I am not about to break the law. I do not view this issue as grounds for civil disobedience (as I do not believe it meets the criteria) and I am planning on applying for admission to the bar later this year so you have got to be kidding if you think I would share if I knew. (And yeah, ok, I do know who the sport celebrity, the comedian and the MP are… but I’m zipped, ok, so stop trying it.)

I wish Cam all the best with his mission, I stand with him as a friend, I hope he comes through this fairly unscathed but that does not mean I am about to join him so give. it. up. please

I’m seriously going to yell at the next person who asks.

RELATED POSTS:
Name Suppression and the Balancing of Rights and Freedoms

Suppression orders offend important liberal concepts; the principle of openness, transparent and public trials, is grounded in the right to a fair trial and the right to freedom of expression, for each citizen to be able to seek, receive and impart information, are both contained the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Suppression orders meant that we, the public, are unable to receive information about matters of justice and thus we cannot fully witness justice being done; the balance of power becomes too weighted in favour of the state.

This is not to say there is no place for suppression orders, I believe there clearly is, but in granting one the interests of justice must be properly weighed against the right to expression “and only where the Court’s capacity to ensure justice is significantly imperilled will the right of citizens and the media to seek, receive and impart information be curtailed.” (Thomas J in Police v O’Connor [1992] 1 NZLR 87, 99) The court must take into consideration the effect of doing so on freedom of expression, alongside its affronts to the principle of openness, and engage in the weighing and balancing that Thomas J referred to.

Now given the presumption of innocence, innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, one wonders why someone simply being accused of something causes the court to tip the balance in favour of the right to privacy, a right not typically contained in Bills of Rights or listed by jurists when considering the key elements of a just and liberal society? If the reason is that once accused everyone thinks you did it then why doesn’t everyone get name suppression? Do non-celebrities not also have very real risks to their careers and relationships when they are tainted by accusations?