Name suppression - how can I get around this and out an offender legally?

**Number One** · 22nd February 2011, 16:10

Name suppression....

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/p...n+139&p=1&sr=4

Who does this really protect?

Wouldn't a little bit of fucking honesty and public justice help sort some of the sick mother fuckers out there out.

**Deano** · 22nd February 2011, 16:12

Get someone from overseas not bound by our laws to post it ?

**steve_t** · 22nd February 2011, 16:15

Sometimes name suppression is given to protect the victims as they would be readily identified if the offender's name was publicised.
You could always hit up the WhaleOil guy

**Madness** · 22nd February 2011, 16:16

In 1972 a crack commando unit was sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn't commit. These men promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Los Angeles underground. Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire...

Whaleoil.

**nosebleed** · 22nd February 2011, 16:48

Originally Posted by Madness

...

Awesome. Duly blung.

**tigertim20** · 22nd February 2011, 17:00

Originally Posted by Number One

Name suppression....

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/p...n+139&p=1&sr=4

Who does this really protect?

Wouldn't a little bit of fucking honesty and public justice help sort some of the sick mother fuckers out there out.

wait untill the whole case is over. the accused may yet be found innocent. As another person said, sometimes the suppression is to protect the identity of the victims more than the accused.
Alternaively, start a second account for an online forum at an internet cafe in town, and post up everything you want, everywhere you want, then never use the accound again. takes two seconds to make a hotmail account, thats all you need to confirm an account for most forums.

**Number One** · 22nd February 2011, 17:16

http://whaleoil.gotcha.co.nz/2011/02/22/useless/

**White trash** · 22nd February 2011, 17:36

Guys, the suppression is there for a reason, and I understand N/1's reason for challenging it.

The only problem I can see is that while the victim may be OK with suppression being breached now, what's to say that later in life it could cause embarassment or issues if it comes up again? Reliving some horrible situations in 5, 10 even 20 years time may not be ideal.

Just a thought.

**Number One** · 22nd February 2011, 18:38

Yeah it's ok I've had my vent and my nasty little daydreams about bringing holy war - I will just put my faith in the process and nail the Victim impact statement and hope justice and sanity prevail.

Fuck it's hard though - I want to kick in a head nail his nuts to the wooden floor in the kitchen and set the house alight.

**riffer** · 22nd February 2011, 18:43

Justice is a process. And it has nothing to do with right or wrong.

In the eyes of the law, the person who shall remain nameless has offended against the Crown, and so the Crown will have their little game.

It never has been, and it never will be, about the victim. If you expect "justice" forget it. It will NEVER happen.

If it's any consolation, a similar thing happened to my ex-wife. Her father tracked down the perpetrator, and commit a grievous act of violence against him.

He still says every day of the nine month sentence he received for the "crime" was worth it.

The perpetrator still walks with a limp 29 years later.

You work it out.

**Number One** · 22nd February 2011, 18:45

Thanks Riffer you are suggesting I get my crowbar! I like it

**Usarka** · 22nd February 2011, 18:50

Hard to resist sometimes. I only managed to because it was her grandfather, 20 years prior and he was in a different country.

**riffer** · 22nd February 2011, 19:32

Name suppression sucks.

Perpretators pray on the weak by telling them that they have to keep things secret and it's all hushed up as a dirty little secret.

Then the justice system comes along and does exactly the same thing.

If it were me, I'd wear the $1000 fine for breaching the suppression order.

They're hardly likely to send you to jail for three months and if they did there's 100 people here who'd scream blue bloody murder over it.

How about we get 200 of us to donate a fiver and you go ahead and publish?

**Number One** · 22nd February 2011, 19:40

I think the fine has been dropped and now you just get jail time for contempt of court. not really going to be helpful for me at the moment. Perhaps we could start a fund for someone else who feels like doing time could do it...

BTW - I agree with all you said Riffer. The law does just hush it all up so it's even more of a dirty little secret.

The victim has the hard ride the bloody offender hasn't even had to tell people about it at all. How dare he be able to chill out in blissful denial over christmas while we did and still do suffer.

SCUM

**riffer** · 22nd February 2011, 19:50

I take it you are referring to the following piece of the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill 243-1 (2010):
Offences and penalty

(1) Every person commits an offence who publishes any name, identifying information, or other information in breach of a suppression order or in breach of any of sections 205, 207, and 208.

(2) A person who commits an offence against subsection (1) is liable on conviction—
- (a) in the case of an individual, to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 6 months:
- (b) in the case of a body corporate, to a fine not exceeding $100,000.

AFAIK, this bill has not yet been enacted.

Therefore the existing legislation still applies and a fine not exceeding $1000 OR a three month jail term is the penalty. And, as I said before, there isn't a judge in this court who would send you to jail if you told the whole truth.