‘Name suppression and political interference’

Back a few years Cameron Slater ran a campaign on Whale Oil to push suppression law to the limit – and beyond, he was found guilty in 2010 on nine charges of breaching suppression.

He later described it:

In 2010 I thought I could be smart and get my way around name suppression laws by being cute. I failed, and wound up with a few convictions for breaking name suppression.

It wasn’t long ago that Slater posted:

THIS DOES MY HEAD IN: NAME SUPPRESSION AND POLITICAL INTERFERENCE

Having an MP from the Crim-Hugging Party help you out doesn’t just get you help in a way that’s apparently OK (but not if you’re Maurice Williamson of course, then you have to resign), but you also get the benefit of name suppression due to the attention your case gets in the media because Trevor Mallard put his crim-hugging cape on and came to the rescue. 

Shouldn’t his peers, neighbours and community know that he’s capable of that kind of behavior?

But part of the repercussions needs to be that you don’t get to hide behind the law just because a Labour MP wrote a letter for you.

In February:

I’D LIKE TO SEE THIS KIND OF JUSTICE HERE

This is why name suppression is undesirable – it removes part of the contract with society where you are marked for your convictions and you need to find a way to earn your place in society with the full weight of other people’s knowledge about what you’ve done.

January:

TOUCHING A STUDENT’S PENIS FOR A MINUTE – STILL REGISTERED

And once again, having his name suppressed means that none of the other victims (if any) are allowed to know so they can’t come forward.  Yes, it’s deeply embarrassing, but embarrassment is part of the justice process so it can act as a deterrent.

December:

DOMESTIC 1080 TERRORIST PLEADS GUILTY, BUT WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO KNOW WHO HE IS

The media label him as an “Auckland businessman”, and that’s as far as we’re allowed to know the details of this idiot.  He wasn’t even a true believer in the cause.  Instead, his motive was money.

I really can’t see why his suppression should last once he is also convicted.

And so on.

So one could get the impression that Slater is strongly against name suppression.

In cases that he isn’t involved in.

During the time period that the above posts covered, starting last December, Slater faced a charge – counselling and/or attempting to procure Mr Rachinger to access the computer system of “The Standard” website to obtain property or a benefit, namely computer files.

He sought and obtained interim suppression, although the victim (Lynn Prentice, owner of The Standard) and Rachinger opposed suppression.

Slater was offered and accepted diversion (it wasn’t his first offence so having that looked in to would be interesting) and after completing the required diversion programme was acquitted. As stated by the judge Slater accepted his guilt, which is necessary for diversion.

In the meantime Slater sought ongoing and permanent suppression in relation to his own charge and also in relation to a charge against Rachinger with him as complainant.

Rachinger, Prentice and a group of media companies opposed the suppression.

Slater claimed revealing his name would result in extreme hardship.

Many of the details had already been published online prior to the charges being laid and interim suppression being granted, so additional hardship was a difficult argument.

Last week the judge ruled against continued suppression.

I am not satisfied that any hardship that may occur following publication in relation to this matter would constitute extreme hardship…

Neither am I satisfied that any hardship that may occur would relate directly to to publication directly to publication relevant to to this matter as opposed to being the natural consequence of publicity that has already occurred in relation to it, Mr Slater’s activities as a political commentator…

The judge also stated that even if he had reached the conclusion that it had reached the threshold of extreme hardship…

… I do not consider that…the need for open justice would have been outweighed by any hardship that may have been caused by publication…

So on both criteria the need for suppression failed.

Shouldn’t Slater’s “peers, neighbours and community know that he’s capable of that kind of behavior?”

Shouldn’t Slater “need to find a way to earn your place in society with the full weight of other people’s knowledge about what” he’s done?

Yes, “it’s deeply embarrassing, but embarrassment is part of the justice process so it can act as a deterrent”.

I really can’t see why his suppression should have lasted. Neither did the judge, who seems to be in synch with Slater’s attitude to suppression, when it applies to other people.

Leave a comment

5 Comments

  1. Blazer

     /  10th May 2016

    typical behaviour from rightwingers I’m afraid.Double standards are a feature of their behaviour.Good to see that the slug has lost weight,maybe he’s in training to give Jesse …’double’!

    Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  10th May 2016

      Anyone who’s done that will know how hard it is. It doesn’t make me like him any more, but credit where it’s due….

      But he’s still not cute in either sense.

      Reply
    • Nelly Smickers

       /  10th May 2016

      Gosh yes, Cam has lost sooo much weight! If he’s not careful, people might mistake him for Hagar 😥

      Reply
    • Iceberg

       /  10th May 2016

      The other thing they’re quite good at is…

      Winning elections.

      At least 5 in a row by the looks.

      Reply
  2. duperez

     /  10th May 2016

    So Slater admitted to something “doing his head in.”

    The depth of his hypocrisy is obviously beyond him although I would not be surprised with his level of cynicism that he would claim that it is a deliberate strategy for some ulterior motive.

    The advice of having “taking a good look at himself” or the wondering, “How does he sleep at night?” are the sorts of things usually heard on such occasions as the realities Slater has created for himself. Wasted words. The mirror would show a well-rested and comfortable [Deleted, an unnecessary personal description. PG]

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s