By Dan Satherley
Blogger Cameron Slater, recently convicted of breaking several name suppression orders, says proposed changes to name suppression laws are a "start".
On his blog, Whale Oil Beef Hooked, Slater named several high-profile New Zealanders whose identities were suppressed by court orders.
Today Justice Minister Simon Power announced a bill that would make it harder for defendants to hide behind suppression orders.
“There has been growing concern that the current grounds for making suppression orders are unclear and that suppression is granted too readily and inconsistently,” says Mr Power.
"The Government's proposals replace the current broad discretion for granting suppression orders with more clearly defined and tighter grounds.”
This means a defendant would only be eligible for name suppression under the following circumstances:
- Where there is a real risk of prejudice to a fair trial.
- To prevent undue hardship to the victims.
- Where publication would identify another person whose name is suppressed by order or by law (e.g. a victim).
- Where publication would endanger the safety of any person.
- Where publication would cast suspicion on other people that may result in undue hardship.
- To prevent extreme hardship to the accused and/or people connected to the accused.
- Where publication would be likely to prejudice the interests of the maintenance of law, including the retention, investigation, and detection of offences.
Recent cases where a person's high-profile standing in the community was used as justification for awarding name suppression would also be treated differently.
“Being famous is not a good enough reason to be granted name suppression," says Mr Power. “To ensure public confidence in the justice system is maintained there must be one set of rules for everyone.
Child victims would be granted automatic name suppression, while automatic suppression for child witnesses will be increased from 17 to 18 years of age.
“This recognises that children have a special vulnerability that should be protected by law," says Mr Power.
Slater has mixed reactions to the bill, calling it "typical Simon Power".
"I think they're still trying to shut the gate after the horse has bolted," he told 3 News.
"I think it is good they giving automatic name suppression to victims, but there are still a lot of weasel clauses."
Slater says paedophiles would still get name suppression under the guise of protecting them from the public.
Of particular concern is a clause that would require internet content hosts and service providers to remove or block access to material breaching suppression laws, if it is hosted in New Zealand.
"It won't be long before someone sets up an offshore whistleblowing site," says Slater. "I'd like to see them try and enforce that law on an ISP in Germany or the US. Applying New Zealand law to that is impossible."
Slater claimed on his blog the bill was a direct result of his campaign.
"Make no mistake, I have forced changes upon a government through protest."
"It's
just another example of the rights of individual New Zealanders being
eroded day by day. It just goes on and on."
Mr Hart says the bill is a "right wing" overreaction to a minority of cases.
3 News