Sensible Sentencing Trust founder Garth McVicar. The Trust is fighting for the right to name a convicted paedophile (File)
Publication
of a man's name convicted of historic sex charges was the subject of a
Human Rights Tribunal hearing over confusion on the issue of name
suppression.
The Sensible Sentencing Trust (SST) is defending the
right to publish the name of the 58- year-old man, because they say a
final name suppression order was never made.
However the Office of Human Rights Proceedings
believes the man had name suppression and distribution of his internal
police file given to the Trust was a breach of the man's privacy.
The issue is made more unclear because the written
judge's notes from the man's 1995 sentencing have been lost despite two
years of searching.
The man was granted interim name suppression today
and details which might lead to his identity were also suppressed until
Rodger Haines QC returns his decision.
Lawyers are arguing about whether interim name
suppression should be granted until the actual hearing of the alleged
breach of privacy which could be later this year.
Final name suppression unclear
A complaint was made to police in 1994 over historic sex charges from 1975 and 1978 involving two girls then aged 10 and 14.
The man was put on trial and convicted on five charges in 1995.
He was sentenced to 12 months in prison, but was released after six months.
Lawyer for the director of Human Rights Proceedings
Simon Judd says there had been no suggestions or evidence the man had
offended since 1978.
An article which ran in the Christchurch Press following the trial in 1995 did not name the man and two earlier articles during the trial mentioned interim name suppression.
"The inference drawn from that is the name was
suppressed. Why would a journalist use names in other court stories, but
not this one?" Mr Judd asked.
The man was fighting for interim suppression because "this person's privacy has been interfered with," he says.
Granting suppression would still make the man's privacy case worth fighting, he says.
The man was a chief executive of a "significant"
organisation and in 2009 received an anonymous blackmail letter with
information from a police file about the man's convictions.
The letter was sent to other executives in the
organisation and then passed on to the SST which had posted the man's
name on their website.
His name had several times been taken down and reposted following letters from the man's lawyer.
The Truth so far has been the only media outlet who has named the man.
He complained to the Privacy Commission about the release of the police file.
The commissioner later found the man's privacy had been breached through the distribution of the document, Mr Judd says.
Publication of the man’s name so far had caused him embarrassment and his family had been harassed by media, he says.
The
man had already lost his high-paying job since his name had been
published and had been unable to find another at the same chief
executive level, Mr Judd says.
He and his partner are now running a motel.
Mr
Judd says further publication in more media outlets would cause
significantly more damage to him, his partner, his adult children and
their business.
‘Once you’ve been outed, you’ve been outed’
Aside from potential publication of his name, another issue was a breach of the man's privacy.
SST only had his details because they were handed over by the person who had received an internal police file, he says.
"If
there had not been a clear breach by the police then there is no reason
to believe there would be any information out there about the aggrieved
person", he says.
There was no information at all in the public domain between 1995 and 2009.
In 2011, police payed the man a confidential settlement as a result of the breach, Mr Judd says.
Lawyer for the Trust David Garrett says the man's name had already been published in the mainstream media and also social media.
"The horse has not only bolted, but the race has finished," he says.
"Once you've been outed, you've been outed."
The man's name had been in the public domain for four years.
He
should have made a complaint when his name was first published in 2009
if he believed name suppression was in force, Mr Garrett says.
Nothing could be made of the omission of the man's name in the Christchurch Press in 1995 because there may have been other reasons it was left out, he says.
This included the reporter "may have acted with an over-abundance of caution and delicacy".
Damage to the man's business was only theoretical, he says.
"[In] weighing up the interests of this man and his business against the interests of open justice - it's no contest," he says.
Mr Haines reserved his decision.
3 News Wed, 17 Apr 2013 5:47p.m.
No comments:
Post a Comment