As most of my readers know, I have long opposed blanket name suppression. In my view, it is justified in certain circumstances. Before trial, it protects the defendant’s right to a fair hearing. After trial, if the person is found not guilty, suppression may also be appropriate. Once someone is convicted, it is fair game. The public deserves to know who the guilty party is. Name and shame. Go for it.
Or at least, that is what I thought.
Lately, I have been rethinking that stance. There are cases where permanent name suppression is not only reasonable but necessary, particularly to protect vulnerable children.
Take, for example, sexual assault perpetrated against a child by a family member. I know some people will instinctively say, “Name the scumbag!” But doing so can put the victim in serious danger. Even in extreme cases, such as incestuous rape where a mother might be in a sexual relationship with her underage son and he ends up getting her pregnant. There are compelling reasons for name suppression. Protecting the innocent is more important than satisfying our urge for outrage.
Writing about this makes me feel sick. A few weeks ago, I wrote about my anger over another use of name suppression. This time it was granted to a man who donated a generous $50,000 to charity and came from a wealthy family. You can read that article here:
Justice for sale
New Zealand should be disgusted. A 46-year-old member of a wealthy family has been convicted of possessing and importing over 11,000 files of child sexual abuse material, including videos of toddlers being tortured, children being urinated on, and sadistic sexual acts involving pre-pubescent girls. Despite the seriousness of these crimes, their identity…
It is striking how quickly perspectives can shift. Protecting children and the most vulnerable sometimes outweighs our desire to expose criminals. In the end, justice is not always about public shaming. It is about doing the right thing for those who cannot protect themselves.
It's good that you can be humble and open enough to examine your own point of view. The right thing to do isn't always the easy thing to do.
I agree with you when naming the defendant may identify the victim, then name suppression should apply. Absolutely.
Was that the situation in the case you wrote about of the man who donated $50,000 to charity and came from a wealthy family? Shouldn’t they say “in order to protect the identity of the victim/s, name suppression is granted”? Rather than just applying name suppression but not saying why they are applying it.
I just don’t entirely trust the courts at times … especially when $ and wealthy offenders are in play.