« A whale of a decision | Main | Oh my God »
An unprivileged position?
By Steven | September 15, 2010
The DomPost seems to have deliberately breached a name suppression order. And now I probably have too, having merely linked to it. What the hey. The paper is reporting that ACT MP David Garrett has admitted that he obtained a false passport in his halcyon days, using the time-honoured Day-of-the-Jackel method of finding the tombstone of a dead baby who was born roughly when you were and applying for a passport in its name.
I have to say, I think that’s kind of cool. But illegal. Fair Go has done it too, and with better motivation: to prove how easily it could be done. Also illegal.
Anyway, David Garrett was found out much later, pleaded guilty and was discharged without conviction and given name suppression. (Question: what is ACT’s position on criminals who receive this treatment?)
Garrett says he’s currently trying to have the name suppression withdrawn. Apparently that hasn’t happened yet. But the DomPost has still named him. Also… illegal. You’d think it might have picked up on that, having covered the Whale Oil case so assiduously.
Ah, they’ll be saying. But Garrett said it on the floor of the House of Parliament. We were just reporting that. It’s privileged. Isn’t it?
I don’t think so. Privilege applies to Garrett. (Though technially he could be answerable to the Privileges Committee for using his Parliamentary rights to breach a suppression order, I don’t think anyone’s going to get too exercised about him fessing up to his own crime). Privilege also exempts the media from defamation actions when reporting what’s said in the House. Lord Denning – but only Lord Denning – has suggested that privilege may also insulate media Parliamentary reports from contempt actions. But not name suppression laws.
I don’t think anything will come of this. I’m not saying anything should. When Winston Peters revealed the identify of a child in a family court battle, for instance, no-one batted an eyelid when that was reported. Let me heroically opine that I should not be prosecuted either.
But Whale Oil occasionally rails about the way that the media often gets away with flouting suppression laws, while he gets prosecuted. Well, they’re not thumbing their nose at the law the way he does, but let’s grant that he has a point.
Topics: Name suppression, Parliamentary privilege | 59 Comments »
59 Responses to “An unprivileged position?”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
September 15th, 2010 at 5:02 pm
Not just the DomPost, Parliament TV too.
ref: Privileges Committee report
September 15th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
Steven,
Can a blogger claim in effect to be a journalist?
September 15th, 2010 at 5:40 pm
Bloggers can claim anything they like. I’ve seen them do it!
In what context? Do you mean, might they qualify for the defamation privilege I mentioned? Probably yes, but not because they are journalists exactly, but because it covers fair and accurate reports of Parliament, and (if they’re fair and accurate, which will be a stretch in many cases) that’ll probably cover bloggers too.
September 15th, 2010 at 5:44 pm
I was thinking in regards to being compelled to reveal their sources.
September 15th, 2010 at 5:57 pm
Ah, well check out the new provisions in the Evidence Act, which is one of the rare occasions where journalists are singled out for special treatment. (That special treatment relates to protection of confidential sources and information). The key definitions:
journalist means a person who in the normal course of that person’s work may be given information by an informant in the expectation that the information may be published in a news medium
news medium means a medium for the dissemination to the public or a section of the public of news and observations on news
Doesn’t seem to cover most bloggers. Might cover David Farrer or Cameron Slater or Norightturn though, if it can be said they deal with news AND observations.
September 15th, 2010 at 6:11 pm
Even if that information has been suppressed by court order?
September 15th, 2010 at 6:40 pm
Um. Not sure what you’re talking about. The source privilege relates to the identity of, and information from, confidential informants. The confidentiality stems from the promise from the journalist, not any court order.
September 15th, 2010 at 6:46 pm
For anyone interested and with access to a law library/westlaw subscription, there is a useful analysis piece on just this in the latest issue of the UK journal, Public Law. I mention it only because Steven CLEARLY isn’t going to and I wrote it.
For what it is worth, I think the media won’t have a defence here. But equally, there isn’t a chance in hell that they’d ever be prosecuted for it. The police have bigger Whales to chase (see what I did there?)
September 15th, 2010 at 7:11 pm
Blogs are the new law journals, Andrew. Or haven’t you heard?
September 15th, 2010 at 7:21 pm
What I’m getting at is where is Whale Oil getting his information from?
