Name suppression
« Previous Entries Next Entries »A whale of a decision
Wednesday, September 15th, 201070 pages! It took Judge David Harvey that long to establish that Whale Oil (a) had a case to answer for breaching a range of name suppression orders and (b) was guilty. It’s probably the most comprehensive judicial ruling on of name suppression issues New Zealand has seen; and it may be the first concerning […]
Blind, not stupid
Thursday, April 29th, 2010As Justice McGechan J put it in the Tucker case, justice should be blind, but it should not be stupid. Judges shouldn’t try to suppress information when the public know it already. The Chief Justice said the same thing in the famous “American Billionaire” case: Where information as to the identity of someone appearing before […]
PN Name suppression decision considered
Wednesday, February 17th, 2010I think the decision is wrong, but I can sympathise with the judge. He cites R v Wilson & Horton (the American billionaire case) but not the other leading case of R v Liddell, where it was held that: [name suppression orders] are never to be imposed lightly, and in cases of conviction for serious […]
The Palmerston North name suppression decision
Tuesday, February 16th, 2010Is here.
Name revelation
Friday, January 22nd, 2010I see that Whale Oil has been publishing a series of posts under the heading “Interesting names” that contain nothing but a person’s name. I might take a wild stab in the dark and guess that those were names that had been suppressed. Is he breaking the law? It’s an offence to publish a name […]
Meanwhile, over at Whale HQ
Thursday, January 14th, 2010Mr Oil has an odd post calling attention to the discrepancy between the “liberal crim huggers” (does that include the people who support him, one wonders?) who point out that many name suppressions exist to protect victims, including one of the ones he’s alleged to have breached, and this case: An Auckland methodist minister has […]
Solicitor-General not going Whale hunting
Thursday, January 14th, 2010The Solicitor-General has decided not to pursue Mr Oil for contempt of court “at this stage”, though he says he supports the prosecutions for name suppression. He adds that contempt proceedings “remain an option” if Mr Oil’s offending continues or escalates, but would probably be brought after the suppression breaches trial.
A whale of a campaign
Tuesday, January 12th, 2010Sigh. I’ve been avoiding weighing in on Whale Oil’s campaign to reform NZ’s suppression laws, or failing that, render them useless. (In my absence, Andrew Geddis has done a good job). But it’s an issue that won’t die. It doesn’t help that the media seem endlessly fascinated by it, and by him. I won’t attempt […]
“Comedian” child sex accused name suppression
Monday, December 21st, 2009It seems that a “comedian” has been granted name suppression in connection with charges that he has had unlawful sexual connection with a child under 12, his daughter. This isn’t some namby-pamby judge covering up for a celebrity. This suppression kicks in automatically under the Criminal Justice Act, I think. Alleged sex crime victims are given name suppression […]
Good front page lead for tomorrow’s Sunday Star-Times
Saturday, December 12th, 2009The “high profile businesswoman” who featured in last week’s SST front-page lead because she received interim name suppression on charges of supplying drugs to her dying ex-husband, has now been named. From this report, it seems that her lawyers did not even see fit to contest it further, and the suppression just lapsed. She’s Colleen […]
« Previous Entries Next Entries »