Darren Hughes and the unnamed 18 year old

It has been widely reported that MP Darren Hughes is the subject of a complaint by an 18-year old. What is not so widely reported, is who this man is. Here’s what we know from the media:

He is 18.
He went to a [deleted - as a half decent google search will assist in revealing this mans name ] high school.
He was a debater – and was at a debate the previous night at Victoria, where Darren Hughes was a participant.
He has an interest in politics – although not affiliated to a political party.
He now lives and goes to university in Wellington.
He was a youth MP for a Labour List MP in 2010. That MP was not Darren Hughes.

Now,[deleted] thanks to the media, it is not too hard to find out who this person is. I have been told of a few other relevant facts that have not been revealed in the media. Also, the the more people come out and say it's not them, the easier it is to narrow down possibilities.

I thought I'd update this post. While all of the above is in the public domain, there is also a recent case where a comedian has had his name suppressed after pleading guilty to an indecency charge.Apparently his guilty plea on a lesser charge was to reduce his sentence, after initially being charged with unlawful sexual connection.

Many think his name should not be suppressed. I agree if the revelation of his name would not identify the victim. But as certain details relating to the case have not been suppressed, later revelation of his name could identify the victim.

If the courts and the media were a little more careful about what facts should be revealed, perhaps this name suppression could have been interim, not permanent, and the name of the 18-year old may not have been so easy to find.

More about →

Name suppression: what a stupid decision

Margo McAuley may well have been a popular real estate agent who committed suicide, but her inquest has been reported by the Dominion Post – I believe, purely because her husband is now married to a celebrity that we are not allowed to name.

Her name has been suppressed. I’ve met this celebrity and she’s a good sort. She`ll be less than impressed that her name is suppressed. There was absolutely no reason why the court should suppress her name . If it is all over the Internet, why suppress the name. Just because she is well- known? Stupid.

More about →

Was this a dodgy name suppression order?

I’m no lawyer, but I think that the stated reasons from Judge Grant Fraser to grant permanent name suppression to the famous nameless sicko from Palmerston North, who downloaded about 30,000 pornographic images, are questionable.

Judge Fraser said he granted permanent name suppression to protect the man's family, his mental state, his wife's job and his ability to rehabilitate. I’m wondering if that was actually the case. Because the main stated reason appears to be because none of the offending images were of New Zealanders – or the judge was at least apparently told they weren’t.

Therefore publicity in my view is not required to flush out any potential offenders or to enable members of the community to keep themselves safe from you

But if these images were of New Zealanders, would that mean Fraser would have allowed his name to be published? If so, so much for his argument about the man's family, his mental state, his wife's job and his ability to rehabilitate. If not, so much for his argument to keep the community safe.

Crown prosecutor Ben Vanderkolk disagreed with Judge Fraser that name suppression was needed to protect the man’s family, saying the man’s children were well informed about the offending. He said this name suppression could be seen as protecting a person in a privileged position. Yet he refused to appeal the suppression order, citing among a few things, the fact that he had children, and that the court knew what the consequences of a conviction were.

[redacted after reading the judgement]

The man is undergoing therapy to treat his paraphilia. He didn’t just download 30,000 images – he transferred some to an external hard drive and distributed them through the Internet.

I’m wondering how well Vanderkolk knew the famous nameless man. And I’m wondering if this famous nameless man has seen his GP recently. I hear there has been a recent shortage in Palmerston North.

Like I said, I’m no lawyer, and have not read any court documents on this case, but would be keen to get any comment from lawyers or law students on the stated reasons for suppression as outlined above.

More about →

Why give him name suppression?

Yesterday, police were on the lookout for Vanessa Pickering, who disappeared with a man whom we cannot name, but yesterday his name was all over the papers. The man appeared in court today and got interim name suppression. Pickering’s body was found today.

Many media reports have been written about this case since Pickering went missing on Monday. Most of the ones on Stuff are catalogued on a page which you can access by searching "Vanessa Pickering", but every single story has had their links changed to this story. All had one line summaries to the story and one even had the suppressed man's name - which begs the question, why change the links when the name is identifiable from the one or two line description?

