Fame still grounds for suppression

High-profile offenders such as the "prominent entertainer" who was discharged without conviction will still be able to get preferential treatment in the courts under reforms to name suppression proposed by the Law Commission.

The commission's major report on suppression has recommended that well-known people who commit crimes will still be able to argue that their names be kept secret if publication would cause "extreme hardship".

This would allow for more cases like that of the prominent entertainer, who admitted forcing a teenage girl's face into his genitals but got a permanent name suppression order this month because publicity would have a detrimental effect on his career and his record and ticket sales.

"Extreme hardship" is not specifically defined in the report released yesterday but it says being well-known may be relevant to the legal argument for suppression.

The report noted there were strong views on the issue, with most submitters believing the impact on well-known people should not be taken into account when considering suppression. Others believed it should, but the commission stopped short of saying judges should be required to consider this, "as that may create a special class" of person.

The matter should be left at the discretion of the judge, much as it is now, it said.

Other cases of "celebrity justice" with suppression include the 2005 controversy when an All Black was granted permanent name suppression despite pleading guilty to assaulting his pregnant partner.

The commission's report, Suppressing Names and Evidence, also recommends that hosting suppressed material on the internet could become a criminal offence under a new law it proposes.

The commission wants internet service providers or content hosts like Xtra to be subject to a "notice and take down" order where they must immediately remove or block access to material if informed it is in breach of a court suppression order.

The proposal is an attempt to control the "wild west" of the internet where there is an increasing trend of suppressed material being circulated. It is often hosted on overseas-based websites not subject to New Zealand law.

It is not clear how widely the orders would apply: if ISPs were expected to stop their customers being able to access sites carrying material, it would be very broad and could require new technology.

But if the orders were just for information actually on New Zealand sites, it would be largely irrelevant as most of the offending is done on overseas sites.

InternetNZ spokesman Jordan Carter said the group had significant concern with the recommendation as worded as ISPs could not be expected to turn into censors blocking access to material that is suppressed, especially on overseas websites.

Mr Carter said internetNZ had sought clarification from the commission about exactly how widely the new obligation would apply to ISPs.

The commission also recommends a big rise in the penalties for breaching suppression orders, from the maximum three months' jail for an individual or a $5000 fine for corporates, to six months' jail or a $100,000 fine.