- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Monday, August 25, 2008

Names of accused in John Hapeta murder case

Judge Harvey's internet suppression order lacks credibility and probably lacks empirical evidence too. The suspect's names will be mentioned repeatedly on news radio and talkback, where people will talk about them. If Harvey wanted to stop jurors searching for information on the suspects via the internet then surely he knows that -
a. they will anyway, and
b. internet publication is now inevitable - a form of media has been treated differently and unfairly. That media is vocal and anarchistic and now it has a legitimate injustice issue to right.

Harvey further assumes a judge's direction to the jury is weaker than a judge's direction to the internet community. Why else would he have made the order? We all know he has it the wrong way round.

People will now go out of their way to snub their nose at his Honour's unique order. This is his pet thing and he's probably doing it as a grand exercise in guaranteeing a second edition of his internet law textbook.

The mainstream press and broadcasters also offer extensive websites that are now being compromised. Their lawyers are standing by. NZ Herald:
Judge Harvey teaches the Law and Information Technology course at the University of Auckland. The course looks at the way technology impacts on evidence, jurisdiction and freedom of information.
Judge Harvey has also written a textbook on the internet and law called internet.law.nz.

Judge Harvey reportedly said that he was "concerned about someone Googling someone's name and being able to access it later". He was also "concerned about the viral effect of digital publication".
Law Commission President Sir Geoffrey Palmer said today that the order would affect a commission study into name suppression.
"It will have to be taken into account ... this is a very interesting development from the point of view of our project."
He had never heard of such an order before, but suspected it was to do with the huge rise of "googling", which jurors could potentially do at home on nights of the trial.

Perhaps this is Judge Harvey's curious way of drawing the internet's attention to a tragedy that has become almost unremarkable - the seemingly senseless death of a 14 year old in South Auckland. All we can legally report, apparently, about the alleged killers are they are male and aged 23 and 21.

What is it about these guys the judge doesn't want us to know or discuss? His actions beg that question. I am sure many will answer it - out of outrage. I mean I can sit here and see it on teletext on one screen and I can listen to it on radio but I can't just type the names in. This seems rather foolish.


At 25/8/08 10:10 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The viral effect of digital publication - what nonsense. Word of mouth is just as viral. His real concern is that the internet is just too efficient a reporting medium, which is a fair point. It remains to be seen how effective it will work for the case in question, in our current climate. As far as setting a precedent goes though, in the long run it's flying in the face of the inevitable at best.

At 26/8/08 12:37 am, Blogger Paul said...

Fucking publicity stunt "oooo look at me I'm judge david harvey! buy my books!"

Anyone got a 'newspaper clipping' or a 'radio recording'? lol.

At 26/8/08 9:04 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You criticise the judge Tim, yet you do not name them.

Come on, grow some balls and name them.

At 26/8/08 3:54 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...


At 26/8/08 8:36 pm, Anonymous Walter Nutt said...

Out of curiosity, did you read actually read the judge's reasoning behind the order? Or are you just taking it for granted that stuff.co.nz printed everything there is to know?

At 27/8/08 7:04 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

That judge is such a fool who thinks that he can gag the internet, didn;t we see that already in China?

At 28/8/08 11:23 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

why should we accomodate the feelings and future of these mungers they did the crime do the time and handle what is given to them. if they can kill someone surely they can handle being known to everyone. whatever the cause nobody deserves that. not a 14 year old who hasnt even lived.

At 28/8/08 11:38 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

to the little fuckers that killed john john,we know who you are but you dont know who we are,no use crying like bitches now cause you are in for a shock when you go to jail,should of thought about it aye,try standing hard now fuck wits,dont cry

At 28/8/08 3:15 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just out of curiousity ... if someone was to write into this blog site and name the alleged offenders - do you guys have to delete the comment? Or would the person writing the comment be in contempt of the judge's orders?

How can they police this?

What about the American bloggers who say they are not covered by NZ law and can therefore publish the names?

How can the judge assume that every person who has a web site in NZ knows about this gagging order?

Do they have some sort of search engine operating that picks up the names of these guys and automatically deletes the entry???

So much to think about!


At 29/8/08 2:06 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

it's temporary.. when (if?) they're found guilty then you can blog their names all you like.

At 6/10/09 7:44 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Its sad that this has turned from a tragic loss of a childs life to a media frenzy about the Judge. Dosen't seem right to me wouldn't all this energy be better aimed at supporting the family. The Judge seems to have won which ever way you look at it by gagging the internet and by taking the focus away from where it should be


Post a Comment

<< Home