Anyway in case you are one of our few international readers, New Zealand Media Madges are all a flutter today with the decision by a District Court Judge preventing websites from publishing the names of two men who have been charged with murdering a 14 year old boy in South Auckland.
I am yet to read the judgment myself, the New Zealand Court’s website doesn’t carry District Court Judgments and when I called the court just before, they were closed for the evening. If anyone has a copy of the judgment I would appreciate being sent it. Of course the stupid thing is the judgment itself would name the defendants and so couldn’t be published on a website…
The issue of pre-trial release of information, traditionally by the media, is a real one and as a law grad with experience in police PR – I feel my opinion is informed enough to pass my own judgment.
The thing for me is that the Judge must have realised there would be a lot of media interest precipitated by his unique ruling, so I also suspect his decision was motivated by more than just the issue of justice in this case. But I wonder whether these kinds of issues need to be tackled centrally and not by a single ruling, that is bound to cause an inevitable amount of media interest.
I am going to reserve my judgment, however, until I have read Judge Harvey’s, but I will say: everyone deserves a fair trial, and the biggest mistake Harvey made is thinking he can centrally control a decentralised communication system like the internet.
So how can we address the issue of controlling pretrial releases of information?
Unfortunately in a decentralised world control is impossible – but having a conversation about the issues is probably a good start (in contrast to dictating a ruling).
I will also suggest this link as a starter for ten.
August 26th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Is this in response to removing the post that is now on Google and cached by many? That did mention the banned names.
August 26th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Thanks for the comment desuvius and the names were removed as soon as I was made aware of them. I accidentally deleted the whole post this afternoon; although I do have a copy.
August 27th, 2008 at 12:37 am
Not exacly hard to find tho. For eg, google shows it.
Being that I know said Judge (kinda - I’ve not talked to him for a number of years), I’d have to say he’d be the MOST internet savvy judge in New Zealand. His call wasn’t a free speech issue, or a censorship issue - if it was, it would have a blanket media ban.
It was due to the case being, I guess!, less than strong, and if they are NOT convicted, then their names live in google as being accused, incorrectly. And that can’t be removed.
I think he made the right choice. I think people, outside of NZ, who publish the names out of “free speech” concerns are, well, stupid. but it’s out there now.
August 27th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Thanks for the comment Nic and I have requested that google remove that page from the cache, which should be through in another day or so.
I think Judge Harvey’s concerns were more about ensuring due process and a fair trial with impartial jurors than the effects of acquittals and what would happen if they weren’t convicted.
I believe everyone deserves a fair trial and I can see how the internet and social media can potentially be a barrier to this.
Anyway, I also now agree with you and followed this up with a post with my new thinking on this issue.
Thanks again for your comment.