WEBVTT - Name suppression laws: How it works and what could change 0:00:06.240 --> 0:00:06.680 Chioda. 0:00:06.760 --> 0:00:09.840 I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a 0:00:09.960 --> 0:00:16.400 daily podcast presented by the New Zealand Herald. The government 0:00:16.440 --> 0:00:20.319 plans to change laws to allow victims the right to 0:00:20.520 --> 0:00:25.120 choose whether a convicted sex offender gets permanent name suppression 0:00:25.480 --> 0:00:29.760 or not. Currently, automatic name suppression applies to protect witnesses 0:00:29.800 --> 0:00:33.000 and complainants under the age of eighteen and those where 0:00:33.080 --> 0:00:36.919 certain sexual offenses are alleged. It's a law that garners 0:00:36.960 --> 0:00:40.600 a lot of criticism online and from the general public. 0:00:41.000 --> 0:00:45.320 There's constantly commentary on the perceived reasons why someone gets 0:00:45.360 --> 0:00:49.360 to keep their name a secret. Carold Senior reporter Melissa 0:00:49.479 --> 0:00:52.720 Nightingale and Newstalks DB's Sophie Trigger have been delving into 0:00:52.720 --> 0:00:56.200 the feedback given to the Minister about these changes. Today 0:00:56.200 --> 0:00:58.760 on the Front Page, Melissa is with us to discuss 0:00:58.800 --> 0:01:07.760 them and what the law looks like at the moment. Melissa, 0:01:07.880 --> 0:01:11.640 let's start with name suppression laws in general. There are 0:01:11.680 --> 0:01:15.480 some cases where it's applied automatically and others where it's not. 0:01:15.520 --> 0:01:16.760 Can you explain them to me? 0:01:17.200 --> 0:01:21.000 Yeah, So there's multiple ways that people will get automatic 0:01:21.120 --> 0:01:24.720 name suppression. Obviously, in terms of victims or complainants. If 0:01:24.760 --> 0:01:28.600 they're children under eighteen, or if they're victims of sexual offending, 0:01:28.800 --> 0:01:31.600 they will have automatic name suppression. But when we're talking 0:01:31.600 --> 0:01:35.319 specifically about defendants, there are some cases where they have 0:01:35.400 --> 0:01:39.120 automatic suppressions, such as if they've been charged specifically with 0:01:39.240 --> 0:01:44.600 incest or sexual offending against a dependent family member, that 0:01:44.720 --> 0:01:48.040 kind of thing. Also, if the defendant themselves is a youth, 0:01:48.160 --> 0:01:50.720 they will have automatic suppression and that generally can't be 0:01:50.760 --> 0:01:54.240 lifted except in certain circumstances. For example, a case that 0:01:54.320 --> 0:01:57.280 we had I think last year in Wellington where a 0:01:57.320 --> 0:02:00.600 youth was charged with attempted murder, but because of the 0:02:00.640 --> 0:02:04.160 seriousness of the charge, he was moved up the jurisdiction 0:02:04.280 --> 0:02:06.480 into the High Court And once they move out of 0:02:06.480 --> 0:02:09.600 the Youth Court jurisdiction, even if they're still used, they're 0:02:09.639 --> 0:02:11.840 no longer entitled to that automatic name suppression. 0:02:12.120 --> 0:02:16.000 So Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith he's announced plans, well, he 0:02:16.080 --> 0:02:18.440 announced plans late last year to make a couple of 0:02:18.520 --> 0:02:20.519 changes to name suppression laws. 0:02:20.600 --> 0:02:24.200 What were they, But he's planning to bring in this law. Basically, 0:02:24.639 --> 0:02:28.960 the courts cannot grant permanent name suppression to defendants who 0:02:28.960 --> 0:02:33.160 have been convicted of sexual offending unless the victim consents 0:02:33.200 --> 0:02:36.840 to them receiving that name suppression. This doesn't include some 0:02:36.880 --> 0:02:41.840 of those automatic cases such as incest cases those kind 0:02:41.880 --> 0:02:46.720 of things, but it would cover most sexual offending matters. 0:02:47.000 --> 0:02:50.720 What advice and feedback has he gotten about these changes? 