Is there any point to suppression orders?

Forums › Off topic › Is there any point to suppression orders?

1 | 2

k1wi

484 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 111

#1686778 13-Dec-2016 02:37

While it is often trivial for interested/curious people to figure out with reasonable accuracy who the person with name suppression is, we should also consider its reduction in impact.

While suppression might be pointless at keeping everyone from knowing the identity of the individuals involved, it is still very effective at keeping the identity out of the news media. In this regard, it is very effective at avoiding wall-to-wall, blanket 24x7 coverage of the individuals, which media organizations tend to run during high profile cases. Such coverage could have serious effects for victims or the accused, if found innocent or otherwise*. I would argue that we should measure it's pointlessness on these parameters, rather than it's absolute watertightness.

*After all, media organizations tend to use 'allegedly' left right and center, in order to say whatever they want.

dickytim

2514 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 537
Inactive user

#1686803 13-Dec-2016 06:32

Pumpedd:

I am strongly opposed to suppression orders of people who are so called celebrities. What gives them any the right to an exemption that "normal" people are not entitled to? They have been arrested for criminal acts and are in a court room to either prove themselves innocent or be made guilty. They are simply hiding behind a suppression order so that they may protect family/career that all "charged" people have. Seems to be some kind of racism to me, unless of course there is a legitimate reason eg to protect children etc.

Yet if proven completely innocent the stigma of what has happened will remain for a very long time.

Unfortunately now more than even suppression orders make more sense with how quickly stories spread be they true or ridiculous lies.

Your assertion is that the celebrity should have avoided being arrested, if they are innocent how does that work?

Linuxluver

5833 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1639

Trusted

Subscriber

#1686818 13-Dec-2016 08:32

Rikkitic:

I was checking the RNZ bulletins and happened to notice an item about the suspension of a celebrity trial. The circumstances were unusual enough to make me want to read the brief item. What piqued my curiosity was not the allegations themselves, but the complete and total suppression of everything having to do with the individual and even the reasons for stopping the current trial. Even by the usual standards here, this seemed a little over the top.

It was enough to make me want to look further, and in less than 10 minutes of fairly casual Googling I had a pretty good idea who the person was. In fact, I am certain I know, I just can’t prove it at this moment.

What interests me about this is not the identity of the individual, or the nature of the allegations. As an immigrant with little knowledge of NZ television culture, I had no idea who the person was even after I knew the name, though others would probably recognise it.

What does interest me, and what makes this relevant to Geekzone, is how easy current communications technology makes it it for anyone, even an outsider, to learn the details of almost any suppressed court process. I doubt the judges who issue suppression orders fully appreciate this and when they finally do, I wonder what effect that may have.

I was able to learn what I needed to know to identify the person within just a few minutes by skimming a couple of social media sites where the matter was being discussed. This not only gave me some useful clues, but even instructions on how and where to apply them. Yet I am fairly certain nothing that was said on any of those message boards would have constituted a violation of the suppression orders. Everything mentioned was already public knowledge. Nothing directly gave it away.

Suppression orders seem to make up a significant part of New Zealand jurisprudence. They are supposed to help to ensure fair justice and the protection of the innocent. However, I think far too much faith is placed in them. Anyone who wants to can easily find out who the subject of any suppression order is. So what is the point of them? What protection do they offer other than a false sense of security? I think the justice system here needs to accept that these don’t work anymore and that something else is required.

Suppression orders are there to protect people who may be seriously harmed if it is later found they are wrongly accused of something. They are generally effective. Most people won't know who the person concerned is, and if anyone who does know says so within the borders of NZ's legal jurisdiction they risk being swiftly dealt with. Judges are very aware of the limitations, which is why they generally do move quickly to swat down anyone who breaches such an order in New Zealand.

I think they are essential. Otherwise, anyone with an axe to grind can accuse a person who works in an area where reputation is important of whatever......and the harm is done and the victim has no recourse and is very unlikely to win any useful compensation for the harm done.

Adding: It's an extension of the basic legal concept of presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Why should someone be harmed merely because they have been accused? Let the harm begin when the case against them is found to be valid. But if it isn't valid, then it very unfair to have their lives / careers / reputations potentially destroyed - perhaps maliciously - by a baseless accusation.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 887
Inactive user

#1686901 13-Dec-2016 10:16

Linuxluver:

Rikkitic:

I was checking the RNZ bulletins and happened to notice an item about the suspension of a celebrity trial. The circumstances were unusual enough to make me want to read the brief item. What piqued my curiosity was not the allegations themselves, but the complete and total suppression of everything having to do with the individual and even the reasons for stopping the current trial. Even by the usual standards here, this seemed a little over the top.

It was enough to make me want to look further, and in less than 10 minutes of fairly casual Googling I had a pretty good idea who the person was. In fact, I am certain I know, I just can’t prove it at this moment.

What interests me about this is not the identity of the individual, or the nature of the allegations. As an immigrant with little knowledge of NZ television culture, I had no idea who the person was even after I knew the name, though others would probably recognise it.

