|
|
Allegations of Sexual
Abuse in NZ |
|
|
|
|
One of the basic tenets of the modern
Western legal system is that a person is considered innocent until proven
guilty. It is worthy principle that, human nature being what it is, tends to
be easier to proclaim than achieve. The justice process can be slow and it is
the period between when a person is first charged and a final judgment made
that an individual's reputation can suffer the greatest injustice. While most
people recognise that those facing prosecution may still be innocent, mud
tends to stick and even a favourable verdict may not be enough to save a
person's reputation. Some years ago, an earlier Labour
government introduced legislation suppressing the publication of identity
unless defendants were proven guilty. It was a worthy attempt to give greater
protection to the accused, but proved impracticable and too complicated to
sustain because it made the reporting of some cases almost impossible and
tended to hinder rather than assist police investigations. The Act Party is now proposing
legislation that would take the legal pendulum full swing the other way --
suggesting all accused should lose the right to suppression unless
identifying them would harm their victims. Professionals who fall foul of
their disciplinary bodies would also be named unless their victims objected. This is, on the face of it, a step
forward for those who claim that the courts are applying a double standard on
name suppression that favours professionals, the rich and the famous.
Certainly, as it stands, more people from this group get name suppression than
lesser mortals. The flip side is that they also have more to lose from such
exposure than some others do. Successful prosecution of someone from this
group can mean the end of a lucrative and respected job. Even a hint that
they have misbehaved can frighten clients away and wreck their business. There are other remedies, however.
The police could be more discerning in their investigations before laying
charges, and the courts less tardy in processing these. An irony of this is
that often the delays are caused by the defence seeking extra time to prepare
their case and do their best for the defendant. The media attitude is that
everyone is entitled to be treated equally and professionals should be no
different from anyone else. If the risks for them are greater then the
incentive to behave is equally magnified. In a country that values freedom of
speech, the public is entitled to know who is under suspicion so people can
make their own informed decisions about association. A case before the courts in Taranaki,
where an unnamed New Plymouth doctor has been charged with sex offences,
highlights the problems of suppression. It has created suspicion about his
fellow doctors and generated all sorts of rumours. The individual and his
family would suffer if identified, but that is part of the price of an open
justice system. |
