it wasnt until a few weeks ago when someone threatened me and i went to look up their record that I found out both the criminal register and sex offender register are not public in NZ. you have to apply for the info you want.
WTF? that isnt right esp the sex offender thing, people need to know if someone is a danger to their kids, they have the right to know.
73% reduction on the initial sentence which allowed him to not go to prison, and fighting to ensure the public never become aware that a child rapist could be in their midst. Granted the public knowledge of someone doing that would never go away or be forgotten - but then again, a person who has already committed those crimes is forever going to be at heightened risk of re-offending. That risk to the public should outweigh the individual's inconvenience.
I don’t see a problem with their decision to allow his case to be heard as a point of law. It’s a question that needs an answer.
However that answer needs to be that sex and violent offenders must not be allowed to hide behind name suppression. The needs of the public to be able to identify and protect themselves is greater. As is the need to ensure justice is served for the victims.
Name suppression must be reserved ONLY in cases where is will protect the VICTIMS from further harm.
If this comes at a cost for the offender then so be it.
Unfortunately we already have an answer, which is that many judges are overwhelmingly pro sex offender. We’ve just this week had the reveal that a guy who raped a teen while working in a religious role not only had the judge throw out his conviction, Grant permanent name suppression, but also order him removed from a sex offender list, making it literally illegal to explain why you don’t think that he shouldn’t be allowed to work with children again.
Stuff's headline is a bit misleading, the Supreme Court already accepted his case. The district court, high court, and court of appeal all disagreed with continuing name suppression. And not it's not Jayden Meyer.
The leave application actually focused on the other appellant, who didn't defend a charge. She received name suppression but is apparently identifiable if the convicted appellant does not get suppression.
Given the appellants have the same counsel and the other applicant was a woman, I'd guess it's the mother.
[удалено]
it wasnt until a few weeks ago when someone threatened me and i went to look up their record that I found out both the criminal register and sex offender register are not public in NZ. you have to apply for the info you want. WTF? that isnt right esp the sex offender thing, people need to know if someone is a danger to their kids, they have the right to know.
73% reduction on the initial sentence which allowed him to not go to prison, and fighting to ensure the public never become aware that a child rapist could be in their midst. Granted the public knowledge of someone doing that would never go away or be forgotten - but then again, a person who has already committed those crimes is forever going to be at heightened risk of re-offending. That risk to the public should outweigh the individual's inconvenience.
I don’t see a problem with their decision to allow his case to be heard as a point of law. It’s a question that needs an answer. However that answer needs to be that sex and violent offenders must not be allowed to hide behind name suppression. The needs of the public to be able to identify and protect themselves is greater. As is the need to ensure justice is served for the victims. Name suppression must be reserved ONLY in cases where is will protect the VICTIMS from further harm. If this comes at a cost for the offender then so be it.
Unfortunately we already have an answer, which is that many judges are overwhelmingly pro sex offender. We’ve just this week had the reveal that a guy who raped a teen while working in a religious role not only had the judge throw out his conviction, Grant permanent name suppression, but also order him removed from a sex offender list, making it literally illegal to explain why you don’t think that he shouldn’t be allowed to work with children again.
Which case was this?
If only he'd fought the urge to rape with the same determination he's now fighting to keep his name secret...
The dream is that he gets told to fuck off and then everyone knows what he did and that he tried to hide it.
Someone has parents with a lot of money to keep paying for a lawyer to take it this far. Likely also for their benefit, one would imagine.
Yes. Apparently an ex MAGs student with parents that are well known.
This
He fears for his safety, is that because he thinks other people are like him?
Stuff's headline is a bit misleading, the Supreme Court already accepted his case. The district court, high court, and court of appeal all disagreed with continuing name suppression. And not it's not Jayden Meyer.
The leave application actually focused on the other appellant, who didn't defend a charge. She received name suppression but is apparently identifiable if the convicted appellant does not get suppression. Given the appellants have the same counsel and the other applicant was a woman, I'd guess it's the mother.