TV 1 and the Grace Millane Trial - WAY OVER THE TOP ❗️

Forums › Off topic › TV 1 and the Grace Millane Trial - WAY OVER THE TOP ❗️

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ... | 13

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16317

Lifetime subscriber

#2359955 24-Nov-2019 08:59

Since everyone is speculating, it is not impossible that the cops picked up hints of other things while investigating this one, and those may still be in the process of being investigated. Hence the caution to protect the rights of the suspect.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

old3eyes

9158 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1364

Subscriber

#2359957 24-Nov-2019 09:01

Here's an article on Stuff about NZ's ridiculousness name suppression laws https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/117058919/name-suppression-how-the-uniquely-kiwi-hush-hush-policy-became-law-and-morphed-over-a-century

There was another article as well which indicated that NZ and a couple of Ozzy states were the only places in the world with this sort of name repression laws but I can't find it or the one above has been re-edited and had the info removed.

Regards,

Old3eyes

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16317

Lifetime subscriber

#2359967 24-Nov-2019 09:20

Name suppression is ridiculous in today's world but it probably worked pretty well when the only way to get to New Zealand was by boat and the only channels of communication were newspapers.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

GV27

5977 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2360106 24-Nov-2019 14:41

eracode:

Why do you say it’s ‘fairly certain’? Just because that’s a possible reason for continuing suppression or do you know something more specific?

Something was reported at the start of the trial which has not been repeated since, presumably as it could be considered prejudicial to something.

bmt

574 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 227

#2360183 24-Nov-2019 20:15

There was an article today about a number of witnesses who did not end up giving evidence after the defence lawyers objected due x reasons (I forget off the top of my head). The right to a fair trial trumps all, and there are some things which would jeopardize that. In this case name suppression is required in the interests of justice.

Note that juror's are screened for pre-existing knowledge of trial factors, and in some cases a lack of name suppression would make it very difficult to find 12 jurors without pre-existing knowledge which may lead to bias.

One day the name suppression will lapse and the reasons for the name suppression will become clear.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16317

Lifetime subscriber

#2360367 25-Nov-2019 10:51

Moves are underway to get other countries to respect New Zealand suppression orders. I have no problem with this in cases like this one. I have a big problem when 'celebrities' or other public figures abuse suppression orders with accommodating judges to protect themselves from unfavourable publicity. There have been many cases of this in the past, at least some of which can only be described as 'class justice'. Some judges seem awestruck by defendants who play rugby or have tons of money and these people get permanent name suppression where ordinary losers don't have a hope. I know who some of these privileged perps are and at least some of them got name suppression for no other reason than that they were rich or famous. If suppression orders are to be enforced internationally, there needs to be a concurrent obligation on the part of judges, subject to review, to only grant suppression orders in exceptional circumstances.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Geekzone support

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

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2360373 25-Nov-2019 11:03

bmt:

There was an article today about a number of witnesses who did not end up giving evidence after the defence lawyers objected due x reasons (I forget off the top of my head). The right to a fair trial trumps all, and there are some things which would jeopardize that. In this case name suppression is required in the interests of justice.

Note that juror's are screened for pre-existing knowledge of trial factors, and in some cases a lack of name suppression would make it very difficult to find 12 jurors without pre-existing knowledge which may lead to bias.

One day the name suppression will lapse and the reasons for the name suppression will become clear.

I think that was as he gives up on relationships easily or gets insecure. Something like that. Thats hardly a key piece of evidence, it applies no doubt to many people

MurrayM

2502 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 742

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2360387 25-Nov-2019 11:30

Doesn't the UK have name suppression laws too? Called super-injunctions or something? I seem to remember a bunch of celebrities getting them granted a few years ago.

old3eyes

9158 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1364

Subscriber

#2360500 25-Nov-2019 15:03

MurrayM:

Doesn't the UK have name suppression laws too? Called super-injunctions or something? I seem to remember a bunch of celebrities getting them granted a few years ago.