But on this 3News story Christchurch man gets name suppression there’s a helpful list of related articles in the sidebar, which gives the man’s name.

I have nothing against interim name suppression in some cases, but this case isn’t one of them, particularly given his previous convictions.

More about →

Has the Herald on Sunday breached name suppression?

Just got back from a week offline, and am still catching up with the news slowly. But from reading the Dom Post while I was away I learned that Cameron Slater ( who is extremely happy that he had 54,000 unique page views on his blog the other day) has been posting, in binary code on his blog, the name of a former MP who is up on charges of indecently assaulting a 13-year-old girl.

Now, I don't know much about binary code, so I quickly found out by other means who this person was, and then saw an article in the Herald from Carolyne Meng-Yee, who loves to write about celebrities - and I`d be surprised if she understands most of the laws surrounding suppression. From that article I could narrow this man's name down to two possibilities. He is a former MP, has a partner, he is not the father of the girl, and is a " thoroughly decent bloke". The girl's mother is this former MP's partner. But it was another sentence in that article that narrowed it down somewhat for me.

The Herald On Sunday has arguably published information that has led to the identity of the alleged offender, as it led with the man's former occupation with the implication that he has links to more than one political party. The article is also in a more accessible form than Slater's. In addition, another article on the same website the same week provided another piece to the jigsaw, which narrowed it down to one.

If a blogger provides clues that breach name suppression on one post, is that any worse than an online newspaper doing the same thing, but on different articles on different days? Particularly if both articles are available on the one page. Whatever, even if Slater posts clues to the multiple people who have suppression, as he has done, the Solicitor -General has said that he is not in contempt of court.

John Key has waded into the debate saying that Slater is not allowed to break a law he disagrees with. But the PM himself has advocated that it is fine to break the law if you want to smack your kids, whether you agree with the law or not.

More about →

Name suppression blogger back from court

Cameron Slater is feeling pretty pleased with himself. Just after Christmas he told me that he got 20,000 hits on his blog on Christmas Day - just after he got served with the summons. Today he was in court as he was alleged to have broken name suppression on his blog. He was always going to defend the charges, and he`ll be doing that on 14 January. An interesting part of his defence appears to be that the Law Commission has recommended that the sections that Slater is to be charged with should be repealed.

Some have commented on the recent high-profile name suppressions with reference to the Entertainer (who is a musician), the Comedian, who is not very funny and appeared in court the same day as Slater on sex charges; and the Olympian, who Slater identified on his blog.

So the Blogger is in court on the same day as the Comedian, for veiled attempts to out the Entertainer and the Olympian, but did not out the Comedian, who is not really a comedian at all. The Entertainer is actually a Musician, and the Olympian is a well known Criminal. But now the Entertainer is also a well -known as a Criminal, being the Musician that the Blogger has identified. Now the Blogger may well end up fined, but not for outing the Comedian, but for outing the other two who are convicted Criminals. So the only two who are not convicted Criminals to date are the very two people who appeared in court the same day: the Blogger and the Comedian he did not identify.

More about →

Name suppression breacher off to court

A blogger is off to court for breach of name suppression on 5 January, the same day a certain comedian, who has his name suppressed, faces sexual assault charges. I wonder if they`ll exchange pleasantries - and I wonder if the blogger will ask for name suppression :-).

The blogger has also been asked to take the offending images off his website to prevent a 'continuing offence'. If convicted he could be fined up to $1,000.

Another blogger has identified this blogger in his own blog by identifying the recipient of the court summons. In doing so he has provided a link enabling people to find the identity of the unnamed offender.

Two questions:

Why has the blogger removed the images, after sending out a media release saying that he wouldn't? The offending images are still available on the cache as I write.

Why didn't the police press charges when he breached suppression in the same way the first time?

update Probably won't get name suppression then. I have been advised that he will be pleading not guilty on all counts - including two of three breaches of suppression on his blog, one of which remains.

More about →

Prominent entertainer, comedian, and name suppression

A comedian has been charged with child abuse. He denies the allegation but will "fight to clear his name".

What name, you ask?

Exactly. That name is suppressed. We may not be allowed to know if his name will even be cleared after the fight.

