« Digital harrassment remedies coming | Main | Interim injunction against EQC blogger »
Wha…?
By Steven | April 7, 2013
I confess I’m entirely befuddled by the Dominion Post’s front-page lead on Saturday, “Prosecution for breaching paedophile’s rights”. Can someone help me out here?
Isn’t the story conflating the Commission with the Office of Human Rights Proceedings, an independent office within the HRC? But why is the Office of Human Rights Proceedings bringing a “prosecution”? Does the DomPost mean a claim before the Human Rights Review Tribunal (it seems so, since it mentions the Tribunal later on)? That’s not a prosecution, which is a criminal action.
Or is it a charge that the Sensible Sentencing Trust has breached name suppression? Now, that would be a criminal prosecution, but why isn’t it being brought by the police?
If it’s a Human Rights Proceedings Office case, it sounds like a Privacy Act claim, and not a charge for breach of name suppression at all (some of the language in the story suggests it’s about the Privacy Act, though the Act gets barely a mention in the story). That would also suggest that the Privacy Commissioner has already been involved and either refused to uphold the complaint or couldn’t reach a settlement with the Sensible Sentencing Trust. That would be interesting to know.
The story suggests that the Office of Human Rights Proceedings is bringing a claim against the Sensible Sentencing Trust for posting the name and details of a man who has been convicted of child sex offences, and who may have had name suppression:
The commission says this breaches his privacy because the trust does not mention that he has name suppression.
Why would it be a breach of someone’s privacy merely not to mention that he has a name suppression order? It may be a breach of suppression laws to publish his name. It may be a breach of the Privacy Act to publish his details. But neither claim revolves around a failure to mention a suppression order. They may be about a failure to respect it.
The story suggests the OHRC is concerned that without the suppression information the publication isn’t accurate (that is, it breaches the Information Privacy Principle that information be checked for accuracy before publication). That seems a bit odd to me. I’m not sure how this omission – if that’s what it is – renders the rest of the website information inaccurate or why it’s that omission that has caused any harm.
The story suggests that perhaps there may never have been a suppression order. Did anyone ask whether suppression may have arisen by operation of the law, which automatically protects child victims and witnesses in sex cases and therefore might have the effect of protecting the convicted man, because he’s a “relative” so that naming him may inevitably give away their identity? (I don’t know the details here, but it seems an obvious question to ask).
My best guess is that the Office of Human Rights Proceedings is bringing a civil claim on behalf of a convicted sex offender against the Sensible Sentencing Trust for unlawfully disclosing personal information about his convictions on its website or for failing to take reasonable steps to ensure that its information was accurate, relevant, up-to-date and complete, and thereby causing him harm, and also for refusing him access to information it holds about him. The name suppression (if it exists) seems to be being used to support the claim that the publication was improper, but isn’t the basis of the claim.
If so, that looks like it might raise some interesting issues. But I don’t know if it is so.
Topics: Media ethics, Name suppression, Privacy Act | 51 Comments »
51 Responses to “Wha…?”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
April 9th, 2013 at 1:09 pm
“or for failing to take reasonable steps to ensure that its information was accurate, relevant, up-to-date and complete, and thereby causing him harm”
Presumably the person concerned would have to show how he has been harmed. You seem to be suggesting that harm is automatic.
April 9th, 2013 at 1:10 pm
I don’t know why you would think that, Ross, when I have written shortly before that:
“That seems a bit odd to me. I’m not sure how this omission – if that’s what it is – renders the rest of the website information inaccurate or why it’s that omission that has caused any harm.”
April 15th, 2013 at 3:55 pm
Or is it a charge that the Sensible Sentencing Trust has breached name suppression? Now, that would be a criminal prosecution, but why isn’t it being brought by the police?
Because the suppression order was made under the Criminal Justice Act, and it is no longer a criminal offence to breach such orders. Parliament repealed that offence as at 5 March 2012, and has not providing appropriate transitional provisions that would, for example, deem a CJA suppression to have been made under the Criminal Procedure Act.
If any publication in breach of a CJA suppression order occurred prior to 5 March 2012, it could still be pursued, but such a prosecution is now time-barred, the matter being purely summary, and time-limited to six months.
October 18th, 2017 at 3:11 pm
Pandora charms
Pandora charms
February 9th, 2018 at 5:07 am
cheap pandora charms jewelry
cheap pandora charms jewelry
February 16th, 2018 at 2:40 pm
cheap pandora charms jewelry sale
cheap pandora charms jewelry sale
May 21st, 2020 at 5:17 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=604 […]
June 3rd, 2020 at 6:31 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=604 […]
June 5th, 2020 at 7:39 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=604 […]
June 27th, 2020 at 12:26 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=604 […]
July 15th, 2020 at 2:05 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=604 […]
July 17th, 2020 at 12:39 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=604 […]
July 27th, 2020 at 4:06 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=604 […]
August 6th, 2020 at 12:45 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 15168 additional Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=604 […]
August 7th, 2020 at 7:36 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=604 […]
August 10th, 2020 at 6:27 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=604 […]
August 20th, 2020 at 7:19 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=604 […]
August 20th, 2020 at 12:46 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you will find 53106 additional Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=604 […]
September 1st, 2020 at 2:05 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=604 […]
September 3rd, 2020 at 2:52 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=604 […]
September 23rd, 2020 at 7:02 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=604 […]
September 29th, 2020 at 12:18 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=604 […]
October 1st, 2020 at 7:54 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Info here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=604 […]
November 6th, 2020 at 9:00 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=604 […]
November 10th, 2020 at 1:11 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=604 […]
November 10th, 2020 at 8:39 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=604 […]
November 17th, 2020 at 3:21 am
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 8911 more Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=604 […]
November 17th, 2020 at 1:17 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=604 […]
November 23rd, 2020 at 2:39 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=604 […]
November 24th, 2020 at 8:37 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you can find 53086 more Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=604 […]
December 2nd, 2020 at 10:49 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you can find 90456 additional Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=604 […]
December 11th, 2020 at 10:49 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=604 […]
December 18th, 2020 at 4:56 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=604 […]
December 22nd, 2020 at 3:36 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=604 […]
December 23rd, 2020 at 7:38 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=604 […]
January 7th, 2021 at 1:14 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=604 […]
February 20th, 2021 at 11:53 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=604 […]
March 23rd, 2021 at 12:23 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=604 […]
March 27th, 2021 at 12:27 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=604 […]
April 20th, 2021 at 7:18 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=604 […]
April 28th, 2021 at 11:39 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you can find 75201 additional Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=604 […]
May 11th, 2021 at 7:45 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=604 […]
May 21st, 2021 at 9:23 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=604 […]
June 12th, 2021 at 9:47 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=604 […]
June 27th, 2021 at 12:41 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=604 […]
June 29th, 2021 at 5:06 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=604 […]
July 24th, 2021 at 3:08 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 61821 more Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=604 […]
August 10th, 2021 at 9:51 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=604 […]
August 24th, 2021 at 9:29 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=604 […]
October 24th, 2021 at 11:32 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you will find 70966 more Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=604 […]
October 31st, 2021 at 4:22 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=604 […]