Wednesday, April 05, 2006

Nicholas, Shipton, Schollum, Rickard and errant websites


Although a New Zealand blogger has deleted an unlawful post in relation to the Nicholas case, it is still available on an overseas website that has aggregated the post. Overseas sites cannot breach New Zealand suppression orders as such orders are limited to New Zealand media and web sites, even if the material was written in New Zealand, apparently.

Now, some people are saying that sites like Big News, which is hosted by Blogger, should be exempt from our suppression laws and be allowed to post contemptous material, because such sites are hosted in a country other than New Zealand.

Rubbish. If an article, blog post or comment was written anywhere for a New Zealand publication, or for an audience intended to include people in New Zealand, my understanding that our suppression laws apply.

Those flyers headed "We Believe Louise Nicholas" distributed at the Wellington Railway Station and at Cuba Mall by Emma Willis and her mates go too far in breaching the court order suppressing certain evidence in the recent rape trial of the three men.

Some people are asking why previous convictions cannot be disclosed in a criminal trial.

I am now asking why a judgement on a certain court case has been posted on the Internet and linked widely in a flagrant and blatant contempt of court.

1 comment:

Aquasprite said...

A person on trial for any crime may bring People with "Good Character" references into the court - why should the prosecution not be allowed to present "Bad Character" references, such as previous and current convictions?
I bet that if the jury in the Louise Nicholas trial had known about these, they would have been a lot less likely to acquit.