Editorial: Caution vital on naming

Automatic name suppression in sexual abuse cases should remain intact.

The topic of name suppression stirs up strong emotions.

When a criminal or accused criminal gets to keep his or her identity secret, there's often outrage from some sectors of the public who believe they should be "named and shamed".

The issue of automatic suppression for victims of crime is less often discussed.

But a woman who was sexually abused by a Rotorua man as a child will be asking the court to lift her suppression.

That may seem strange to some. After all, she was the victim, she didn't do anything wrong, and she never asked for that suppression. It's part of New Zealand's law, to protect sex-crime victims, and it's something the media comply with vigilantly.

She goes a step further and argues there shouldn't be automatic suppression - that it should be up to each victim.

I applaud her bravery. She seems to be in a strong space and wants to use her horrific experience in a positive way.

It would seem only fair she is given the right to speak out and claim that experience without shame, as long as no other innocent people are impacted negatively in the process. The courts will consider her request in due course.

But removing automatic suppression is a step too far.

Requiring traumatised victims all to be in the right frame of mind at the time of conviction or sentencing to make a decision with such far-reaching consequences would be unrealistic and wrong - because once a name is out there, there's no going back. This is one situation where erring on the side of caution can be the only option.

There has also been debate on social media about the public naming of the baby who died tragically in Wanganui this week.

Many, including some in the media, say no good can be served by releasing the name, that no one needs to know and that it can only put extra stress on his grieving family. All of that may be right.

Yet it's the standard practice of New Zealand police to publicly release names of people - including children - killed in accidents or sudden deaths that have been in the news, once relatives have been informed.

If this case is different, then where do you draw the line? Who decides which victims should have privacy?

If the practice is to be changed it needs to be changed for all.

-Katie Holland is deputy editor, Daily Post