He cannot be identified but is reported as “being a retired professional who played on the world stage.” In an earlier report he was said to be a former Super Rugby player.
So he is likely an ex All Black, or because his first appearance was in the Tauranga District Court, a former All Blacks Sevens player. The Sevens programme has been based in Mt Maunganui for many years.
The man is a licensed firearms owner and it’s alleged he bought five Alpha Carbine rifles using $10,000 given to him by a member of the Comancheros. He later reported to police that the guns had been stolen and he lodged a successful insurance claim – from which he received over $11,000.
At his first appearance in court his lawyer, David Pawson told the judge that naming him would severely impact his reputation and employment, causing extreme hardship.
To which my reaction, again, is .. too bloody bad.
There has been way too much name suppression in New Zealand courts recently. A pedophile in Wellington with 900 images of kiddie porn on his devices and a female drunk-driving radio host in Auckland were both convicted and granted PERMANENT name suppression.
In the Tauranga court, Judge John Walker said he was satisfied extreme hardship would result if this man was named. So he put him on bail and suppressed his name till until his trial – although who knows when that will be.
I’m a great believer in open justice.
Justice Matthew Downs said in the Auckland High Court three years ago “a high public interest attaches to the open reporting of criminal trials, especially for serious criminal offending.”
Justice Downs then quoted an eminent British jurist Lord Steyn who said “full contemporaneous reporting of criminal trials in progress promotes public confidence in the administration of justice. It promotes the values of the rule of law.”
Back in 2010, the then Minister of Justice Simon Power introduced new legislation which made clear there was no presumption of extreme hardship solely on the grounds that an alleged offender is well known.
“Being famous is not a good enough reason to be granted name suppression” Simon Power said thirteen years ago.
Even as recently as last year the then Justice Minister Kiri Allan said “I don’t think it’s just, I don’t think it’s fair and I don’t think that New Zealanders looking in on the system think the system is working adequately either.”
Name suppression is, bizarrely, a New Zealand invention. It started just over a hundred years ago when well-meaning probation officers argued that not publishing the names of first time offenders would give them a better chance of re-integrating into society after their conviction.
Parliament then allowed name suppression under a law passed in late 1920.
Over a century on, we are still an outlier. Courts in similar jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom and Australia seldom restrict publication of the names of accused.
Why do we allow it so regularly? Are we taking the “presumed innocent until found guilty” mantra just too far?
Whatever the law, the time has come for judges to be much stricter on suppression conditions. Keeping secret the name of someone accused of supplying guns to gangs just because they once wore the silver fern on a rugby field is simply outrageous.
Peter Williams was a writer and broadcaster for half a century. Now watching from the sidelines. Peter blogs regularly on Peter’s Substack where this article was sourced.
To which my reaction, again, is .. too bloody bad.
There has been way too much name suppression in New Zealand courts recently. A pedophile in Wellington with 900 images of kiddie porn on his devices and a female drunk-driving radio host in Auckland were both convicted and granted PERMANENT name suppression.
In the Tauranga court, Judge John Walker said he was satisfied extreme hardship would result if this man was named. So he put him on bail and suppressed his name till until his trial – although who knows when that will be.
I’m a great believer in open justice.
Justice Matthew Downs said in the Auckland High Court three years ago “a high public interest attaches to the open reporting of criminal trials, especially for serious criminal offending.”
Justice Downs then quoted an eminent British jurist Lord Steyn who said “full contemporaneous reporting of criminal trials in progress promotes public confidence in the administration of justice. It promotes the values of the rule of law.”
Back in 2010, the then Minister of Justice Simon Power introduced new legislation which made clear there was no presumption of extreme hardship solely on the grounds that an alleged offender is well known.
“Being famous is not a good enough reason to be granted name suppression” Simon Power said thirteen years ago.
Even as recently as last year the then Justice Minister Kiri Allan said “I don’t think it’s just, I don’t think it’s fair and I don’t think that New Zealanders looking in on the system think the system is working adequately either.”
Name suppression is, bizarrely, a New Zealand invention. It started just over a hundred years ago when well-meaning probation officers argued that not publishing the names of first time offenders would give them a better chance of re-integrating into society after their conviction.
Parliament then allowed name suppression under a law passed in late 1920.
Over a century on, we are still an outlier. Courts in similar jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom and Australia seldom restrict publication of the names of accused.
Why do we allow it so regularly? Are we taking the “presumed innocent until found guilty” mantra just too far?
Whatever the law, the time has come for judges to be much stricter on suppression conditions. Keeping secret the name of someone accused of supplying guns to gangs just because they once wore the silver fern on a rugby field is simply outrageous.
Peter Williams was a writer and broadcaster for half a century. Now watching from the sidelines. Peter blogs regularly on Peter’s Substack where this article was sourced.
5 comments:
We hear this sort of nonsense all to often:-
"..his lawyer, David Pawson told the judge that naming him would severely impact his reputation and employment, causing extreme hardship."
Well, that is quite simply the consequences of a criminal action !!
And we see it time and time again...
Name suppression of the accused, especially if they are a sporting figure or something similar, because "it would cause extreme hardship and/or effect their earnings, etc "
However if the accused was just an ordinary Kiwi - the judge would not give a sh*t about their potential "hardship"
Why do we have a special category in the courts of hurty, hurty celebrity softies ?
He probably has been allowed to retain his firearms licence as well.
I have no problem with name suppression until conviction. Mud sticks and if found innocent it will always haunt the accused.
If found guilty, there needs to be extreme reasons for suppression. They knew the dangers at the time, exposure before your peers was one of them.
I totally agree with CXH.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.