All_on_Red

    I like the attitude of this family. They seem to realise, that as victims, they have done nothing wrong and therefore have nothing to be ashamed of.
    I do wonder whether our society bears some fault in that it’s thought victims should somehow be ashamed and hence why we see so much name suppression. The justification of which is supposedly to protect the victim – but from what? Societies view that they should be ashamed? Doesn’t seem right.

    • Wheninrome

      Or, is it a case of “there but for the grace of god go I” type of response from people in the system. Are they protecting themselves with a right of name suppression in case they step off the rails in the future. Do they see themselves as human being fallible and capable of these type of crimes.
      I would sincerely hope not but one could wonder as I am struggling for a reason for the continued name suppression of these individuals

    • burns_well_eh

      Hear hear. The decision as to whether the criminal gets name suppression should be entirely that of the people he offended against. I’m not going to call them victims, because they certainly don’t seem to think they are and all power and strength to them for their brave attitude.

      My only recommendation, were I to be the one with the power to change the law, would be that those that were offended against should have say 6 months to make their minds up about suppression or not. That would give them time to reflect in the cold light of day, because there would doubtless be cases where it backfired and they might wish they hadn’t. Other than that – let those transgressed against decide!

  • Mrs_R

    ‘Island Camp’? Does this mean the public may also have stayed there and unwittingly had their images on his phone. My daughter went on school camp to an island which was run by DOC – how would I know if this was ‘voyeur central’ if the name of his work place was suppressed right from the start. There needs to be greater transparency because I bet he has images of other victims on his phone that have not been identified and advised that their image has been shared online.

  • kayaker

    Not only is it hard to get your mind around the name suppression part, but the sentence of one year nine months is just a joke!

  • Benoni

    Judges cannot be trusted with the power of name suppression. They are unfit to have this power and it should be stripped from them for constant misuse of it.