Not according to an article in Stuff when this case started.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/117026307/grace-millane-murder-trial-accuseds-name-suppressed-but-british-readers-know-his-identity

LOOKING OVERSEAS

New Zealand inherited much of its criminal legislation from the British in the twentieth century but our approach to name suppression is an exception.

Defendants in Britain can't get name suppression.

While there is something called a "super-injunction" that prevents media reporting, they are often reserved for salacious celebrity stories and designed to protect privacy, rather than hiding criminal charges.

In Australia, the suppression laws vary between states. New South Wales closely follows the English model, while Victoria is similar to New Zealand.

Regards,

Old3eyes

JaseNZ

2576 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1489

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#2360528 25-Nov-2019 15:39

Our suppression orders are a joke handed out to those who can afford them pretty much.

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

MurrayM

2502 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 742

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2360533 25-Nov-2019 15:55

old3eyes:

MurrayM:

Doesn't the UK have name suppression laws too? Called super-injunctions or something? I seem to remember a bunch of celebrities getting them granted a few years ago.

Not according to an article in Stuff when this case started.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/117026307/grace-millane-murder-trial-accuseds-name-suppressed-but-british-readers-know-his-identity

"

LOOKING OVERSEAS

Defendants in Britain can't get name suppression.

While there is something called a "super-injunction" that prevents media reporting, they are often reserved for salacious celebrity stories and designed to protect privacy, rather than hiding criminal charges.

According to Wikipedia.org the super-injunctions are sometimes used for murder trials:

A gag order, or anonymity order, is sometimes issued by courts in the United Kingdom to protect privacy, prevent harm to suspects, prisoners, witnesses, victims, or to protect national security. In the Allan Chappelow murder case, the trial was held mostly in camera and media were prevented from speculating on the case. The order was imposed after a "compelling case" made by prosecutors, despite overwhelming media opposition brought by a legal challenge to the ruling. This criminal case has been thought to be the first in which a gagging order was imposed.

According to WikiLeaks, "the Guardian [has] been served with 10 secret gag orders —so-called 'super-injunctions'— [between January and September 2009]. In 2008, the paper was served with six. In 2007, five."

In 2011, gagging orders that applied to themselves, or "super-injunctions" as they were called, were being referred to almost daily in the United Kingdom after a number of high-profile public figures, including celebrities and politicians, censored the British media from revealing information about their personal lives, such as affairs and dealings with prostitutes.

Gag orders protecting the privacy of convicted child murderers such as Mary Bell, Jon Venables and David McGreavy, in order to protect them from revenge attacks, have also been controversial because of public concerns about the inability to avoid such persons and protect victims' families and other children from being harmed by them.

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

vexxxboy

4339 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2074

#2360537 25-Nov-2019 16:06

name suppression is to protect the Innocent not the guilty.

Common sense is not as common as you think.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16317

Lifetime subscriber

#2360548 25-Nov-2019 16:23

In The Netherlands defendants are usually not fully identified in the media, only referred to by first name and last initial.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

elpenguino

3577 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2939

#2360616 25-Nov-2019 19:56

Rikkitic:

Since everyone is speculating, it is not impossible that the cops picked up hints of other things while investigating this one, and those may still be in the process of being investigated. Hence the caution to protect the rights of the suspect.

I happen to be abroad right now and Ive had a google round and theres no sniff of anything in relation to outstanding charges, related parties etc etc.

Even stories written early in December dont contain any mentions .

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

gzt

18685 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7826

Lifetime subscriber

#2360649 25-Nov-2019 21:48

The Herald published an article on this topic today:

NZHerald: During the Grace Millane case, Justice Moore had in March, however, allowed media to report that continued name suppression was "because I am satisfied that publication of the defendant's name would create a real risk of prejudice to the defendant's fair trial rights".

Which could mean anything...

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ... | 13