Suppression continues in Labour camp assault case

The man facing multiple charges of sexual assault at a Labour Youth summer camp in February has had his name suppression extended until either a verdict or other determination, on the grounds that “there would be a real risk to fair trial rights”. This is a common reason for suppression pre-trial.

NZH:  Labour Party summer camp indecent assault accused keeps name suppression

The 20-year-old was arrested in June and charged with six counts of indecent assault against four complainants.

Today, the accused appeared before Judge Russell Collins in the Auckland District Court seeking to extend his interim name suppression.

The man’s lawyer Emma Priest argued her client should keep his name suppression until determination of the charges, and may seek permanent suppression if there were valid grounds to do so.

Judge Collins granted interim name suppression until either verdict or other determination and bailed the man to appear in court again later this year.

“I am satisfied, and have been satisfied quite quickly, there would be a real risk to fair trial rights,” he said.

The judge continued there had been an “extremely high-level of media coverage” with many people talking in the press “without thinking that a prosecution may ultimately result”.

“Many people have commented publicly with the only inference to be taken from the comments is that the defendant must be guilty.

“His presumption of innocence is paramount,” Judge Collins said.

Given the level of public and media interest in the case I think this is a fair call, presuming that it will be a jury trial.

This suppression means that no attempt to identify the person in any way can be allowed here.

31 Comments

  1. robertguyton

     /  September 5, 2018

    Fair enough, just as most of us tried not to speculate on the identity of the mentally unwell Nat leaker. I wonder how close Simon is to fingering that guy?

    • Trevors_elbow

       /  September 5, 2018

      Oh piss off Robert there is no mentally unwell leaker in Nationals caucus. Its Labour or Greens dirty tricks smear that has got out of control… hence why Mallatd has tried to shut it down…

      • robertguyton

         /  September 5, 2018

        Trev – Simon’ll broadcast such a result as you claim load and clear, if it turns out that way but I’m expecting a quiet smothering of any finding, ’cause, Nat!

      • lurcher1948

         /  September 5, 2018

        Got the inside running on that comment trevor,some of Nationals females look stressed due to the fact they are NEVER leaders

    • David

       /  September 5, 2018

      Careful throwing the stones from your personal glasshouse Robert, surprised you of all people would comment on the Labour Party shenanigans.

  2. Blazer

     /  September 5, 2018

    ‘This is a common reason for suppression pre-trial.’

    Hardly worth a thread then is it?

    • Gerrit

       /  September 5, 2018

      Enough of a thread for you to read and comment on?

      • robertguyton

         /  September 5, 2018

        Barely 🙂

      • Blazer

         /  September 5, 2018

        there have been so many trying to blame Labour for the foibles of errant human behaviour.

        • Gerrit

           /  September 5, 2018

          It is not the foibles of errant human behaviour that it the issue.

          It is the Labour party cover up that is unraveling at an embarrassing rate that is the issue.

          As is usual the cover up (and who knew what and when) is politically more damaging than the foible committed.

          It is also an open sore that, if lanced right from the get go, would have been placed as an minor side issue in history.

          Haworth and Kirton played this all wrong and have placed senior Labour ministers in a position they did not need to have to spend energy on.

          • Blazer

             /  September 5, 2018

            as I have stated.Report crimes against you to the Police,not the Labour Party or the National Party.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  September 5, 2018

              In this case the party actively worked to avoid reporting of the crime and holding the perpetrator to account – you because “victim led” and all that.
              Helen Clark saw through the ineptitude. Not surprised you cannot.

            • Blazer

               /  September 5, 2018

              those are serious allegations.
              Seems you made them up…no surprise there.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  September 5, 2018

              They are publicly available facts. They had a secret report done resulting in many, many recommendations and everything. It specifically avoided accountability of course, but you know…

              Helen Clark:
              “I would have handled it differently from the start,” she said.
              Under her watch, “people didn’t keep their jobs”.

            • Blazer

               /  September 5, 2018

              some ‘secret’…huh…Helen is yesterdays pollie just like those the right disparage..you know,Muldoon,Bolger,Brash,Key and the..like.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  September 5, 2018

              The report & it’s findings were kept secret. You really do require paint by numbers explanations don’t you?