So far, Jeremy Ellwood, Jeremy Corbett,Mike King,Ewen Gilmour, Michelle A'Court, Dai Henwood, and Oscar Kightley have each publicly said it is not them.Rhys Darby has no daughters.

As usual, the breach of suppression is publicly available on the Internet. So go look there. Not here.

Update: something I didn't mention, this suppression is not a decision that the judge made, it was a decision that parliament made to protect the victim, who happens to be the man's daughter.

More about →

Another blogger breaches name suppression

A New Zealand Olympian accused of sex and violence offences that include raping his wife will have his name suppressed at least until the New Year. Trouble is that one blogger has revealed his name by posting some images identifying the persons name, but the file name of the name of the images meant that there was no deciphering to do. Although the file name has been changed, there is a link to a site that reveals this person's name, meaning that the victim is also identified.

This is breaking suppression. It can also be argued that it is a contempt of court. The blogger has also put out a media release, and is available online. I would have thought that posting this release online is also a breach of suppression as it identifies the name of the blogger and his blog, leading to the suppressed name.

Additionally, naming the man's lawyer now leads to the man's identity, so I can't even do that.

More about →

R v Internet II: Trying so hard not to break name suppression

Yesterday at the R v Internet seminar, blogger David Farrar identified the entertainer whose name is suppressed. Crown Law Office was at the front table.

But David is the only blogger I know of who has unwittingly broken name suppression on two successive days. Earlier today he posted a blog post detailing how he broke name suppression. He posted a screen shot of the man's Facebook page (with several parts hidden from public view) on his blog. Unwittingly, he forgot to delete the Facebook title bar on the screenshot that showed the name of the entertainer. I also recognised the entertainer by the pic that was shown on the Facebook page he posted- but then I knew who he was.

However, there was another identifying factor that David forgot about. The man's Facebook page was searchable through identifying information in a comment on that Facebook page that could be cut and pasted into Google.

Oops.

I say this not to bag David, because I know he is sincere in addressing issues around suppression and contempt, and has spend a lot of time doing so and creating awareness of the situation online - and lawyers need to hear what he has to say. It is simply to illustrate how difficult it is to discuss suppression issues online and how toothless such laws are when you do. Showing an appropriately blanked out screen shot of a Facebook page at a seminar is fine but doing the same thing online - with further restrictions - can man that people can cut and paste certain words on that Facebook page that lead to the artists identification. Kiwiblog is a widely read blog, and now the screenshot of the artists page has been deleted from Kiwiblog.

I would be breaching suppression even blogging this myself earlier , so I have refrained from posting this post until David amended his blog page again. The Facebook page had no less than 17 strategically placed boxes blanking out information, but it still wasn't enough. The actual page is was here and also reveals that Tau Henare is a fan of snickers. Did you know that?

More about →

R v Internet - or was it journos v lawyers, and where is the horse?

I was at the R v Internet seminar today. It appears journalists and internet people were outnumbered by legal people and public servants.

It was an interesting forum, with everyone recognising that the Internet makes name suppression of celebrities redundant, and can threaten an accused's right to a fair trial. Some such as Victoria University Professor Tony Smith, considered that many problems were to do with the unregulated blogosphere. Steven Price, himself a blogger, as well as a university lecturer with legal and journalism credentials, was more realistic about what to do when suppression is breached. In short, the genie is out of the bottle, the horse has bolted, and there's nothing you can do. However, judges should direct juries to enable fair trials by advising that information "out there" may not be reliable.

Deputy Law Commissioner Warren Young, in talking about the recent Law Commission report, Suppressing Names and Evidence [PDF] explained how the Commission wants to tighten laws around suppression, particularly those of celebrities. Young did not consider the " horse had bolted", and made an analogy between suppression and shoplifting. Namely the fact that while lots of people know the name of a certain celebrity does not mean that suppression should be done away with just as many people who shoplift does not mean that shoplifting should be decriminalised. Yet there's a distinction: Many people consider that suppression - particularly of celebrities - should not be against the law, whereas most believe shoplifting should be illegal.

