Name suppression protects the powerful

Not the public

There is a growing problem in New Zealand with name suppression, and a recent case highlights just how broken the system has become.

The National Business Review reported that a member of a wealthy family was convicted of possessing and importing child sex abuse material. Despite the seriousness of the offending, the offender’s name, their family’s name, and the high-profile company associated with them were all granted permanent suppression. In the Auckland District Court, Judge Maria Pecotic sentenced the individual to two years and five months in prison.

The only detail released was that the person is 46 years old. Their gender was not even disclosed. This vacuum of information has sent social media into overdrive, with users on X, Facebook and Reddit frantically speculating about the identity of the offender. The guessing games have been relentless, and inevitably, innocent people get dragged into the mess.

This is where the real problem lies. Suppression might be defensible before trial, or in cases where a defendant is acquitted. However, once someone is found guilty of crimes as serious as importing child abuse material, the public has a right to know who they are.

I do not want to unknowingly conduct business or form personal relationships with someone who had more than 10,000 child exploitation images on their devices. Without a name, there is no way to know. The only legal avenue would be a criminal record check through the Ministry of Justice, but that requires the offender’s consent, something they are hardly likely to give.

The reality is that name suppression often serves to protect reputations and business interests of the wealthy, rather than the safety of the community. If we are serious about protecting the public and upholding trust in the justice system, then suppression orders should end at the point of conviction.