Blogger investigated for new suppression breach
Mon, 11 Jan 2010 5:48p.m.
UPDATED AT 8:00PM
Post a Comment
Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide
(Won't be published)
12/01/2010 2:13:51 p.m.
Keep up the fight for "US" Cameron, I take my hat off to you.
12/01/2010 9:58:06 a.m.
Just for all your people who support this person re-victimising the victim of this crime who is being protected by the name suppression, perhaps for once in your lives you can think about the victim and what the victim wants and NEEDS
From the nelson police today
"the breach of that order has the potential to identify the victim - the very reason the order was imposed."
12/01/2010 9:21:39 a.m.
One of the reasons for NOT granting name suppression is that when an accuseds' name is first publish it often leads to other victims coming forward, and more charges are laid. This is particularly so in sexual abuse charges, and especially those involving offending against young people who may have been threatened by the offender into keeping quiet.
12/01/2010 12:48:01 a.m.
Keep up the good work Mr. Slater. You're the man. NZ law sucks.
12/01/2010 12:07:03 a.m.
@ Bouquet. What you're neglecting with such a proposition is the fact that guilt is sometimes established prior to a defendant stepping into a courtroom, or even before a party is apprehended. If the law was to require that 'all' suspects be remanded in custody until a decision is reached then I would have no qualm with the idea. I do however have a problem with the alternative, which is to have 'guilty' rapists, child molesters et cetera protected by name suppression and freely moving throughout my city, until such time as a judge or jury makes that decision. It certainly doesn't help that our justice system is designed to move slower than a mountain.
11/01/2010 11:38:56 p.m.
Cameron Slater is a HERO!.There is no place in the modern world of widespread sexual crime for name supression!.
11/01/2010 11:09:22 p.m.
I agree with Chris2; Everybody should be treated as Innocent until proven guilty, and NOBODY should have the right to Name Suppression after being found guilty.
11/01/2010 10:59:28 p.m.
This is a matter that places ALL OF US between a rock and a hard place.Any accusation can have a - totally out of proportion - deleterious effect upon whom ever is accused.I agree that "until PROVEN GUILTY" (although that - in really - doesn't prove much though, as there are just too many "fit-ups" out there. Thomas immediately springs to mind, then Bain, Ellis then the problematic Watson et al) The real fact is, if "someone" takes the time to be "in court" when "any" case is being heard, whatever the Judge decrees becomes nonsensical as "that audience" KNOWS "who and what" has been presented, QED.I do believe, that when "something" is potentially unsustainable, he, she or it SHOULD then - and only then - direct the "audience et al" from any disclosures elsewhere until the "matter" becomes fully before "open Court" and official. Until then it is just 'accusations' is this too much to ask for?In effect, what I'm asking for is a total "blanket" on disclosure on any and all "sub" indictment 'Court Action' reporting."The Public" does have "the right to know" BUT it is too often overshadowed by the media hype.All too often we have seen "innuendo" being presented by our "popular press" overtake the reality resulting in "impressions" that then cloud "facts" and potentially cause questionable outcomes by "our peers" those who "devour" the media outpourings BUT DIDN'T HAVE THE ABILITY (otherwise than the need for extra income) to escape jury service. I personally would prefer 3 or 5 judges (provided they were of "bench" quality) to be in control of "my" outcome, rather than idiots who don't have the ability to escape jury service.I bet you won't print this!!!
11/01/2010 10:42:36 p.m.
D J, you do realise name suppression has nothing to do with what a person is worth etc, etc? Just today a Hamilton man who tried to abduct a boy in Queenstown was given name suppression. and actually, anyone with a conviction can obtain a visa to enter a country that blocks people with a conviction, the process is longer but can be done.
11/01/2010 10:37:52 p.m.
Chris2 in most cases name suppression stays in place to protect the victim. As is this case, the name suppression is to protect the identity of a minor, and this fat slob has decided to invade her privacy by releasing the name of the person charged of the crime. Most people commenting just want their voyeuristic kicks of knowing who the person is, they don't care about justice or the victim.
A stranded orca has been rescued from the Kaipara Harbour af...
Viewers overwhelming voted yes to decriminalising soft drugs...
An Auckland car dealership has been sentenced for what Trade...
Christchurch's red zone areas are gradually being emptied of...
Copyright © 2013 MediaWorks TV. All Rights Reserved.