            • Blazer

               /  September 5, 2018

              no I require evidence not your jaundiced assumptions…’They had a secret report done resulting in many, many recommendations and everything. It specifically avoided accountability of course, but you know…’

            • High Flying Duck

               /  September 5, 2018

              “An internal Labour Party report into allegations of sexual assault at a Young Labour summer camp has not been released because there are matters now before the court, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says.

              Ardern would not comment on whether she stood by the party’s earlier decision not to tell police, the victims’ parents, her or other senior Labour Party MPs about the events that occurred at the Waihi camp in February.

              Labour Party president Nigel Haworth said today the party would implement all the recommendations of the Austen report

              https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12115727

              One of the victims from Labour’s youth summer camp scandal has slammed the party for its “absolutely appalling” handling of a review into what went wrong, saying nobody is being held accountable.

              The party has finally released the recommendations of a report into the summer camp which ended in accusations of sexual assault, saying it will implement them in full.

              “Failing to release the report shows a blatant lack of accountability and from my perspective as a victim, is absolutely appalling.”

              The report should have been released with the redaction of any information which could have identified people, they said.

              The victims and witnesses involved in Austen’s inquiry were not given a copy of the final report either.

              They also questioned the news that Haworth would lead the work on changing Labour’s procedures, given the failures of the party in handling the initial complaint.

              “The person in charge of implementing the recommendations is the person that hasn’t been trusted in the first place to provide support and resolve the issue … I don’t see accountability there.”

              https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/106682579/victim-slams-labour-summer-camp-report

            • Blazer

               /  September 5, 2018

              ‘Labour Party president Nigel Haworth said today the party would implement all the recommendations of the Austen report’

            • High Flying Duck

               /  September 5, 2018

              The report which has not been given to the victims or released (as I said – kept secret). Recommendations being implemented by the architect of the whole debacle. Top work all round.

            • Blazer

               /  September 5, 2018

              ‘The report & it’s findings were kept secret.’


              Recommendations being implemented by the architect of the whole debacle.’…as they quite rightly decided they should ,taking into account privacy issues.

  3. David

     /  September 5, 2018

    I think the judge is totally wrong in that identifying the person would prejudice the trial as the prejudice already exists if there is one, its related to the crime and to the Labour Party regardless off who the alleged offender is.
    Part of the deterrent is being publicly outed and the judiciary and legal fraternity like the anonymity as it gives them power.

    • robertguyton

       /  September 5, 2018

      Yeah! What do judges know!!

      • Kitty Catkin

         /  September 5, 2018

        I don’t know and don’t care who the person is; unless I happened to know them (unlikely) i’d be none the wiser.

        But I do believe that until someone’s been found guilty, they ought not to be publicly identified. Innocent until proved guilty is a farce when photos and names are in the paper and the news treats court cases as if they were entertainment and not real people’s lives and tragedies. I can think of few things worse than being fingered for a crime I had not committed and having cameras trained on me during the trial.

        • Kitty Catkin

           /  September 5, 2018

          The PDTs might feel differently if they were named in an accusation of a sex crime, had their photos in the paper and were seen on the news night after night.

  4. Chuck Bird

     /  September 5, 2018

    It will be outrageous if the alleged perpetrator is found guilty and gets permanent name suppression. From day one there was speculation that the alleged offender was closely related to a Labour MP or official. This may or may not be true but if there is permanent name suppression is will look like the Court is corrupt.

    • Kitty Catkin

       /  September 5, 2018

      If they are found guilty, I see no need for name suppression. But I don’t see why people need to be named UNTIL they are found guilty, as being charged means that they are guilty. Look at that poor boy in Hamilton, and the young Kuggelein (can’t spell it) who was also falsely accused and had the unsavoury details of the supposed rape relayed in the paper and on the news, as well as being filmed and photographed.

      • Traveller

         /  September 5, 2018

        If they’re convicted they’ll need to go on to the Sex Register for a minimum of 8 years.

        These were children he offended against.

        • Kitty Catkin

           /  September 6, 2018

          I don’t think that they were, or that they would consider themselves to be children at that age. Children don’t go to political events as a rule.

        • Kitty Catkin

           /  September 6, 2018

          They were all over the age of 16, so not children. Nobody in their late teens would see themselves as a child, I think.