Name Suppression v. Rights Of The Child In New Zealand

You may remember the “well respected” professional man in Palmerston North, Manawatu,  who was uncovered with 300,000 pornographic images on his computer after being caught in an FBI operation, many of them were of children.


He was given name suppression and sentenced to 4 months home detention.

You may also recall the ‘world famous in NZ’ muso (we use the term loosely) that was also given name suppression and discharged after pleading guilty to the sexual assault of a 16 year old girl.

One case that is presently before the court in Wellington shows how the cult of status may be being used to protect alleged wrong doers in New Zealand: people who really should know better and be setting an example to the rest of the community.

“Accused public servant a gentle fellow“
“A father is accused of assaulting his son after he allegedly stole $700 from his mother.
The crown’s case rests on the boy’s initial testimony that his father dragged him down Manners Mall then pushed him into his car where he repeatedly punched him in the head…
But the boy later retracted his comments.

It just so happens that the boy’s father is a high profile public servant who has been granted name suppression. One can imagine the pressure this kid is under to stop dad from picking up a criminal record and losing his job.

“If there was any contact at all it was all unintentional,” he told the court via video link on Tuesday.
During cross examination of the defendant today, crown prosecutor Paul Dacre cited the boy’s initial statement in which he said his father had threatened to break his legs, and had punched him before and after pushing him into the car.
He also reminded the jury of three witnesses’ saying that they had seen the man punching the boy in the car.
“You hit him as punishment for taking the money. You said he was a thief and you were treating him like a thief,” he told the court.

So, is that how thieves are really supposed to be treated in New Zealand? so much for informing them of their rights and giving them access to legal representation.

But the man said the witnesses must have mistaken his removing the boy’s bag – bought with the stolen money along with a new cellphone – for punching…

The NBR gives a few more relevant details:

The jury at the Wellington District Court was shown a recording of a police interview with the complainant in which he said that his dad assaulted him after finding him on Manners Street near the McDonald’s fast food restaurant.
The complainant, 15 at the time, said he had ran away from home and stolen $700 from his mother’s bankcard with the intention of paying friends to stay with them.
After being discovered he said his father warned him not to run, saying “if you try to run I’ll break your legs”, he told the court.
He explained how his dad dragged him back to the car and smacked him on the back of the head which left a red mark.
After dragging him into the car he looked through his bag and after he found cigarettes he smacked him in the face, he told the jury.
He told the jury how he heard a girl ringing the police while he was in the car.
His father then told him “if I lose my job it’s your fault”, he said.
The teenager said in the video that it was not the first time his dad had assaulted him, saying that he had hit him after he got in trouble at school and after being caught shoplifting.”

Is it likely that three witnesses could be mistaken in what they saw? Not that it matters because the defendant’s word is likely to carry more weight than their collective evidence because:-

a. He is a “high ranking public servant”, who is important enough to have been granted name suppression. He has a lot to lose if found guilty.

b. He is a “gentle fellow” according to his wife.

It’s a long stretch from “gentle fellow” to allegedly punching your kid in the head and threatening to break his legs. If this is a “gentle” person in New Zealand we’d hate to meet a violent one. One has to wonder if his wife has been on the ‘sharp end’ of this type of gentleness on occasions.

Now, this may be unrelated of course, and there’s no way of knowing  if the two are linked, but has name suppression been granted despite the details of a very similar case already being in the public domain for over a year?

On Sat 15 May 2009 the ODT reported that an assault claim had been brought against Wellington’s top cop who was on leave on full pay over an allegation he’d assaulted his teenage son. When he was interviewed he was observed to have an blackened eye.  The article started with:

“The head of Wellington’s police force is under investigation for an alleged assault on a family member….”

If the article is still there if you wish to read it, or you can find it here .

Is it any wonder that New Zealand is ranked joint third in the world by UNICEF for the highest number of  child maltreatment deaths? (1.2 per 100,00o children) only the US and Mexico have more. (source) and that One child is abused to death every 23 days?

A recent Independent Police Complaints Authority report stated that “urgent action” is needed by police when investigating child abuse cases. Some cases were found to have been languishing in the “to do” pile for 5-11 years.

“The failures may occur again unless shortcomings in police practices, policies and procedures are remedied.”

Here’s hoping that every abused child in New Zealand gets taken seriously when they bring an assault complaint, and that prompt action is taken to protect them and not their abusers.

