Name Suppression – an alternate view.

Several recent legal cases in NZ have fired up debate surrounding name suppression of accused before trial.

Some people claim that justice cannot be seen to be done when not all the facts are in the public domain. Others expect that suppression should only be used to protect the identity of victims.

Cameron Slater is making an art form of revealing the names suppressed, and claims to be acting in the public good, and yet I see no public good served by his attempts to evade or break the law. Rather, I see a sad little blogger expressing his own prurient interest under the guise of the public’s need to know.

Slater and his cheer squad seem to forget that an accused person is not a guilty person and today’s victim may be show to be tomorrow’s liar.

In New Zealand we have had Louise Nicholas making unfounded and unproven allegations. Here is a further example from the UK where a man has had his image tarnished, has maybe seen his career go down the toilet whilst his accuser has been protected from the public’s right to know.

The true victim in this case is the innocent man whose name has been dragged through the mud whilst his false accuser remains anonymous.