« The Palmerston North name suppression decision | Main | PN suppression: missed angle? »
PN Name suppression decision considered
By Steven | February 17, 2010
I 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 crime the jurisdiction has to be exercised with the utmost caution.
and
… anguish to the innocent family of an offender is an inevitable result of many convictions for serious crime. Only in an extraordinary case could it outweigh, in relation to the reporting of the name of a person convicted of a serious crime, the general principle of open justice and the open reporting of justice.
This case can fairly be described as serious crime, as the judge accepted. It has a maximum penalty of 10 years in jail. The defendant had thousands of images of girls in explicit sexual poses, and had on one occasion distributed nine of them. He was therefore complicit in the abuse of children. What’s more, he didn’t display any concern for the children in the photos, and how they were exploited. He was sentenced to four months of home detention, during which he was barred from owning or using a computer without permission from the parole officer.
The judge accepted that the public have an interest in knowning of this man’s character, particularly as he is a professional person. How, then, could he justify a name suppression order?
Here are the factors that led to his sentencing and suppression decision. If you want to criticise the suppression then you’re saying you disagree that these factors amount to extraordinary circumstances. As I’ve said, I don’t think they get there. But I can understand why he thinks they do. Anyone fairly reporting this decision really should mention them. Hardly anyone has. Outraged media, this means you.
1. He was abused and neglected in his childhood.
2. It seems he attempted suicide. A psychiatrist said he is still a suicide risk, and that the risk would be “greatly increased” if he were named publicly.
3. He had a clinical addiction to the images. He is in treatment for it. That treatment would be jeopardised by publicity.
4. He had a series of glowing references, from people who now knew about the offending, saying he was a “particularly contientious, intelligent, responsible family man”.
5. He lost his employment and his professional practising certificate. He may be de-registered from his profession. He has lost his income.
6. Publicity might destroy his marriage and cause his wife to lose her job.
7. He has two children who would also be badly affected by publicity.
8. The psychiatric evidence was that he posed no risk to children. The judge concluded that naming him was not going to help flush out other potential offending he’d done, or help keep people safe.
9. He did not look at the vast majority of the images. They images were at the low end of the objectionable-image scale (I assume this means they were pictures of children who were naked and in sexualised poses, but not being actively abused beyond the abuse inherent in such pictures).
10. The evidence was (quite rightly, as it’s turned out) that there was likely to be high media interest in the case, which would intensify the damage from his naming.
These are hard calls. I wouldn’t want to be making them.
Topics: Media ethics, Name suppression | Comments Off on PN Name suppression decision considered