0:02:51.080 --> 0:02:54.880 So an Official Information Act request that enzid ME has 0:02:54.960 --> 0:02:57.600 received has shown that there's been quite a lot of 0:02:57.600 --> 0:03:02.120 feedback to Minister Goldsmith and the Government about this proposal. 0:03:02.560 --> 0:03:04.680 There's a few legal groups that have said that they 0:03:04.680 --> 0:03:07.360 think this is a really bad idea, essentially that there's 0:03:07.480 --> 0:03:10.320 a lot of risks that come with it. In the 0:03:10.360 --> 0:03:13.680 Ministry of Justice itself also gave a briefing to the 0:03:13.720 --> 0:03:17.960 Minister saying we do not recommend you proceed with this 0:03:18.040 --> 0:03:21.640 proposal as it doesn't contribute to helping victims. However, it 0:03:21.680 --> 0:03:26.320 appears that Cabinet has set aside those concerns and continued 0:03:26.320 --> 0:03:29.360 on with very minimal changes to the proposal. 0:03:34.120 --> 0:03:36.240 The primary issue is that you have people who are 0:03:36.240 --> 0:03:41.320 convicted of sexual crimes, rape and being convicted and they 0:03:41.360 --> 0:03:44.720 can still get permanent name suppression, and that's a massive issue, 0:03:44.760 --> 0:03:47.960 particularly for the victims. They can't really talk about what 0:03:48.040 --> 0:03:53.320 happened to them, they can't warn others, and so we decided, look, 0:03:54.120 --> 0:03:57.080 you only get permanent name suppression if you're a convicted 0:03:57.160 --> 0:04:00.000 sex offender, if the victim agreed, and if the victor 0:04:00.040 --> 0:04:01.160 and doesn't agreeable. 0:04:00.760 --> 0:04:01.120 Tough luck. 0:04:01.200 --> 0:04:02.640 You're not going to get it, and you should own 0:04:02.720 --> 0:04:03.360 up for your crimes. 0:04:06.640 --> 0:04:09.800 I mean, some of the concerns raised in the feedback 0:04:09.920 --> 0:04:12.640 and briefings to Goldsmith. I'll just read out a carple 0:04:12.720 --> 0:04:16.599 victims could be exposed to influence and negative repercussions from 0:04:16.640 --> 0:04:21.240 family members, particularly if they're under eighteen. Also, the proposal 0:04:21.320 --> 0:04:24.159 requires agreement from a lay person who does not have 0:04:24.320 --> 0:04:28.479 access to all the relevant information, including council submissions and 0:04:28.600 --> 0:04:31.960 psychological reports. I mean, the list goes on, doesn't it. 0:04:31.960 --> 0:04:35.280 It's quite a hefty list. And you know, I've been 0:04:35.320 --> 0:04:38.520 caught reporting for more than a decade, so I've sat 0:04:38.560 --> 0:04:42.160 through my fair share of name suppression arguments or participated 0:04:42.200 --> 0:04:44.680 in my fair share of name suppression arguments. And there 0:04:44.720 --> 0:04:47.600 are many, many factors that go into decisions like these, 0:04:47.880 --> 0:04:50.960 and so even I was surprised at just the list 0:04:51.080 --> 0:04:56.039 of things that these legal groups have raised as potential problems. 0:04:56.440 --> 0:04:59.520 Some that hadn't occurred to me, including things like this 0:04:59.560 --> 0:05:04.120 actually could lead to less convictions potentially for sex offenders. 0:05:04.200 --> 0:05:08.080 For example, if the court finds that this defendant there's 0:05:08.080 --> 0:05:10.440 a risk to their life in some way if they 0:05:10.480 --> 0:05:14.039 are named, however, the victim says, too bad, I want 0:05:14.040 --> 0:05:17.760 them to be named. That means that they're actually potentially 0:05:17.880 --> 0:05:22.120 more likely to succeed in a discharge without conviction application, 0:05:22.920 --> 0:05:26.920 because those applications rely on with the consequences of a 0:05:26.960 --> 0:05:31.400 conviction out of all proportion to the offending. So if 0:05:31.400 --> 0:05:34.680 the court was to find, well, actually, this defendant essentially 0:05:35.040 --> 0:05:38.359 could die if they are named, and if they are convicted, 0:05:39.080 --> 0:05:42.560 then they might decide not to convict them. You know, 0:05:42.600 --> 0:05:44.400 we don't know if that's what's going to happen, but 0:05:44.480 --> 0:05:46.720 that's what some of these legal groups have raised as 0:05:46.760 --> 0:05:47.640 a possible concern. 