Justice No Longer Blind, But Partial

Taking Care of One's Own

In New Zealand we allow judges to suppress the names of convicted offenders and their victims.  Originally this was introduced to allow the court discretion to protect victim(s) and their families.  Within a short space of time it has morphed into something quite degraded, if not sinister.  Certain judges have taken it upon themselves to decide whether the penalty of the public knowing the name of a convicted criminal would be unduly severe because they were "important" people.

What sort of people would be so regarded, we hear you ask?  Well, celebrities for one.  They would suffer too much harm from having their names and guilt disclosed, so they have been granted name suppression.  You know, upstanding, important folk like Rolf Harris.  Once name suppression has been granted, to mention their names in public, whether on a blog, or in the media, or at a social gathering risks the ire of the court.  Then there are sports people who are professionals and therefore in the public eye.  They too deserve name suppression.  Then there are pollies, well-connected people, "pillars" of the community--all these  in the calculus of some justices apparently deserve name suppression and having their guilt and offending kept secret.

One gets the distinct impression that these perverse elitist justices think that all whom they regard as their peers ought to enjoy such protection.
  But as for common garden, everyday criminals that's another story.  These brown-skinned, low-lifes don't have any public standing or reputation to protect.  They are not like us.  They deserve everything they get.

We have just witnessed an additional perversity.  Some of these cosseted protected criminal aristocrats brazenly use their court ordered anonymity to advance their careers and to provide opportunity for further criminal offending.  Once again, think "Rolf Harris" and "Jimmy Saville".  Rodney Hide details the case of one such.

I was wrong when I claimed that leading politicians knew the name of the "prominent" New Zealander hiding behind name suppression. David Cunliffe did not.  The Labour leader has met the sex predator. "If I had known of the suggestion [that the man was a sex predator hiding behind name suppression], no such meeting would have taken place." I am sure that's true.

The meeting highlights two key points. First, there's no shaming without naming. The offender remains brazen and without remorse. He happily and openly met the Leader of the Opposition who had just loudly and boldly spoken out against sexual violence.

You think he would be too ashamed. But no. Name suppression thwarts justice because the offender has never had to own up. He can carry on like nothing happened. He can have a joke and a laugh with the leader of the Labour Party exactly as if he had never performed an indecent act on a woman in her own home. Oh that his victim could just share a joke, have a laugh, or meet the leader of the Labour Party.

Second, the meeting highlights the danger to which name suppression exposes women.

The sex predator's prominence is such that Cunliffe was attracted to meet him. Knowing the sex pest's background and history it's easy to see why. We are all attracted to and flattered by the attention of "prominent" men.  And so, blithely unaware of the man's offending, Cunliffe met him. The result was a slight political embarrassment.

But consider the danger the man poses to women. If Cunliffe with his campaign staff and parliamentary resources - and his ear to the ground - didn't know of the man's attack, what chance have the rest of us? And women can be just as easily attracted and flattered to meeting a "prominent" man as was Cunliffe. But they are at risk of far more than political embarrassment. We drop our guard with "prominent" people. We expect them to be better than that. We feel as if we know them and that we can trust them, just like we felt we knew and could trust Rolf Harris.

We have a sex offender in our midst. He has not been shamed. He has no remorse. His prominence makes him attractive for women to pass time with. Name suppression means they don't know to be wary. His "prominence" means women drop their guard.

Does anyone other than the offender have a responsibility should he offend again? The judge who felt the poor man had suffered "a bit of a cross" by being prosecuted? Our MPs for their silence and name suppression laws?

What would we say to his victim if he attacks again? And, ask yourself, what's the culture in New Zealand that your answers imply? [NZ Herald]

We would suggest one small amendment to the law allowing judges to order name suppression for convicted criminals: if the anonymous criminal were to re-offend, and the offence were deemed to have been enabled or facilitated by their court-awarded name suppression, then the judge concerned must be charged with aiding and abetting a criminal offence.  That would clean up a nasty little judicial mess that our politicians and elitist judges have created, very quickly no doubt.