In the Wellington District Court a man described as a “sportsman” has been discharged without conviction and granted permanent name suppression after pleading guilty to having sex with a 15 year old girl and sending her photos of his genitals.
The judge Bruce Davidson discharged him on the condition that he pay the victim $2000.
This is a staggering decision.
The victim has been mentally scarred by the experience. Her victim impact statement said she was a shell of her former self, she was scared to take public transport and had stopped going to school.
She strongly opposed him being discharged and being granted name suppression.
So too did the Crown’s lawyer, a woman, who said this was serious and pre-meditated offending.
But the defence lawyer, a man, said his client was not in any way getting off. He had lost his job, his flat and become isolated from his friends and his sport. He had also undergone counselling.
He said because of the girls age, the act was 99 days short of being legal.
Dear me.
The judge found that the consequences of a conviction were out of all proportion to the gravity of the offences and publication of the sportsman’s name would defeat the purposes of the discharge. There was a significant risk of irreparable and permanent damage to the sportsman and his family if suppression was not granted.
You read stories like this and think no wonder women grumble about the patriarchy and about about toxic masculinity.
This was a Snapchat encounter, so the girl cannot be called completely blameless. It is not rape. She was a willing partner but was obviously deeply remorseful afterwards.
That’s why we have a law to say that sex under the age of 16 is illegal.
Let’s be clear. The law was broken.
A young man has had a significantly detrimental effect on the life of a teenage girl. Her victim impact statement sounds like a cry for help.
The young man takes part in a sport which is in the Olympics. That’s all we know about him, yet a male judge says that because there was a significant risk of irreparable and permanent damage to him, he gets discharged.
As I read about this story I was shouting at the computer screen, very loudly, what about the victim?
Justice has not been done.
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.
She strongly opposed him being discharged and being granted name suppression.
So too did the Crown’s lawyer, a woman, who said this was serious and pre-meditated offending.
But the defence lawyer, a man, said his client was not in any way getting off. He had lost his job, his flat and become isolated from his friends and his sport. He had also undergone counselling.
He said because of the girls age, the act was 99 days short of being legal.
Dear me.
The judge found that the consequences of a conviction were out of all proportion to the gravity of the offences and publication of the sportsman’s name would defeat the purposes of the discharge. There was a significant risk of irreparable and permanent damage to the sportsman and his family if suppression was not granted.
You read stories like this and think no wonder women grumble about the patriarchy and about about toxic masculinity.
This was a Snapchat encounter, so the girl cannot be called completely blameless. It is not rape. She was a willing partner but was obviously deeply remorseful afterwards.
That’s why we have a law to say that sex under the age of 16 is illegal.
Let’s be clear. The law was broken.
A young man has had a significantly detrimental effect on the life of a teenage girl. Her victim impact statement sounds like a cry for help.
The young man takes part in a sport which is in the Olympics. That’s all we know about him, yet a male judge says that because there was a significant risk of irreparable and permanent damage to him, he gets discharged.
As I read about this story I was shouting at the computer screen, very loudly, what about the victim?
Justice has not been done.
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.
11 comments:
Unfortunately, the first thing that springs to mind when you read stories like this is - I wonder what the offender's ethnicity was.
That's what 6 years of racial division and separatist ideology get you. Our racist government has made us all suspicious of ethnic favouritism across all sectors of society, including our broken justice system.
The judge, Bruce Davidson, needs to be sacked. Where is the Law Society on this ? Too many activist judges are literally taking the law into their own hands. And you can blame that idiot Geoffrey Palmer for most of this damned nonsense.
If you believe in the justice system, you've probably not experienced it first hand.
As I posted previously:-
"There was a significant risk of irreparable and permanent damage to the sportsman and his family if suppression was not granted."
Well - that is what is called consequences of your actions. He should have thought about that before doing the deed !
Our justice system is broken. We have murderers and rapists getting "sentenced" to home detention.
Any "sportsman" or "celebrity" will always get name suppression because publication of their name would be just so,so hurtful !!
Pathetic !!
Our society has become too sexualized . Some 'annoying' old fashioned morality instead of constant bombardment of in your face sexual activity on screen would be a good idea. I am shocked at how many porn sites come up even just searching for children's book titles.
The consequences of sexual activity with the under aged should be considered a very serious matter with severe punishment.
What else would you expect Peter when th ex PM and Director General of Health were complicit in coersion to enforce the vaccination with an experimental drug which caused serious adverse effects and in some cases deaths and end up with a Damehood and a Knighthood. Be interesting to see what an offender gets when they, as Minister of Justice, commit a criminal offence or two. It would appear that the rot starts at the top.
According to one lawyer, the Law Society has been " neutered". So, do not expect effective action
Once a person has been convicted then you can certainly argue for the lifting of name suppression. Even so you should bear in mind that 4-5% of those in prison may be innocent. However Peter, suppose you were accused of a sex crime. But in fact you were entirely innocent and the jury found you innocent. Under your faulty idea your name would be bandied about BEFORE the trial. So you were found not guilty, but the stigma will stay with you for ever- that's the nature of people. So your career may have been ruined and your future bleak. With name suppression you would at least have a chance to survive. Revealing the name in all cases is a stupid idea.
You do make a good point, Ian.
As we all know - sh*t sticks, especially if the false accusation is something emotionally charged, eg sex offence.
My comments were regarding convicted persons. Perhaps I should have made that clearer.
I agree with Terry Morrissey . The big time criminals in this country are showed with honours . Marie Clay, who destroyed our literacy and hence our basic education was given all the top honours the establishment could possibly give her..
I agree with Fred H - he was either guilty of the crime or not. If so, he deserved some punishment and that, in normal circumstances, would require his naming. To fine him and let him off the latter is absurd.
My brother, for riding no hands on a bike was fined and publicly named decades ago. Where have we got to? But then I saw TV1 News (Saturday) and realised how low we have stooped. Stop co-governance - good on you, Julian. As for Sanjana Hattotuwa, how about you simply coming clean as to who is paying you? What a low-life and why do we permit this ^#$*$ of %4#t to tell us what's right?
Post a Comment