Protecting victims and keeping their identities secret is often used as the reason for suppressing the names of criminals.
Two Christchurch women who were sexually abused as children will next week go to court and fight to have their name suppression lifted.
The sisters believe their abuser is using suppression orders to protect himself.
Nearly two decades after he was convicted and four decades after the abuse the women – now grandmothers at 48 and 52 – are going back to court to try and have their own name suppression lifted in the hope it’ll help expose him.
They believe he’s using the suppression to protect himself and want to warn parents.
“I could basically be arrested if I was to speak my name out, that’s how dumb it is,” one of the women says.
Both were shocked when news broke he was taking the Sensible Sentencing Trust to court for naming and shaming him on its offender website.
The director of human rights proceedings is now taking action in the Human Rights Review Tribunal on the man’s behalf, funded by the taxpayer, for the alleged privacy breach. . .
I don’t know what the law says but if it doesn’t allow the victims to be identified when they want to be, it should be changed.
Suppression in this case appears to be adding insult to the injury they received.
They are the wronged not the wrong-doers and if there is a conflict between their rights and those of the offender, theirs should trump his.