Naming secrecy criticised

A criminal law expert says name suppression is being granted too often in district courts. High-profile defendants have won name suppression at appearances around the country in the past fortnight, inflaming debate that secrecy is being gifted without good reason.

Auckland University senior lecturer in criminal procedure Scott Optican says such orders in the district courts show suppression law is not being taken seriously and decisions are variable.

The name of the All Black who assaulted his pregnant wife has been suppressed, as has the name and occupation of a man accused of selling drugs which can be used to make methamphetamine.

Names of 17 men who face child-pornography charges as a result of a nationwide bust are also suppressed.

But two other men facing the charges are known: Queenstown Lakes district councillor and lawyer Wayne McKeague and Titahi Bay scuba instructor Bruce Wigzell.

They are the only ones who did not receive name suppression.

Mr Optican said the situation illustrated the "variability" surrounding the granting of name suppression in New Zealand courts.

McKeague said Queenstown was too small and news of his arrest was quickly all over town so he did not bother applying. Wigzell did not ask for suppression either.

"Quite frankly the smell of some of these cases is pretty bad," Mr Optican said. "I think all proceedings should be open. Everybody is asking who the All Black is. It's casting a cloud over everybody in the team."

He said rulings like an Appeal Court judgment in 2000 which saw the Herald win an eight-month battle to name American billionaire Peter Lewis, discharged without conviction for importing 100g of cannabis, showed the granting of name suppression should be rare.

The ruling was at the time called victory for open justice.

"The case law does provide the criteria but it's not being taken seriously enough in the lower courts ... if people don't have the time or money to appeal it, [name suppression] stands."

Mr Optican said there was anecdotal evidence that the higher a person's standing in the community the more likely he or she was to get suppression.

But once appealed against the orders were seldom maintained, he said.

"The problem with the current law is judges have way too much discretion."

But Auckland lawyer Gary Gotlieb believes suppression laws in New Zealand do not go far enough.

He said in the case of the All Black he understood the man's wife wanted his name kept secret and in the child-pornography case police had yet to establish whether the material found was objectionable.

He said he had no confidence in the public's ability to distinguish between a person facing charges and a person who had been convicted.

"All you have to do is listen to talkback - if a person is charged they're guilty," Mr Gotlieb said.

He said high-profile people often had far more to lose by having their names published. "My view is everyone should have their names suppressed until they are proven guilty."

YOU CANNOT KNOW 

 * The name of the All Black who admitted assaulting his pregnant wife and was discharged without conviction.

* The names of 17 men facing child-pornography charges as a result of a national police operation. Among them are two teachers, a company director and a consultant.

* The names of a high-flying Auckland businessman and a church leader who gave evidence in the Rotorua District Court in a fraud trial where they allege they lost thousands of dollars.

* The name and occupation of a 51-year-old man who allegedly dealt in substances used to make methamphetamine.