Good and timely reporting, thanks heaps to the people who did this.

"Indymedia activists were aware of this too and it is for this reason that collective members were opposed to publishing the suppressed information on indymedia.org.nz."

Um, actually there was a week of arguing over the AIMC general email list about whether or not to publish, with some arguing against it, and others strongly supporting publication. I think 4 people quit the editorial collective in the space of that 2 weeks, with at least one of them as a direct result of Indymedia's reluctance to publish suppressed information.

Yes, that should really read: "this reason that *some* collective members" ..

Agreed and changed.
smush

"RadioLive breaches rape case gag order
28 May 2006
By RACHEL GRUNWELL

Suppression orders covering sex charges against three policemen have been broken by a mainstream media outlet for the first time.


Lawyers are calling for the Auckland radio presenter who made the breach to be charged with contempt of court.

On Friday, RadioLive programme director Mitch Harris discussed on air whether former assistant police commissioner Clint Rickards and former policemen Bob Schollum and Brad Shipton could get a fair trial after it was revealed they were facing more charges over a historic sex complaint.

In March, the three were acquitted of raping Rotorua woman Louise Nicholas.

On his programme, Harris raised issues suppressed by the High Court at Auckland.

It is the first time a mainstream media outlet has breached the orders, although the suppressed details have appeared in other forums, including on the TradeMe auction site and in leaflets distributed by Nicholas supporters.

The Sunday Star-Times cannot reveal what Harris said because it would also breach the suppression orders.

On Thursday, Chief High Court Judge Tony Randerson lifted one suppression order, ruling it could be made public that Rickards, Schollum and Shipton face further charges relating to alleged sexual offending in the 1980s involving another complainant.

Numerous suppression orders have been placed on the latest case and a date for trial has yet to be set.

Rickards' lawyer, John Haigh, QC, said it appeared RadioLive's comments were a complete breach of the suppression orders, "and he (Mitch Harris) ought to be charged".

He said Rickards had been unjustifiably maligned on the internet and in emails.

"He was acquitted (in the Louise Nicholas case) and will defend this most recent charge, which he has always denied," Haigh said. "The position of him obtaining a fair trial diminishes all the time."

Brad Shipton's lawyer, Bill Nabney, said this was the latest in a string of breaches, and he felt his client's rights were slowly being eroded.

He planned to write to Crown prosecutor Brent Stanaway about the breach.

Harris told the Star-Times he could not remember what he said on Friday, but admitted he had had difficulty over suppression issues on the "tricky case".

It was difficult knowing what he could and could not say, and believed a lot of media had felt that way.

Harris said it was difficult sticking to suppression orders on live radio, but he never set out to say anything he should not.

RadioLive is a new station and has an audience of about 104,000 listeners.

Brent Impey, chief executive of CanWest, which owns RadioLive, said he would investigate whether Harris had breached suppression issues. "We will act accordingly if there has been a suppression breach," he said"

stuff.co.nz/national_news.html

Can anyone tell me what the possible implications are of the suppressed info being public?

This talk of 'not being able to receive a fair trial'...what could this potentially mean for he latest case?

It's one of the ways in which the asshole defence lawyers try to get the scum off having to face up to the charges. It's "unfair" because every person who goes before the court is an upstanding great guy, and the information would damage that. Yet any rape victim who goes into the court according to the defence is a slut who asked for it.

Its one law for them and another law for us.

Cop rapists, cops beating handcuffed people, cops pepper spraying handcuffed people, remember that photo of the cop with the machetes from last year?
Don't trust ANY PIG.

from the emails i read indy editors who did nt want the info published were more worried about indy people getting in trouble with police etc than any thing else (claim moral high ground now though!) Others are going down for the leak though now and the reason the info (or half of it ) has been released can in part be thanks to them I still think it was and is the correct thing to do, these laws protect only the rapists and we need to oppose them.

Should they not be given the benefit of the doubt? The long standing principle is "innocent until proven guilty".

