Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Filled with shame, Name suppression.

Name suppression issues.

Whale Oil has kicked off again and even though the latest target has been found not guilty I think this case is even more valid for exposure than some others he has written about.
Peter Cresswell has written in support of Cameron as has Stephen Franks. I know for a fact that a lot of the MSM support what he is doing but sadly they share my lack of guts and fear of consequences so will hide behind breathless reports allowing him to soak up the consequences that are no doubt coming his way.

He has outed a broad cross section of society since he began his campaign. We have doctors, teachers, lawyers, celebutards, failed fading sportspeople and coppers.
All these cases have one (or more) of three similarities in common. Firstly some can afford decent representation thus affording them what appears to be preferential treatment by the people who have been appointed to judge us, secondly some of them can quite reasonably be viewed as insiders and it suggests to me that accusations of mates looking after mates can be thrown around. And last but not least, some of them are hiding behind the anonymity rules for their victims.
No situation highlights this better than a professional man in Palmerston North being granted suppression after being found guilty of posession of thousands of indecent images. An almost identical case involving a mentally ill young man in the same city was blasted throughout the local media without suppression.
We have a case of an ex sportsman charged with multiple charges including rape, assault, sexual assault and kidnapping granted suppression AND IS OUT ON BAIL.

The system is not fit for purpose, Simon Powers has the tools to effect change in what has become a redundant system because of technology and a completely discredited system in the eyes of the public. I am writing to him to express my disquiet for the current system. if you agree then you should do the same.

Cameron Slater is a complex character. He wears his heart on his sleeve and is as fiercely loyal to his friends as he is fiercely against those he deems to be against his beliefs. I consider him to be a true friend and it shames me that I don't have the guts to stand alongside him on this issue.

Many claim to support him but are really only participating in watching a car crash. Remember that he is risking his liberty for this issue. How many of you are prepared to do that for any issue?

Whatever your opinion of the messenger we should all try and focus on the issue.


Dex said...

The difference in this case is that the person in question was found not guilty. Had he been found guilty then the usual arguments re suppression and its failings would apply. And look at the facts of the matter, this is hardly a pedo doctor we are talking about it's a man trying to control his out of control son and using what the Jury found to be reasonable parental correction.

Allowing the naming of the this guy after he has been found not guilty would unfairly tarnish his name, damage his career & reputation not to mention the humiliation it would bring on his already fragile son. Unduly penalizing him for a crime he did not commit.

This if anything is a very good case of why we need name suppression.

Barnsley Bill said...

Dex, I respectfully disagree with you completely. The person was named in earlier reports, the independant eye witness reports were ignored by the jury, the victim changed his tune at the last minute, the man charged has been off on full pay for a very long time and his job is the single biggest reason why he should be named. Go and read what stephen Franks had to say. Our justice system is diminished by this continued use of the suppression rules.

Inventory2 said...

Good post BB - I'm in the same boat as you and Stephen Franks today; I have blogged in support of Cam (whom I have never met), but I cannot take the next step and join him in naming the High-Profile Public Servant. Part of me wants to, but the part of me who employs people has won the argument.

Dex - I see where you are coming from. However in the case of the H-PPS, most people know the occupation, so all those who work for that particular employ are suspects by default.

Dave Mann said...

The whole Whaleoil/Suppression argument points up the urgent need for our judiciary to re-think the law around suppression IN THE LIGHT OF THE DIGITAL AGE.

I'm not arguing here for or against any one particular case.... its too complex... but it would I think be beneficial if the law were to forget about the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries and concentrate on the now.

big bruv said...

As Barnsley says there are many who take an interest in this because it seems that Cameron is indeed a train wreck waiting to happen.

Initially I was supportive of his work in this area, I think it is disgraceful that the 'sportsman' and the 'entertainer' have name suppression give the nature of their crimes or alleged crimes.

However, I am now of the opinion that a major rewrite of our suppression laws is long overdue.

IMHO there should be automatic, full name and detail suppression in ALL cases that come before the court, if we are to have a justice system that stays true to the ideal of 'innocent until proven guilty' then you must allow that process to happen unimpeded by the court of public opinion.

I remain convinced that the reason so many people are desperate to know who has been charge with what is down to nothing more than curiosity and old fashioned nosey parkers.

Where I agree with Cameron and will always support him is in what happens post verdict, ALL those who have ben found guilty of a crime should be named, no suppression for musicians or former sportsman, no suppression for All Blacks or public servants.

Psycho Milt said...

I can't agree with this post. Breaching name suppression on someone not found to be guilty, merely because you personally think he should have been found guilty, doesn't come across to me as striking a blow for justice, it comes across as ordinary old contempt of court.

Barnsley Bill said...

Quite right PM. I feel contempt about many decisions being made in our courts over the last few years.

gravedodger said...

Bruv, I can't agree with your position as in some predator sex charges publicity can bring further evidence or victims forward that suppression will avoid.
The case above has a greater ring of truth for the peripheal witness evidence,the domestic background and position of power that would probably exist over the assaulted one by the accused.The high profile position of the aquitted one casts serious doubts on his ability to be arbiter of similar scenarios.
I do not see any evidence of trumped up charges which is a fact that supports your stand with publicity of unsubstantiated charges.
With current employment law it is too easy for people to get to responsible employment when subsequent evidence at trial exposes previous behavior that would have precluded an interview let alone a job,suspicion is rarely without valid reason.
Had this perp been a musician of very little renown he would never have had the protection that this accused's status conferred.
If all of us can attend court and know the truth as to who can and can not be named I think That to react because the internet is a more efficient tool for information transmission is wrong.
Too often name suppression usually gains a greater amount of publicity than routine court news generates.
This man's position of power is such that I for one see naming him as reasonable but I concede that WO is being bloody minded and as the post author said many of us who support his efforts can not afford the luxury of supporting him.

Anonymous said...

The surest guarantee of tolerance is a law enforcement system that stops protecting the few. GD is right.

Mr.I.P.Freely said...

Mr Slater has balls,BIG BALLS. Bigger balls than the judges who grant suppression orders. One day we might get a beak, who says the majic words (NO suppression orders granted).