See also blog posts
“Families of murder victims protest suppression laws“
“Privileged name suppression furore, Sensible Sentencing Trust comments”
“Name suppression of Manawatu man condemned by child advocacy group”
“Name suppression farce continues”

Now A Business Gets Name Suppression

 New Zealand's kooky name suppression laws got another liberal coating of custard yesterday when a judge awarded name suppression to a business in Tauranga.

We're wondering if this is the first time a business has been granted this privilege in New Zealand and why the public don't have a right to know this information? If this knowledge is in some way prejudicial to a fair trial then all well and good, but shouldn't the name be released if and when the defendent is found guilty?

 "A Tauranga woman has been arrested and charged with 50 counts of using a document dishonestly.
Michelle Campbell appeared in Tauranga District Court yesterday and was remanded on bail to reappear on April 7.
The total amount of the alleged fraud is about $1.1 million and involves a Tauranga business, which was yesterday granted name suppression.
Campbell, 42, was employed as the company's business manager but no longer works there.
She is married to Tauranga constable Steve Campbell, who has not been stood down from his duties."

What makes this case sublimely ridiculous is this.  

The name of a Tauranga business where Mrs. Campbell worked in finance as a business manager had already been published in the Dominion Post, on 15 March and on 16 March 2010 in connection to police investigations of a large fraud at the business.

If that business is not the one whose name has been been suppressed their reputation, which is probably already damaged, isn't going to salved until after the trial (if ever) The gossip in Tauranga must be rife.

If, on the other hand, the business is the same why did the judge grant name suppression, when the name was already 'out there' in the public domain?



Today's posts - click here

Theo Kriel. Suppression Orders And Bullying

The name of the boy that killed British school girl Libby Templeman has now been released. He is Hermanus Theodorus Kriel, known as Theo Kriel.

For some unknown reason his image has been suppressed until sentencing next month.

Just how this is going to work in practice is unclear because he has posted videos of himself on the net and they've been there since the middle of 2008. Is he technically in breach of his own suppression order and doesn't this highlight just how flawed New Zealand's suppression laws are?

According to a report on Stuff:

"A separate suppression order prohibiting publication of his image will remain in place until his sentencing on March 26. The court heard Kriel had moved with his family from South Africa to New Zealand when he was eight-years-old. He attended Kerikeri High School with Liberty, but told the court the pair had not been close friends.

They had both been in Year 10 at school and would occasionally text one another. "

Immediately after the verdict yesterday Liberty's father said:

"Since the first of November, 2008, when the life of our beautiful daughter Liberty was stolen, our lives have been in turmoil.

"It's every parent's worst nightmare that their child should die at the hands of someone else. We still struggle to see her without – I can't say his name until 12 o'clock tomorrow – just being there in the background."

The family did not understand why they had to go through the traumatic trial process after the boy had confessed so early in the case, Mr Templeman said.

He rejected the defence's claim the killing was manslaughter.

"For us there could not have been another verdict. If his only motive was to hide Liberty's body believing her to be already dead, then why did he drag her semi-naked through the shrub and into the stream and then hide her under the ginger [tree] when the long grass surrounding her would have already have hid her?

"Libby gave so much to so many and wanted nothing in return. Her big heart, her warm smile, vivacious personality will be missed by all who knew her."

The officer in charge of the case, Inspector Martin Ruth, said it had been a gruelling police investigation. "It was a tough job right from the start. At the end of the day there are no real winners, this young boy's going to get what's coming to him."

I'm just pleased for the Templemans that they got some justice in the end."

We'll reserve judgment as to whether the Templemans, and Libby, have got justice until the sentencing hearing next month.

A youth, who was 14 when he beat Scottish woman Karen Aim to death with a baseball bat in Taupo in 2008, got 'life' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12.5 years. Karen's father has vowed to fight any parole bid the youth may make in future.

It's a reminder that, despite' justice' being handed out, families of murder victims seldom know a moment of true peace and are forced to re-live the anguish of the crime every time a parole hearing is scheduled.

Balance that against a decision to restrict publication of Kriel's image  and you have to wonder whose interests the law really puts first.