Judge David Harvey spoke in the afternoon and livened things up. He thinks the Internet can be regulated, and pointed to China as an example of regulation. But when asked about sites like Facebook and Twitter, he was out of his depth. He doesn't appear to have heard of platforms such as ping.fm where you can simultaneously post an item to Facebook, Twitter, Friendfeed, blogs and other social networking sites. Rather than " the horse has bolted" he appears to think that the horse has briefly wandered out of the stable, and on a leash, but is unsure how long that leash is.

Canterbury University Associate Professor Ursula Cheer was very good on the legal side of suppression and contempt, but admittedly less clear on the tools of the Internet. She emphasised the truth that many legal people are not as clued up on social network programmes as they would like to or need to be, just as some bloggers and social networkers are ignorant of the law surrounding what they can and cannot publish. The former group don't think the horse has bolted - the latter think the horse bolted some time back. Bernard Hickey brought up what I thought was a good suggestion in that the two groups get together informally and discuss some of the issues raised, believing that the legal people and the technically savvy people, including online journalists, were "talking past each other". The question they should work towards agreement on is this: Where is the horse?

David Farrar also spoke. He was the only speaker who was not a journalist or a lawyer. He started off by discussing the prominent entertainer whose name was suppressed, and how he has seen the name on TradeMe, Yahoo Answers, and MSN NZ. I also found it on the front page of a certain Twitter search. As Farrar was talking about this suppression, and how angry he gets when people get away with breaching suppression on blogs, what did he do... he breached suppression to those with eagle eyes after telling everyone how he viewed the man's Facebook site. Oops. He also raised good points regarding what is actually a breach - a link to another site, a hint, a pointer to another site that the name is accessed. Many in the legal fraternity believed that nearly everyone under the age of 30 know who this person is, not so many over that age. I spoke to two law students during the lunch break, both were internet savvy, both were interested in Internet issues to do with suppression and contempt - both under 30 and both had no idea who this entertainer was.

The entire forum was videoed and will be available. You should be able to find it by googling it sometime.

More about →

Name suppression: Now Key knows, everyone wants to know

Now that John Key knows the name of the entertainer whose name is suppressed, heaps of people who don’t yet know want to find out. They are using the Internet to do so.

John Key has made a mockery of our suppression laws by telling the country he knows who this man is. Meaning he has aroused the nations curiousity. No doubt he's relaxed about that. If he knows, why shouldn't everyone else? Why doesn’t he just put a law through (under urgency) stating that if people publicly name such people, it will not be in the public interest to proceed with a prosecution.

He’s done it before.

More about →

Of course John Key was curious over high profile entertainer

John Key was curious. He wanted to know the name of a high profile entertainer that got name suppression. [ If you dont know who he is here's a clue. Key said he asked somebody he knew. Most likely it was a staff member in his office the name is so publicly known. Now he knows who this entertainer is, he is no doubt more relaxed about it.

Name suppression has go to the point when if I named him, I`d most likely be given a warning at most. The Law Commission has said that well-known people should still be able to argue for secrecy if publication of their name would cause "extreme hardship".

Given that half the country appears to know who this guy is, I very much doubt that publication of his name would cause him any additional hardship.

More about →

Another pointless name suppression

The identity of a top Kiwi entertainer who laughed after trying to force a teenager to perform a sex act will remain secret to protect his career, according to the Dominion Post.

It is not a very good secret. The Dominion Post gave it away by revealing where and on what date the offence occurred, as well as his age range and the fact that he was not from the city where the gig was. I would have too, had I been the journo. But calling it "medium to low level" offending - hmmm, probably not the best choice of words.

Journalists do not like suppression orders of this kind and they`ll do anything they can to drop subtle identifying hints without being seen to identify the offender, given that it was already reported that the man played a gig the night before.

If the courts are going to insist on name suppression and acquit someone of an offence because he is well-known, the least they can do is insist on suppression of details that would lead to identification. Or preferably, name him to prevent people dropping not so subtle hints all over the Internet, and altering a certain wikipedia site (which has six times the number of usual visits so far today) telling the world he is a sex offender, the edits of which are still visible.

If all people who read this blog already know who this man is, I could name him. I will not be breaching suppression by naming him, as the naming him will not lead to his identity. As I am unsure how many readers of this blog know who this guy is, I`ll refrain from naming him.

More about →