0:05:47.839 --> 0:05:51.400 And I know Ruth Money, she's been a victim advocate 0:05:51.440 --> 0:05:54.880 for quite some time. She was appointed Chief Victim's Advisor. 0:05:55.000 --> 0:05:55.880 What has she said. 0:05:56.120 --> 0:05:58.960 She feels that the concerns that have been raised by 0:05:58.960 --> 0:06:02.800 these legal groups are offensive. She said that they're disempowering 0:06:02.800 --> 0:06:07.360 to victims. They're disrespectful, she said, just because someone has 0:06:07.440 --> 0:06:10.480 been sexually violated in some way doesn't mean that they 0:06:10.520 --> 0:06:13.520 don't get to have autonomy, they don't get to have agency, 0:06:14.160 --> 0:06:16.479 that they don't get to have a voice. So she 0:06:16.600 --> 0:06:19.479 believes that victims are in the right place to be 0:06:19.600 --> 0:06:22.240 making these kinds of decisions and they can be supported 0:06:22.279 --> 0:06:24.400 to do it the right way. When she was speaking 0:06:24.440 --> 0:06:26.840 to me, she said, you know, she's dealt with victims 0:06:26.839 --> 0:06:30.320 who have chosen to support the defendant getting named suppression 0:06:30.680 --> 0:06:35.240 in order to protect third parties such as small children 0:06:35.320 --> 0:06:37.080 that are innocent in all of this, who might be 0:06:37.080 --> 0:06:41.320 affected by, say a parent, getting named publicly. So she said, 0:06:41.400 --> 0:06:44.560 victims do make decisions that are in other people's interests 0:06:44.640 --> 0:06:47.520 as well, and she doesn't want people to discount that 0:06:47.600 --> 0:06:50.479 and just assume that they don't have the ability to 0:06:50.560 --> 0:07:03.000 make these calls. 0:07:03.960 --> 0:07:06.240 Now, you and I have both been court reporters and 0:07:06.320 --> 0:07:09.080 crime reporters for quite some time, and we often see 0:07:09.080 --> 0:07:12.840 outrage from the public when name suppression is given to 0:07:13.200 --> 0:07:16.280 certain alleged defenders. Right, the first one that comes to 0:07:16.360 --> 0:07:19.840 my mind is Jesse Kempsen, who murdered Grace Mulane. He 0:07:19.920 --> 0:07:23.000 kept his name a secret for more than two years, 0:07:23.160 --> 0:07:25.720 but it was kept a secret to make sure he 0:07:25.760 --> 0:07:28.160 had the right to a fair trial for other charges 0:07:28.200 --> 0:07:30.640 relating to two other women. And it's not just about 0:07:30.640 --> 0:07:33.000 his right to a fair trial, it's about making sure 0:07:33.200 --> 0:07:36.680 the trial isn't prejudiced. And because of this, he could 0:07:36.680 --> 0:07:39.880 have kept appealing and drawing out the court process. That's 0:07:39.960 --> 0:07:42.840 unfair to his other victims. Now, this is just one 0:07:42.880 --> 0:07:46.280 example of why a person might have name suppression. What 0:07:46.320 --> 0:07:47.280 are some others. 0:07:47.600 --> 0:07:50.960 Yeah, there's a whole host of reasons people will get 0:07:51.040 --> 0:07:53.200 name suppression, and there's only a couple of them that 0:07:53.280 --> 0:07:57.400 actually really relate to the defendant themselves. The main one 0:07:57.440 --> 0:08:00.000 that is usually brought up is that they will suffer 0:08:00.040 --> 0:08:03.920 for extreme hardship if they are named. And extreme hardship 0:08:03.960 --> 0:08:07.840 can sort of come in many forms, but the one 0:08:07.840 --> 0:08:10.520 that I see quite often is that they say their 0:08:10.520 --> 0:08:13.280 mental health is so poor that they will be at 0:08:13.480 --> 0:08:16.960 risk of suicide or other types of harm if their 0:08:17.040 --> 0:08:19.320 name is to be published, and that that translates to 0:08:19.400 --> 0:08:22.920 extreme hardship. And while you might think if