What does interest me, and what makes this relevant to Geekzone, is how easy current communications technology makes it it for anyone, even an outsider, to learn the details of almost any suppressed court process. I doubt the judges who issue suppression orders fully appreciate this and when they finally do, I wonder what effect that may have.

I was able to learn what I needed to know to identify the person within just a few minutes by skimming a couple of social media sites where the matter was being discussed. This not only gave me some useful clues, but even instructions on how and where to apply them. Yet I am fairly certain nothing that was said on any of those message boards would have constituted a violation of the suppression orders. Everything mentioned was already public knowledge. Nothing directly gave it away.

Suppression orders seem to make up a significant part of New Zealand jurisprudence. They are supposed to help to ensure fair justice and the protection of the innocent. However, I think far too much faith is placed in them. Anyone who wants to can easily find out who the subject of any suppression order is. So what is the point of them? What protection do they offer other than a false sense of security? I think the justice system here needs to accept that these don’t work anymore and that something else is required.

Suppression orders are there to protect people who may be seriously harmed if it is later found they are wrongly accused of something. They are generally effective. Most people won't know who the person concerned is, and if anyone who does know says so within the borders of NZ's legal jurisdiction they risk being swiftly dealt with. Judges are very aware of the limitations, which is why they generally do move quickly to swat down anyone who breaches such an order in New Zealand.

I think they are essential. Otherwise, anyone with an axe to grind can accuse a person who works in an area where reputation is important of whatever......and the harm is done and the victim has no recourse and is very unlikely to win any useful compensation for the harm done.

Adding: It's an extension of the basic legal concept of presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Why should someone be harmed merely because they have been accused? Let the harm begin when the case against them is found to be valid. But if it isn't valid, then it very unfair to have their lives / careers / reputations potentially destroyed - perhaps maliciously - by a baseless accusation.

Anyone is seriously harmed if falsely accused of something. Just because you have a job on television does not make you any the more special, it just mean you are more likely to be able to afford a better defense.

doublek69

36 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 16

#1686951 13-Dec-2016 10:44

I'm not sure if anyone has covered this so far, but you can also be found to breach suppression orders by providing clues or directing people around where to look to find the answer. An example would be someone called say "Rodger Taylor". Someone them posts clues around "the best 80's James Bond - we just wanted to see him in MORE movies" and "the guy you go to see to get a new suit made".

Someone makes the wrong deductions and ends up blaming someone called Timothy Hallenstein....

gzt

18684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7824

Lifetime subscriber

#1689059 15-Dec-2016 08:03

Interesting case here:

http://i.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/85735600/christchurchs-dr-rakesh-chawdhry-named-as-professional-facing-sex-charges

Stuff previously reported on the allegations made to the medical council prior to name supression. That report caused several more allegations to come forward.

With name supression in place, this could not have happened.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 887
Inactive user

#1691499 17-Dec-2016 18:36

and another example..todays NZ herald

A legal expert has questioned the name suppression granted to a millionaire businessman who pleaded guilty to possessing cocaine.

The Aucklander, who had admitted buying 112g of the Class A drug, was fined $1000.

Judge Russell Collins yesterday ordered permanent suppression of the man's name, occupation and company.

blakamin

4431 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1306
Inactive user

#1691501 17-Dec-2016 18:56

Geektastic:

The opposite is the case in the UK - suppression as of right such as we have here does not exist unless you are the female victim of a crime such as rape or indecent assault.

The man charged will be named from the moment he is arrested and his life ruined even if he is found not guilty, he will suffer what we might call the Blain Effect.

Personally I think the NZ system works well aside from the fact that if someone publishes suppressed names on a server based in Estonia or somewhere, there would be sweet FA the judge in, say, New Plymouth could do about it!

Australia is another place with very rare suppression unless it's a victim or an accused minor.

Considering celebs in NZ nearly always get suppression, and your random garden variety "crim" gets named on TV, I find it unfair. When the random gets off, do TV stations and newspapers apologise? Yeah, right.

And if anyone can get suppression, it just shows that justice isn't for everyone, it all depends on the size of your wallet.

Linuxluver:

Why should someone be harmed merely because they have been accused?

That happens daily for most people.

Innocent until proven guilty*

*results may vary, see a more expensive lawyer for clarification

elpenguino

3577 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2939

#1691604 17-Dec-2016 23:17

Lets for argument's sake assume suppression is good for people until proven guilty,

How do you feel about 'celebs' who obtain a suppression order AFTER being found guilty ?

Or the current case of the millionaire who likes to sniff a bit of white powder? There's no victim to protect in that case.

Personally i feel if you benefit well from a positive public profile and then offend in a publicly unacceptable way, the loss of some of your reputation is the price you have to pay.

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21

DarthKermit

5346 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3317

Trusted

#1691630 18-Dec-2016 08:52

That my friends is the difference between some millionaire having a several thousand dollars an hour QC representing him and Joe average having court appointed legal aid.

1 | 2