The Government and Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith have ignored advice from multiple legal groups about what’s been called a potentially “dangerous” plan to give victims of sexual offending veto power on their abuser’s name suppression. Composite photo/ NZME
The Government and Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith have ignored advice from multiple legal groups about what’s been called a potentially “dangerous” plan to give victims of sexual offending veto power on their abuser’s name suppression. Composite photo/ NZME
Concerns include increased pressure on victims and potential misuse of name suppression in plea deals.
The Government is in danger of making a bad situation worse through its clumsy attempt to reform name suppression laws.
Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith announced a proposal late last year to change the law so convicted sex offenders could not be granted permanent name suppression without theconsent of the victim.
Victim support groups support the change. Many in the legal community, including Crown Law, the Public Defence Service (PDS), the Law Society, the Office of the Chief Justice, the president of the Court of Appeal and the Government’s own advisers in the Ministry of Justice, strongly oppose it.
Under the law the court must consider a victim’s views about permanent suppression but a judge doesn’t have to agree with them or do what they would like. That would change under the proposal and the courts wouldn’t be able to grant permanent name suppression unless the victim agreed to it.
The idea seems well-intentioned. Some judges have made name suppression decisions in the past which might appear to give too much weight to the offender’s circumstances and not enough to the victims. However, these decisions are open to challenge, such as the landmark 1995 appeal by the Herald and TVNZ against the cloak of silence over serial paedophile and King’s College guidance counsellor Peter Liddell. In lifting Liddell’s name suppression, the Court of Appeal made it clear the starting point in reporting court proceedings must always be in favour of openness.
Some people have at times wished some judges would pay more attention to that guidance. But the alternative - essentially taking the decision out of a judge’s hands and giving it to a still-traumatised victim - undermines the impartiality of our justice system.
It also raises the prospect of unintended consequences. Some sex abusers target their own relatives and victims could face extra pressure in deciding an offender’s fate, especially young people who could be unfairly influenced by older family members. There is no bottom age limit on when victims would be consulted, meaning children could be given powers beyond their understanding.
Defendants may also be more likely to plead not guilty or use name suppression as a bargaining chip in exchange for a guilty plea, which spares the victim from giving evidence at a trial.
It’s unfortunate the Government has reached for what is essentially the nuclear option of a victim’s veto, when there is undeniably room for much improvement on name suppression. The Herald and other media have raised concerns for many years about some offenders, including prominent sportsmen, entertainers and politicians, who have kept their names secret.
Former Act Party president Timothy Jago has been named after suppression for historic sex abuse charges was lifted. Composite photo / NZME
A controversial recent example was former Act Party president Tim Jago, named earlier this year as the abuser of two teenage boys. He was able to keep his name secret for two years after being charged.
Auckland schoolboy rapist Luka Fairgray – who went on to commit further sexual offences against a 13-year-old girl while his victims fought his name suppression – was another high-profile case which outraged victims and the local community.
The main problem in both cases was the drawn-out appeal system, rather than the court’s decision-making process. Lawyer Graeme Edgeler has suggested two options here - cutting the timeframe for lodging an appeal from 20 days to only five or making offenders apply for leave to appeal instead of having an automatic right to do so.
