Name suppression rules need changing - lawyers

Sir Geoffrey Palmer said the laws governing suppression should be consistently applied. File photo / Mark Mitchell

Court proceedings should be more open and rules governing the suppression of names should be tightened and more transparent, the Law Commission says.

In their report, Suppressing Names and Evidence, released today, the commission said there needed to be greater emphasis on open justice and freedom of expression.

The Commission called for significant changes to name suppression. That has drawn support from anti-violence group Shine.

Spokeswoman for the group, Jane Drumm, said name suppressions are handed out all too often for famous people.

"I believe there is a choice to decide to assault someone - an adult or child," Ms Drumm said.

She said if a person decides to assault someone, then they should face the consequences which includes the embarrassment of being publicly named.

"I feel very strongly about that," Ms Drumm said.

She said it was not fair that someone gets name suppression because of their fame, wealth or sporting ability.

"Justice should be equal and seen to be equal," Ms Drumm said.

She said there were grounds for suppression when a child is involved and naming the offender could result in the child being identified.

The commission's report said courts currently had "broad discretion" to block the publication of names and identifying information.

The suppression of names or evidence should be restricted to exceptional cases and be made for compelling reasons, the report said.

Reasons should be specified in legislation and should reflect a high threshold.

The commission said name suppression should be used only where there was a risk of prejudice to a fair trial, undue hardship to victims and the accused or would identify another person who has suppression.

Suppression could also be granted where publication of information was likely to prejudice the maintenance of law or cast suspicion on other people, it said.

"The grounds on which suppression may be granted need to be clarified and tightened - they should be transparent, explicit and consistently applied," commission president Geoffrey Palmer said.

The reason for the suppression must be given, he said.

Procedures for granting temporary name suppression orders should be tightened and they should be renewed only if evidence is produced.

They should also state their expiration date rather than being "simply continued from one appearance to the next", the report said.

Evidence can currently be suppressed in the interest of public morality.

The commission said public morality was not a useful or appropriate reason for suppression.

"The presumption of openness in this context should be departed from only sparingly and on clearly articulated grounds."

Current provisions for closing a court to the public and press did not adequately reflect the high threshold and needed "greater specificity".

Courts must be closed only to prevent undue disruption, if security or defence of New Zealand required it, to avoid prejudicing a fair trial, to avoid endangering a person and where suppression was not sufficient, the commission said.

The report also recommended priority be given to a review into the possibility of a national register of suppression orders which would make the information readily available.

It should also be an offence for internet service providers to fail to remove or block access to suppressed information, it said.

The report, which was tabled in Parliament today, was part of a wider criminal procedure simplification review being carried out by the commission and the Ministry of Justice.

The project will create a new Criminal Procedure Bill expected to be introduced into Parliament next year.

The suppression report recommends legislation on the issue be repealed and replaced by a new framework within the bill.

High profile suppressions this month.

A popular entertainer drunkenly exposed himself and forced a 16-year-old girl's face into his genitals. He pleaded guilty and was discharged without conviction. His name was also suppressed. The judge said publicity would have a detrimental effect on his career and his record and ticket sales.

A man who has pleaded guilty to taking a gun and two knives to a church on the day his wife left him, sparking an armed offenders squad call-out, has been given interim name suppression and is seeking a discharge without conviction.

The man has admitted three charges of using an offensive weapon - an airgun and two knives - and has been remanded on bail. A woman was sentenced to six months home detention after pleading guilty to a charge of cruelty by wilful neglect. Her husband has been jailed for two years and nine months for assaulting and neglecting their children. The pair were granted name suppression to protect the identity of their children.

- NZPA and NZHERALD STAFF