Kriel a product of a bullying culture?
The trial verdict has been the subject of a thread on the NZ Yahoo message boards. One comment by elamental1@ymail.com caught our attention as it may explain why Kriel reacted in the way he did:

"I feel sorry for the boy since he was the focus of relentless bullying at Kerikeri High School. I don't actually know him but lots of students there who said his life was made hell. No wonder he as terrified to be mocked yet again! Why did this not come out in the trial? Kerikeri High School management and teachers should take a look at themselves!!!"

Today's posts - click here

Families Of Murder Victims Protest Suppression Laws

The Press is carrying a story today about the families of murder victims asking for changes to suppression laws and protesting a failed justice system that they say puts the interests of the criminal above those of the victims:

"Families of murder victims have made a plea for changes to suppression laws"

"They gathered outside the Christchurch District Court yesterday to support the Sensible Sentencing Trust's call for the names and criminal history of those accused of murder to be made public. "We're making a statement that the law isn't working. The law needs to be changed. There's no doubt the system has failed," trust spokesman Garth McVicar said.

Nick Donald, cousin of Marie Davis who was murdered by convicted rapist Dean Cameron in 2008, said the justice system was geared towards the criminal and victims were forgotten.

Donald said suppression laws were "a joke" and the public "should be able to look up who it was and see their past records".

"In our case, the jury was told Marie committed suicide by walking into the river on her own. Why should we not be able to bring up that Dean Cameron is a rapist and has that tendency to do what he did?"

Donald said that while the three-strikes policy would be an improvement, he wished there were harsher penalties "then Marie could still be alive today".

"If someone doesn't stand up and make some noise, then nothing will change," he said. "

For posts about name suppression issues in NZ click HERE
For posts about Marie Davis click HERE
For posts about murders in New Zealand click HERE

Today's posts - click here

Privileged Name Suppression Furore, Sensible Sentencing Trust Comments

The uproar over the decision to grant permanent name suppression to a 'prominent' man convicted of downloading and distributing indecent images of young girls continued today with a statement from the Sensible Sentencing Trust. Garth McVicar says the judgment has undermined public confidence in the NZ justice system and that it puts criminals ahead of victims. This from Voxy

"Garth McVicar, spokesman for the Sensible Sentencing Trust, has been inundated with outraged inquiries from members of the public asking what can be done about the name suppression and why the offender received special treatment because of his profile in the community and his job, which has also been kept private.

"If someone chooses to commit a crime and is caught, then their job, social standing and any consequent fall from grace should be irrelevant. Our judges are protecting the privileged and giving them special treatment and it is totally undermining public confidence in the justice system," said Mr McVicar.

In a bid to highlight the impact of such biased sentencing and identity protection, Mr McVicar was releasing one of the messages he had received from a member of the public who had trusted the man and believed others deserved to know about his behaviour and the risk he posed to the community:

"This sentence was made against a person with whom I entrusted my health I am in shock at this sentence and find it offensive that the judge seems to be more sympathetic to the offender and his loss more than he is the victim. This judge is also a judge for the family court and makes decisions regarding safety and care of children also".

Mr McVicar said the decision was another example of a liberal-leaning judge putting the criminal ahead of the victims and community safety and protecting the upper echelons of society, who should know better.

"Judges are appointed to protect the public from predatory and criminal behaviour, not to protect the dignity and reputation of well-heeled businessmen. How far a person falls from grace as a result of their crimes should not matter. If a person does the crime they should do the time and not get special treatment."

It is fast becoming evident that NZ may have a two tier justice system.

The editor of the Manawatu Standard has said his piece saying too saying "Open justice gets thrown aside"

" OPINION: If there were any lingering doubts that the guidelines for suppressing names in this country needed strengthening, the case detailed in today's Manawatu Standard should shatter them.

The creeping secrecy pervading our justice system has long since passed what the public should accept as a reasonable restriction on their freedom of expression in order to safeguard the administration of justice.

The decision to suppress the name of a prominent Manawatu man convicted of downloading pornographic images of children is a salient example of how the principle of open justice has been reduced to little more than a passing mention before a judge abdicates his or her duty to ensure our public court system belongs to the people.

Judge Grant Fraser's reasons for banning publication of this man's name and occupation are breathtaking in their flimsiness, placing too much weight on the interests of the offender, and too little on the interests of the public.

For Judge Fraser to say publication of the man's identity was not required because none of the thousands of children pictured were New Zealanders is logically outrageous. Such an argument requires one to believe this man investigated the background of each of his young victims to determine they were not from this country. Does Judge Fraser believe that had the man known the children were New Zealanders he would have not downloaded the images?