someone says 0:08:23.040 --> 0:08:26.200 I might kill myself if my name is published, you 0:08:26.280 --> 0:08:28.440 might think that sounds like a very strong ground, it's 0:08:28.560 --> 0:08:31.880 actually quite difficult to get a judge to agree to that, 0:08:31.920 --> 0:08:34.920 and there has to be expert advice and usually for 0:08:35.080 --> 0:08:37.960 multiple experts to say that there is a real high 0:08:38.080 --> 0:08:41.000 risk of this person taking their own life, so it 0:08:41.080 --> 0:08:44.800 is a difficult ground to establish. Other ones include if 0:08:44.800 --> 0:08:48.120 there's a threat to their life potentially their safety from 0:08:48.559 --> 0:08:52.360 outside parties. Maybe they have said someone's made a threat 0:08:52.360 --> 0:08:55.959 against me in prison. There are other factors that relate 0:08:56.000 --> 0:08:59.679 to third parties, such as for example, a defendant might 0:08:59.760 --> 0:09:03.720 have small children who are going to be bullied in 0:09:03.760 --> 0:09:06.880 school when it is revealed that their parent is a 0:09:06.920 --> 0:09:09.360 sex offender or something like that, and these are all 0:09:09.640 --> 0:09:12.840 battled out in court to try and decide, well, does 0:09:12.920 --> 0:09:17.720 this child's potential for being bullied outweigh this victim's right 0:09:17.880 --> 0:09:19.920 to be able to put their story out there, And 0:09:19.960 --> 0:09:22.800 it can be a very difficult argument and it can 0:09:22.840 --> 0:09:26.680 also be difficult to accept the outcomes, and we don't 0:09:26.679 --> 0:09:29.200 always agree with them, but that is a burden that 0:09:29.280 --> 0:09:32.559 currently rests on the judges shoulders rather than the victims. 0:09:35.480 --> 0:09:38.319 Google kind of considers their hands off because it's all 0:09:38.440 --> 0:09:42.480 just their software that gathers up news and harvests again 0:09:42.760 --> 0:09:45.920 without any care about where that's been published into They 0:09:45.960 --> 0:09:47.840 have to care about it. They have to care about 0:09:47.840 --> 0:09:50.600 whether or not they are breaching suppression orders. They are 0:09:50.640 --> 0:09:52.640 a publisher and they've got to be held to account. 0:09:52.679 --> 0:09:55.880 Did you Google. Did you say to say to them, look, 0:09:55.880 --> 0:09:57.800 if you're going to if you're going to ignore this, 0:09:58.000 --> 0:09:59.040 we will have to do something. 0:09:59.080 --> 0:10:01.240 Did you tell them, Yes, I said that it is 0:10:01.320 --> 0:10:05.319 not acceptable that this would happen. They seemed to understand that, 0:10:05.360 --> 0:10:07.840 They seem to accept it. Said they would go away 0:10:07.840 --> 0:10:10.400 and have a look at their systems and make sure 0:10:10.440 --> 0:10:13.800 that they could operate them in a way that didn't happen. Again. 0:10:14.200 --> 0:10:16.360 Now they're telling us they're not going to do anything. 0:10:18.520 --> 0:10:19.840 And at the end of the day, we all have 0:10:19.880 --> 0:10:21.840 a right to a fair trial, don't we. Do you 0:10:21.840 --> 0:10:24.360 think people just forget about that old saying innocent until 0:10:24.400 --> 0:10:25.160 proven guilty? 0:10:25.640 --> 0:10:29.240 Yep? I think that the moment you see someone's name 0:10:29.280 --> 0:10:32.319 connected to a crime, there's something in your head that says, well, 0:10:32.360 --> 0:10:34.760 they must have done it. Anybody that's got their name 0:10:34.760 --> 0:10:38.439 published in relation to offending is probably tired with that 0:10:38.520 --> 0:10:41.880 brush from the get go. Unfortunately, it just seems to 0:10:41.880 --> 0:10:43.320 be how we operate as people. 