Considering only the effect which information on which suppression has been lifted (i.e. the existence of the new trial) could have had on other cases, the defence can only defend against the charges that are levelled against the defendants, not information about different cases the jurors obtain outside of court, so I agree it would be unfair if the jury were aware of allegations which the defence has no opportunity to disprove. The fact that three people are being charged together makes it even worse, as a situation like this could cause an innocent person to be convicted in relation to one case by association with a guilty person from another case. I think it would be better if each defendent was tried separately, and the complainants were pooled into class action suits, rather than the other way around, but as that cannot happen due to timing, suppression orders are a necessary evil.

Re: JibJabJob
The alleged rape victims do not face years in jail, so surely the balance should be in favour of the defendents. Remember that it is much harder to prove a negative, and so instead the defence needs to show that the prosecution hasn't proved a positive. It is not one law for some and one law for another, because if you are accused of something you didn't do, you will get the same rights.

Re: FTP
I agree that many members of the Police are out-of-control, and think they are vigilantes and should punish whoever they think deserves punishment, rather than just bring them before the courts (and unfortunately, they want to punish people for things which they don't like, but which aren't illegal). I hope that they are brought to justice for this and that it is stamped out. However, you cannot fight injustice with injustice, you must fight it with justice, and so these members of the Police should get a fair trial.

Re Dick's Chainy:
Do you really believe that killing people will result in a just society?

Re: josephine
If you don't let people get a fair trial, the Police will start to bring charges at everyone who looks at them wrong, and people will lose the freedom to do legal things, for fear of being falsely convicted. By removing safeguards designed to ensure justice, in response to media sensationalism, society will degenerate into something from 1984. For a good parallel, look at the terrorism excuse in the US/Britain. Many people lose there lives, many of them innocent (e.g. the person shot on sight). Civil rights get drained from the people every day. Is that what you want?

"Do you really believe that killing people will result in a just society?",,,,,,,

not nessecarily, however, the type of British that Colonised Aotearoa is unable to communicate in any other way than intentional ignorance (see 50 years agent orange used as pasture cleaner), the only way to deal with that sort of human is exterminate it so it doesn't infect other shores. Scum like Clark and Brash are so far removed from reality they pose a threat to everyone and are backed by pigs that are even more distant, how could "police" be "Pack Rapers"? and a "Culture" of it? fuck off kiwis, I hate and despise USA but we will never be that bad. The Truth is you ALL have known about and tolerated this for ages, and intentionally ignored it.


In this case violence is most certainly called for, do you think your average yank would tolerate a bunch of cops fucking, raping his 14 yr old daughter? Think again.

Be sure your sins will find you out I say.... Lets hope this new case will show the accused for what they are and vindicate Louise Nicholas and their other victims.Their "orchestrated litany of lies" didn't fool the New Zealand public, not for a minute. Ding ding, round three... bring it on!!!

do rich people get suppression from the media of relevant facts which might influence the jury in their case when poor people do not? I would be interested to know whether selectively applying the suppression of information laws has an impact on the unjust court system targetting and imprisoning poor while acquitting the rich. anyone done any research? suppression of information hurts society's ability to take extra-judicial action. is it being used as a political tool to manipulate the media into ignoring all or part of a problem until the media's and the population's attention and focus is no longer on the issue. the courts are one consideration and wider society another which is no less important. do suppression orders tend to pre-empt protest and discontent on contentious issues those in power would rather be brushed under the carpet? if a jury cannot be expected to exclude facts outside the case in their deliberations of an accused's guilt then how can they be expected to exclude their own prejudices and point-of-view from having an impact on their part in the courtcase? just thoughts.

Just so people know the police approached three Wellington women today, and are looking for two more (if you haven't been contacted they're not looking for you).

All three declined to make statements.

セックスセフレアダルト

エロSEX風俗

オナニー出会いエロ

セックスセフレ不倫

エッチアダルト出会い

出会いセックス素人

エッチ巨乳熟女

童貞セフレナンパ