The Criminal Proceudre Act 2011 mandates suppression of the name of a defendant in sexual cases where naming the defendant may identify the complainant who automatically has suppression. It is solely for the protection of the complainant who may, in certain circumstances, waive the suppression order. See Criminal Procedure Act s. 201(3) and (4). It is a highly nuanced area of the law and you have correctly understood the ramifications and the difficulties.
Thank you for your comments as always, David. When I looked into a certain case that surfaced this week, it became clear that naming the alleged offender would have had a devastating impact on the alleged victim.
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.
Good afternoon Katrina, finally got on my lunch break! In the case of the wealthy businessman, I believe he should have been named. His victims were online, mostly overseas, and likely never identified individually during the trial. They were reduced to subjects in his vast child exploitation material. In my view, he deserved no protection.
However, in a new case, I believe name suppression is necessary to protect the alleged victims. If the offender were identified, it would expose exactly what those victims endured.
Hi John, I can’t explain exactly why I’ve changed my view on suppression, but something in the last couple of days shifted my thinking. I can’t discuss the details due to a suppression order.
I think Matua means generally speaking name suppression should be used in guilty cases if publication of the offender's name could result in the victim/s being identified.
But that in the case of the wealthy businessman, he still believes name suppression should not apply. (Though he'll correct me if I have misunderstood!)
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.
Thanks, Mike. A recent case has really made me reconsider my stance.
The Criminal Proceudre Act 2011 mandates suppression of the name of a defendant in sexual cases where naming the defendant may identify the complainant who automatically has suppression. It is solely for the protection of the complainant who may, in certain circumstances, waive the suppression order. See Criminal Procedure Act s. 201(3) and (4). It is a highly nuanced area of the law and you have correctly understood the ramifications and the difficulties.
Thank you for your comments as always, David. When I looked into a certain case that surfaced this week, it became clear that naming the alleged offender would have had a devastating impact on the alleged victim.
Great to see you can modify your stance on reflection…sign of healthy human
Thanks Skarlett, hope you're well.
Yip hanging in there
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.
Good afternoon Katrina, finally got on my lunch break! In the case of the wealthy businessman, I believe he should have been named. His victims were online, mostly overseas, and likely never identified individually during the trial. They were reduced to subjects in his vast child exploitation material. In my view, he deserved no protection.
However, in a new case, I believe name suppression is necessary to protect the alleged victims. If the offender were identified, it would expose exactly what those victims endured.
You're using your lunch break very productively Matua!
Ok great, that clarifies your stance - and I'm 100% of the same view.
I think it appalling that that wealthy businessman case has resulted in name suppression, given victims were likely not identified.
I am not sure why Matua did a u turn on his thoughts on this case.
Should this not say “in order to protect the identity of the family name"?? would be the only reason for suppression
Hi John, I can’t explain exactly why I’ve changed my view on suppression, but something in the last couple of days shifted my thinking. I can’t discuss the details due to a suppression order.
Hi John,
I think Matua means generally speaking name suppression should be used in guilty cases if publication of the offender's name could result in the victim/s being identified.
But that in the case of the wealthy businessman, he still believes name suppression should not apply. (Though he'll correct me if I have misunderstood!)
Nothing is black & white!
Ain't that the truth!