But what was most alarming about Judge Fraser's decision was his view that the offender's status in society should afford him special protection from publicity.

Judge Fraser said: "The punitive consequences are more extensive for you than for others, particularly in light of your position, your achievements and the consequential outcome."
It is this statement, above all others, that exposes the judge's decision not only as poor, but as an insult to the central tenet of justice – that it applies to everyone equally.

Publicly revealing an offender's name will have different consequences for individuals depending on their life situation. It is not for the courts to attempt to manipulate those consequences to make them equal for everyone. It might sound paradoxical, but justice isn't always fair.

Those who hold a high social status must accept that with it comes greater scrutiny when they behave in a manner unbecoming that status. There cannot be one set of rules for them, and another for everyone else.

The Law Commission has recommended the Government raises the threshold for name suppression and sets clearer guidelines on how it should be applied.

What happened in the Palmerston North District Court yesterday might not have exposed the identity of a sexual deviant, but it has revealed how important it is for the Government to adopt those recommendations."

Yet the government sits on its hands as case after case drags the New Zealand judicial system further into the mire. One has to question why this is being allowed to happen, is the government powerless to stop it?

For an indication about strongly the NZ public feels about this issue see SHAME and the SHAME facebook page.

Today's posts - click here

Name Suppression Of Manawatu Man Condemned By Child Advocacy Group

On 6 February 2010 we reported on the ridiculous decision to suppress the name of a 'prominent' man convicted in Palmerston North Court of downloading more than 300,000 indecent images, many of them of children.  Read it here.

The man, who lives in the Manawatu and who was caught in an international FBI investigation, was found to have both downloaded and distributed indecent images. But in addition to suppressing his name the judge also dealt the offender a slap on the wrist with a sentence of 4 months home detention.

Crown prosecutor Ben Vanderkolk said granting name suppression could be seen as protecting a person in a privileged position. He also disputed the need to protect the man's children as they were well informed about the offending. If he feels so strongly why does he do us all a favour and appeal the court's decision? One has to wonder just what the offender's profession was.

Now a child advocacy group Stop Demand has stepped in to condemn the suppression:

"Today Stop Demand's founder, Denise Ritchie, said the man's sexual interest in young girls and his prolific appetite for more and more images contributed directly to market forces of demand and supply, leading to more children being violated and degraded.

"Yet Judge Fraser's decision suggests that if you participate in and fuel the global sexual exploitation of children but you are a prominent member of the New Zealand community, the courts will protect your interests.

"This is a disappointing and unacceptable message from our courts," she said.

Naming offenders removed the shroud of secrecy under which they lurked, and increased their future accountability, Ms Ritchie said. It acted as a deterrent to others.

"The public, particularly caregivers and children, are entitled to know who these offenders are.
"The fact that the court places more weight on the personal circumstances of 'prominent' offenders, than on the serious issue of child sexual exploitation and its long-term impact on victims, is disturbing," she said.

Ms Ritchie described the sentence and anonymity as an insult to the man's victims, "all of whom will live the rest of their lives without anonymity, fully identifiable to sexually aroused predators".

"If we are to make significant inroads into stopping this modern-day sexual abuse of children here and overseas, we must crack down heavily on those who fuel demand for such material," she said."

New Zealand is fast becoming a safe haven for any sexual offender who is even remotely in the public eye. Not only will they have their name suppressed but they can also pretty much get off with little or no punishment if they whine loudly enough.

Take the case of the "NZ muso" who assaulted a young girl pleaded guilty and got nothing more than a slapped wrist in case it damaged his career in some way in the future. Even though most of New Zealand now knows the man's identity the name suppression order still stands. The law as it stands is an ass.

If any good will come out of this latest case it is will be this: It will add weight to the position of bloggers like Cameron Slater, whose site has now become the place to visit whenever a slime-ball manages to slip one past the justice system. It is climbing up the ratings to be one of the most popular sites with New Zealanders. Isn't it  ironic that that same system that is trying to lock him up also allows a paedophile with 300,000 pictures on his PC gets to sleep soundly at night in his own home.