Quite possibly from an informant who happened to be in court when the suppression order was made .
September 15th, 2010 at 7:23 pm
Possibly, though likely not. As for his sources, if anyone tried to extract them from him (though no-one has), he might be able to invoke the Evidence Act privilege.
September 9th, 2017 at 3:39 pm
monclere
SunSport has learnt Ulloa’s wish to move on will not be granted by Ranieri during the January window with Islam Slimani off to the African Cup of Nations with Algeria.
September 11th, 2017 at 6:25 pm
nike usatf ’08 elite team connection backpack
g the most out of some of the most notorious archival models that the imprint has to offer in exclusive releases for women.
September 12th, 2017 at 11:04 pm
puma 2016 homme
Filed under: Just Released ReebokTags: Reebok Ventilator Supreme
September 13th, 2017 at 9:17 pm
replacement for new balance 860
Completed with a gum rubber outsole, embossed branding, and a deconstructed thin tongue, youd be hard pressed to find a classier edition of the LX 8500.
September 16th, 2017 at 8:42 am
air jordan,jordan pas cher,jordan 11,air jordan pas cher,nike air jordan,nike jordan,jordan femme,air jordan femme,basket jordan,jordan 6,air jordan 4,jordan 4,chaussure jordan,rania de jordanie,air jordan 6,air jordan 11,jordan 13,jordan 3,royal jor…
“4Carrol was ruled out for a couple of months with a knee injuryWhen asked when the former Newcastle man might be ready to play, Bilic said: Were going to see today whether Andy Carroll is ready, we will make a decision after training it maybe tomorro…
July 17th, 2020 at 1:25 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=391 […]
July 17th, 2020 at 12:12 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=391 […]
August 6th, 2020 at 1:35 am
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 2285 more Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=391 […]
August 8th, 2020 at 2:25 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you can find 41131 additional Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=391 […]
August 24th, 2020 at 6:40 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Info here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=391 […]
August 25th, 2020 at 12:46 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=391 […]
August 29th, 2020 at 12:12 am
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 44015 additional Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=391 […]
September 1st, 2020 at 12:47 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you can find 20948 additional Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=391 […]
September 4th, 2020 at 10:55 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=391 […]
September 21st, 2020 at 3:18 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=391 […]
September 22nd, 2020 at 12:02 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=391 […]
September 26th, 2020 at 4:37 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you will find 19596 more Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=391 […]
September 30th, 2020 at 9:36 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=391 […]
October 11th, 2020 at 11:56 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=391 […]
October 31st, 2020 at 8:18 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=391 […]
November 17th, 2020 at 2:11 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=391 […]
December 8th, 2020 at 7:06 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=391 […]
December 9th, 2020 at 8:52 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Informations on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=391 […]
December 12th, 2020 at 7:38 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=391 […]
December 19th, 2020 at 12:23 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you can find 32883 more Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=391 […]
December 23rd, 2020 at 12:58 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=391 […]
January 1st, 2021 at 12:48 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=391 […]
January 13th, 2021 at 3:23 am
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 9614 additional Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=391 […]
January 17th, 2021 at 4:15 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 43174 more Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=391 […]
January 18th, 2021 at 1:56 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=391 […]
January 18th, 2021 at 2:26 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=391 […]
January 22nd, 2021 at 9:01 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=391 […]
February 5th, 2021 at 6:57 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=391 […]
February 6th, 2021 at 10:57 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 53103 more Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=391 […]
February 7th, 2021 at 6:24 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=391 […]
February 8th, 2021 at 6:29 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=391 […]
February 9th, 2021 at 6:02 am
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 39171 additional Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=391 […]
February 9th, 2021 at 12:25 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=391 […]
February 11th, 2021 at 3:58 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=391 […]
February 11th, 2021 at 6:26 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=391 […]
February 15th, 2021 at 2:37 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=391 […]
February 15th, 2021 at 3:08 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=391 […]
February 18th, 2021 at 6:37 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=391 […]
February 20th, 2021 at 11:51 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=391 […]
February 21st, 2021 at 4:47 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=391 […]
February 25th, 2021 at 5:30 am
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 57138 more Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=391 […]
February 25th, 2021 at 6:25 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=391 […]
March 1st, 2021 at 6:02 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=391 […]