Wanaka Escapees - name suppression

Forums › Off topic › Wanaka Escapees - name suppression

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 15

8869 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9554

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#2778388 14-Sep-2021 18:21

networkn:

This whole trial by social media thing is silly.

You're not wrong, but ... well, I really feel like they have it coming this time.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15468

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2778391 14-Sep-2021 18:27

People forget that in most cases name suppression is about not as much protecting those people who committed the crime, but protecting those associated with them who are innocent or protecting the identity of those associated who may have been victims.

There will always be those who can game the system.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2778394 14-Sep-2021 18:31

networkn:

What could they say that would satisfy you? Ultimately, regardless of whether it's true or not, you'd pretty much expect the same phrases.

Some people are dicks and never learn, others learn from their mistakes. Both would likely say the same thing. You can't tar people with a brush without knowledge of the longer-term outcome.

Actions speak louder than words. You cannot blame people for tarring others as this is so common. All good until caught. In sport it's rife. They can be racist, mysoginistic and a PR based response is fine. It isn't. For many but not all, the pain is they got caught.

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9681

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2778395 14-Sep-2021 18:34

networkn:

People forget that in most cases name suppression is about not as much protecting those people who committed the crime, but protecting those associated with them who are innocent or protecting the identity of those associated who may have been victims.

That isn't the case here. Being unhappy at the most advantaged in society getting access to name suppression is reasonable.

Lias

5655 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3978

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2778397 14-Sep-2021 18:38

networkn:

So long as the judge doesn't treat them any differently than they would any other citizen

And therein lies the problem.....

I'm a geek, a gamer, a dad, a Quic user, and an IT Professional. I have a full rack home lab, size 15 feet, an epic beard and Asperger's. I'm a bit of a Cypherpunk, who believes information wants to be free and the Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. If you use my Quic signup you can also use the code R570394EKGIZ8 for free setup. Opinions are my own and not the views of my employer.

snnet

1413 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 556

#2778399 14-Sep-2021 18:40

Now there's some article from the guy's friend saying he's a good guy and made a mistake and didn't think this reaction would be received blah blah blah. I don't condone bullying or death threats but come on. This sort of thing has happened before and the reaction has been the same.

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2778400 14-Sep-2021 18:41

Handle9:

networkn:

People forget that in most cases name suppression is about not as much protecting those people who committed the crime, but protecting those associated with them who are innocent or protecting the identity of those associated who may have been victims.

That isn't the case here. Being unhappy at the most advantaged in society getting access to name suppression is reasonable.

Is asking for name suppression prior to conviction a massive cost? We all here know the outcome, guilty as sin, but like everyone else, they have the right to privacy until they are found guilty. Suppression after that is my issue, not before.

antonknee

1133 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1145

#2778401 14-Sep-2021 18:50

On name suppression generally, I believe you should get it by default until found guilty of a crime. Lots of reasons for this.

For these two specifically, again supportive of it until they're found guilty - however I personally think they should front up and admit what they did was wrong and apologise. Half the vitriol they are getting is because they're trying to hide it away and sweep it under the rug, and attempting to use family connections to the legal system to achieve this.

Doing what they did is bad enough, but hiring a QC and immediately going into hiding with their businesses etc is showing they don't have any remorse and only care about their images.

antonknee

1133 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1145

#2778404 14-Sep-2021 18:55

Oh and also, I don't buy the story about "undue hardship" for people connected to these alleged criminals, or "extreme hardship for them".

He and the mother run a business where this sort of stuff doesn't matter - they're already well connected, and a conviction or being known in public won't change that.

The girlfriend is in a career where a conviction would significantly impact on her, so you could argue for some leniency there I guess (but honestly actions have consequences).

The mother is in a particular position which does come with great responsibility - but her name being associated with this does not impact on her ability to do that role properly, and she's got prior history of her own which sort of proves it won't be an issue.

These people should not get permanent name suppression - can't see a good reason for it at all.

JaseNZ

2576 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1489

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#2778405 14-Sep-2021 19:00

I agree that the law itself needs to be reviewed and update, It's not fit for purpose if the wealthy are able to abuse it.

If I were them though I would just come clean , People would see the names and move on to the next piece of news.

I personally would like to see some jail time as this was a calculated break of the rules.

Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding : Ice cream man , Ice cream man

scottjpalmer

6032 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 790

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2778406 14-Sep-2021 19:01

They've just apologised and been named, 1 News Breaking News.

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

antonknee

1133 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1145

#2778407 14-Sep-2021 19:02

And the suppression order lapsed at 7pm - so the cat is out of the bag.

Stuff: William John Lawrence Willis, 35, and Hannah Rawnsley, 26, a lawyer, are set to be charged with breaching the Covid-19 Public Health Response Act over police claims they crossed the Auckland border unlawfully using essential worker exemptions last Thursday.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2778408 14-Sep-2021 19:02

antonknee:

On name suppression generally, I believe you should get it by default until found guilty of a crime. Lots of reasons for this.

For these two specifically, again supportive of it until they're found guilty - however I personally think they should front up and admit what they did was wrong and apologise. Half the vitriol they are getting is because they're trying to hide it away and sweep it under the rug, and attempting to use family connections to the legal system to achieve this.

Doing what they did is bad enough, but hiring a QC and immediately going into hiding with their businesses etc is showing they don't have any remorse and only care about their images.

Agree. They could front up, a good PR move. If they choose to use the legal system, Rule of Law, innocent till proven guilty, there s no issue. What your suggesting is a better way to smooth the edges. Better to admit you are wrong than be found wrong, thats their choice. And the end game will show that. Now, if they are found guilty, and applied for suppression and got it, thats a whole other story.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2778411 14-Sep-2021 19:04

antonknee:

And the suppression order lapsed at 7pm - so the cat is out of the bag.

'irresponsible and inexcusable' actions

LOL. Thats was a quick lapsing? Cat out of the bag, no remorse, so they will now take the heat due to no remorse.

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15468

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2778413 14-Sep-2021 19:06

Lias:

networkn:

So long as the judge doesn't treat them any differently than they would any other citizen

And therein lies the problem.....

That is yet to be determined. You'll never know unless the decision and the reason behind their sentencing is made public.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 15