Stop Demand say:

• several million children are enslaved in the child sex trade each year (Source: ECPAT, UNICEF, UNESCAP)
• children in various tourist destinations are being violated by sex tourists (refer article)
• trafficking of children and young women into the global sex trade is the third largest international criminal activity (Source: Interpol) and is a multi-billion dollar industry
• traffickers, pimps, procurers, brothel owners and other intermediaries make vast profits from the child sex trade
• ever-increasing numbers of children are being exploited to produce Internet child pornographic images (refer article)
• sexual violence and sexual exploitation of children is endemic in
  
  • the home & community
  • domestic service
  • refugee camps and armed conflict
  • cultural practices (such as child brides, devadasi/temple girls, trokosi/fetish slaves)
  • cultural beliefs (such as sex with a virgin cures HIV/AIDS, brings good fortune or restores virility)

For information on the scale of sex crimes in New Zealand  please see our NZ Facts of Life page.

Today's posts - click here

Name Suppression For 'Prominent' Man Caught In FBI Paedophile Operation

The furore over New Zealand's name suppression laws is going to be given a fresh impetus with the announcement that permanent name suppression has been granted to a "prominent" Manawatu man convicted of downloading more than 300,000 pornographic images, "many of them children":

"The man, who was charged with 25 counts of possessing objectionable material and one count of distributing pornographic images on the internet after an FBI investigation led to his arrest last year, was sentenced to four months' home detention when he appeared for sentencing in Palmerston North District Court yesterday."

Furthermore, the man has escaped with nothing more than 4 months of home detention.

The FBI officers involved in the international operation must be sitting back and scratching their heads, wondering if their effort was worth it. The court's decision may give the impression that New Zealand is a pretty safe haven for paedophiles, especially those who can afford a good lawyer.

Why has this guy got off so lightly and why aren't the people in his local community entitled to know this deviant is living in their midst? The Judge Grant Fraser said:

"In this case there is no offending against any individuals within the New Zealand community. Therefore publicity in my view is not required to flush out any potential offenders or to enable members of the community to keep themselves safe from you."

Can anyone be really sure of that? If his name had been made public how many people may have came forward and said "My child may have been telling me the truth when ...." now no-one will ever know. Are children suffering in silence? Whose rights are more important here, his or the community's?

If this man had been "offending against the local community" after his four months is up he is more or less free to resume activities and no-one is any the wiser. Meanwhile every other "prominent" man in Manawatu (how many are there?) has the finger of suspicion hovering over him for ever more.

Altogether a very unsatisfactory situation for everyone concerned, except of course for the man himself who isn't brave enough to front-up...perhaps he could take a couple of tips from the FBI's own  motto "Fidelity. Bravery. Integrity."

Is it any wonder that some people are challenging the name suppression laws in New Zealand and doesn't this case illustrate perfectly well why they need to be changed.

There are bloggers out there who will now make it their business to reveal this man's name, think of the damage they will do if they get it wrong.

The whole situation is perfect mess.

See reactions to the judgement
Privileged name suppression furore, Sensible Sentencing Trust comments
Name suppression of Manawatu man condemned by child advocacy group


Related posts:
Name suppression farce continues
At least one sex attack in Palmerston North every week
Name Suppression for NZ muso


Today's posts - click here

Name Suppression Farce Continues - Updated

The new national game of 'Name Suppression - pin the tail on the Ass', which is very much in the news at the moment, has reached the level of a Pythonesque farce when it was revealed that the man accused of attempting to murder a police officer (Jeremy Snow) in Papatoetoe just before Christmas (see blog post police officer shot in Paptoetoe) has been granted continued name suppression. He had it removed yesterday only to have it reinstated within an hour pending an appeal to the High Court.

The man* supposedly gave his reason for requesting name suppression as being this - his mum was abroad, couldn't be contacted and he didn't want her finding out from the press. Ok, but that was back at Christmas, surely someone should've tracked her down by now? if she's that out of contact she's hardly likely to be reading press reports about allegations that junior gunned down a rookie cop back home.

We can only surmise that the major reason for the suppression has been suppressed along with his name and that all will be revealed in the fullness of time.

Meanwhile, more importantly, Constable Snow is slowly recovering from his physical and psychological injuries in his Auckland flat and is being cared for by his parents, he's still in a wheelchair and may need a bone graft on his left leg. His recovery may take months, we wish him a full recovery and hope he's back doing the job he loves very soon.