0:10:43.520 --> 0:10:46.640 Yeah, and do you think court processes have become increasingly 0:10:46.720 --> 0:10:49.319 more difficult, but especially with the arrival of the Internet 0:10:49.360 --> 0:10:53.040 and social media, because there are gray spots everywhere when 0:10:53.080 --> 0:10:57.680 it comes to name suppression, and say Google, given different jurisdictions, 0:10:57.720 --> 0:10:59.760 adhere to different rules, Hey, it. 0:10:59.720 --> 0:11:02.000 Can be a real mess. And I think we saw 0:11:02.040 --> 0:11:05.720 that with Jesse Kempsen's case as well, that his name 0:11:05.800 --> 0:11:08.760 was already out there on Google and there was difficulty 0:11:08.840 --> 0:11:13.200 getting it down despite the name suppression, I believe. And 0:11:13.200 --> 0:11:16.520 we've had plenty of other high profile crime cases in 0:11:16.520 --> 0:11:19.400 New Zealand where that's been the case. And then, like 0:11:19.440 --> 0:11:23.200 you say, social media is a whole other thing. People 0:11:23.280 --> 0:11:27.440 will post names, people will share names. Often as a reporter, 0:11:27.520 --> 0:11:30.800 it can feel a bit rough when someone is granted 0:11:31.040 --> 0:11:35.079 at least interim name suppression despite knowing that their identity 0:11:35.320 --> 0:11:38.120 is the city's worst kept secret and that it's already 0:11:38.160 --> 0:11:41.280 been shared everywhere. But that's what the courts decide and 0:11:41.320 --> 0:11:43.760 that's what we've got to follow along with. 0:11:43.960 --> 0:11:47.880 And the Criminal Procedure Act expressly says the fact that 0:11:47.920 --> 0:11:52.080 a defendant is well known does not of itself mean 0:11:52.160 --> 0:11:54.920 that publication of his or her name will result in 0:11:54.960 --> 0:11:58.480 extreme hardship for the purposes of subsection. Now, I feel 0:11:58.559 --> 0:12:01.640 like this is a pretty important one to point out, hey, 0:12:01.800 --> 0:12:05.960 because given the amounts of comments we see just online. 0:12:05.760 --> 0:12:07.720 It is and it seems to be one of those 0:12:07.800 --> 0:12:10.200 cases where it really depends on who is making the 0:12:10.240 --> 0:12:14.199 decision on that matter. And sometimes it's about, well, not 0:12:14.240 --> 0:12:17.800 only am I well known, but my whole career hinges 0:12:17.880 --> 0:12:21.240 on this, and I am saying I'm innocent, and so 0:12:21.320 --> 0:12:23.760 it would be extreme hardship for my career to be 0:12:23.840 --> 0:12:28.120 torpedoed over a false claim against me or something like that. 0:12:29.080 --> 0:12:32.640 But sometimes judges say, regardless, this is just a natural 0:12:32.640 --> 0:12:35.800 consequence of being charged with something like this. Other times 0:12:35.840 --> 0:12:38.920 they are willing to give them that opportunity to be 0:12:39.040 --> 0:12:42.920 found not guilty, potentially before that decision is made. 0:12:43.000 --> 0:12:47.040 So if we go back to Goldsmith's changes, what's next? 0:12:47.320 --> 0:12:49.120 When can we see these changes to the law go 0:12:49.200 --> 0:12:49.880 through the system. 0:12:50.080 --> 0:12:53.040 It's going to go to a select committee, and he 0:12:53.160 --> 0:12:56.080 has Goldsmith has said that this is where these kind 0:12:56.120 --> 0:12:58.760 of issues get thrashed around, and they will, you know, 0:12:58.960 --> 0:13:03.360 supposedly hammer out the issues and the fine details at 0:13:03.400 --> 0:13:06.360 select committee before it proceeds to the next step. 0:13:06.440 --> 0:13:07.320 Thanks for joining us. 0:13:07.360 --> 0:13:09.240 Melissa ys all right, thank you for having me. 0:13:12.160 --> 0:13:15.280 That's it for this episode of the Front Page. You 0:13:15.280 --> 0:13:19.120 can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage 0:13:19.120 --> 0:13:23.160 at enzidherld dot co dot mz. The Front Page is 0:13:23.200 --> 0:13:26.920 produced by Ethan Sills and Richard Martin, who is also 0:13:27.080 --> 0:13:31.760 our sound engineer. I'm Chelsea Daniels. Subscribe to the Front 0:13:31.760 --> 0:13:35.360 Page on iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts, and 0:13:35.480 --> 0:13:39.079 tune in tomorrow for another look behind the headlines.