"No Crime In Gisborne, It's Offical - Updates

25 July 2010 (scroll down for updates)

Remember how the Palmerston North Wikipedia page was censored to remove references to crime because it making overseas investors and professionals shy away from moving to the town?;  and of how gangs are now euphemistically  called “groups” in some news reports?;  and how no police statistics are kept on racially motivated crimes in New Zealand? 

Well now the police in Gisborne want to restrict the information released to the media and give the people in the town the warm and fuzzies.

The question is Is ignorance bliss, or are there other motives for clamming-up about the true extent and nature of crime in Gisborne? It smacks of censorship to us and history has proved that has never been a good thing. Surely it is preferable to create a safer, low crime community rather than mislead people into thinking that it is?

Don’t the public have a right to know what is going on in their own town and the actions their public servants are taking to control that crime?

What if similar decisions were taken elsewhere in the country? (it’s already been happening in Rotorua) you can kiss goodbye to a free press in New Zealand and say hello to a propaganda mouthpiece, covering nothing but cake sales and ‘feel good’ stories.

From the Gisborne Herald’s website:

Crime? What crime?

Christine McCafferty 24 July 2010
GISBORNE police have decided to restrict the information on crime they provide to media in a move to “make the community feel safer”.
Up until now, The Gisborne Herald has been given detailed reports of crimes attended by police, including burglaries, domestic violence and the arrests that make up our daily “Police briefs”.
But earlier this week area commander Inspector Sam Aberahama said comprehensive information would no longer be provided. He saw no benefit in “reporting all and sundry”…read the whole article here

Related NZ State v. NZ Press stories:

Police Minister infuriated at newspaper’s test of security at Super 14s match – reporters testing security at a rugby match weren’t pretending to be terrorists.

It’s official: Politicians can’t take a joke - “MPs may make fools of themselves from time to time but they want to ban others from doing it. Satire, ridicule and denigration of MPs using any television footage shot from parliamentary galleries is to be banned under rules proposed by the standing orders committee. The move on freedom of expression is not the only controversy the rules have caused. They also create anomalies between what television cameras can show and what newspapers photographers are allowed to show, giving television the advantage…”

Update 1.  29 July 2010

Gisborne police have tried to defend their new “media policy”. You can read their response in this article which appeared on Stuff.

In it we learn of two very interesting pieces of information:

1. The Gisborne Herald was one of the last daily newspapers in the country to receive detailed lists from the police, according to Gisborne area commander Inspector Sam Aberahama; as repeated on Stuff. (No wonder our figures on reported armed robberies doesn’t tally-up with the official statistics)
So many newspapers went quietly into that goodnight! only the Gisborne Herald  was prepared to take a stand and we appreciate why now – that was the last stand of NZ’s free press.

2. That Police Minister, Judith Collins, thought that media reports on police conduct and other issues had contributed to a lack of respect for police. Which makes the police’s decision to withhold what it chooses from the media look even more questionable.

The Media Freedom Committee had their say on the issue too. We get the impression that this has been brewing under the surface for a while and now was an ideal opportunity to remove the cover on the whole sorry mess. You can read their chairman’s comments on Voxy, but this one comment from him struck us as odd:

“The Media Freedom Committee welcomes an assurance from Police National Headquarters that the Gisborne policy is a one-off and is not about to spread to other parts of the country.”

Which is rather different to what was said by the Gisborne Area Commander in the Stuff article. i.e. that Gisborne was one of the last daily newspapers to receive detailed lists.

Update 2.  30 July 2010

The Sensible Sentencing Trust released a statement today saying that police held in their own hands the solution to stopping attacks on officers, following matters raised by the Police Minister at yesterday’s press conference.

Firstly, police conduct should be beyond reproach and secondly, that police should be helping families to intervene in illicit drug use before that person gets hurt – specifically mentioning the failure of the  “P Plan” to deal effectively with methamphetamine demand in the community. Read the full statement on Scoop.co.nz


Read also: “Is New Zealand moving toward a police state by default?”

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

Murder Map shows 58 Murders This Year in New Zealand

The Sensible Sentencing Trust has published an interactive map detailing 58 known murders that have taken place in New Zealand during 2008, 21 of them in Auckland - an average of 2 a month.

Each cross marked links to a news report of the crime.

The map may be found here: Murder Map