The damages to the NZ judicial system may take longer to heal unless changes to the law are made very swiftly.
See:  Government will look closely at Law Commission report, 16 Nov 2009:

"The report recommends significant changes for name suppression. "There is merit in having tougher standards before people can get name suppression, and in specifying in legislation the ground on which suppression can be granted," Mr Power said.

The commission said courts currently had "broad discretion" to block the publication of names and identifying information. The suppression of names or evidence should be restricted to exceptional cases and be made for compelling reasons, the report said.

Reasons should be specified in legislation and should reflect a high threshold.
The commission said name suppression should be used only where there was a risk of prejudice to a fair trial, undue hardship to victims and the accused or would identify another person who has suppression."

Meanwhile a 'prominent Northland Civil Servant' is also seeking name suppression after pleading guilty to four minor fraud charges - switching price stickers on supermarket goods - the press can't even reveal which government department the man works for. Do the public have the right to know about the criminal convictions and honesty of its public servants? all will be decided next week. link

Update 15 January
* The accused man has been charged with a string of offences:
Attempted murder.
Shooting with intent to do grievous bodily harm.
Unlawfully possessing firearms including .22-calibre rifles, one with a silencer, and a double-barrelled shotgun.
Possessing methamphetamine.
Unlawful possession of a 2006 Audi car valued at $30,000.
Assaulting Kenneth Caine using a firearm as a weapon.
Assaulting Phillip Andrew Kingi using a firearm as a weapon.
Assaulting Amanda Riley using a firearm as a weapon.
Possessing a .38-calibre pistol.
(source NZ Herald)

 Today's posts - click here

Name Suppression For NZ Muso

Leave aside for one moment the debate over whether the 'world famous in NZ' "muso" convicted of a sex offence against a 16 year old female deserved the benefit of permanent name suppression and whether or not he should be named. A few  important points seem to have been either forgotten about or have been trampled to the ground in the excitement:

1. 'Everyone' seems to think they know who 'he' is, including John Key. What irreperable damage is this speculation doing to the reputations of innocent people, some of whom may not even know they're the subject of gossip and speculation?
Some 'musos' have recently suffered "Trial by Wikipedia" where multiple edits have been made on Wikipedia, a site that is hosted outside of New Zealand. Even though the edits have now been removed the information is still clearly evident in the history pages.

2. What message is it sending out to the victims of sex offenders? especially younger ones,  how seriously will they be taken if they have the courage to come forward and report a crime? We've probably all seen reprehensible comments calling into question the morals of the victim and phrases like "contribuatry negligence" being bandied around.

Add to that the furore over the Louise Nicholas rape trial with the issues it raised about suppression of information, and the enormous problems women have with being taken seriously, and it's not hard to understand why NZ has an appalling record for sex crimes.

NZ has the world's highest number of  female rape victims as a percentage of the population, only 9% of sexual offences get reported to police (is it any wonder, given the above?) and of those only 13% of rapes resulted in convictions. The median age of victims is 23 and 61% of them are Europeans - See 'Conviction rate in sex cases'.

3. What does this say about NZ's obsession with status? money, position and fame always 'talks'.

4. It re-inforces the message seen in other court cases that the rights of the criminal are held in higher regard than those of their victim.

Weeks ago the heartbroken father of murdered student Sophie Elliott was forced to read out in court an edited version of his deeply personal victim impact statement, he called it "just another way the justice system puts victims down".

At the end of the trial Sophie's uncle had said there was "nothing about the legal process designed to make it any easier on victims. We have had no choice but to sit and watch it unfold and hope for the best, whilst he is allowed to talk and pass notes to his legal team any time he wants"

5. What restorative justice will be made to the young woman, for both the original assault and the emotional harm subsequently caused?

In 2007 the Herald named Louise Nicholas, New Zealander of the Year saying
"Her contribution stood out. It was distinguished by the willingness to suffer deeply personal exposure for the sake of exposing an ugly element in one of our most important public institutions. And it forced all of us to question what indeed is justice."

A question that has still to be answered.

So here's two more...if NZ didn't have such an obsession with the particular type of music/youth culture  (a multi million dollar industry in NZ) this sex offender is involved with would he still have been granted name suppression after his conviction? It's not as is this guy is particularly well known outside of NZ, hardly a 'Fat Boy Slim'. If, for instance, he'd been an aging, washed up ex pop star convicted of stalking young girls would everything have been very different?


Today's posts - click here