Latest news with #VictimsofSexualViolenceBill
RNZ News
10-08-2025
- Politics
- RNZ News
Victims of Sexual Violence Bill explained: Why sex offender name suppression is changing
The Victims of Sexual Violence Bill ensures a permanent name suppression order for an adult convicted of a sexual offence cannot be given unless the victim agrees to it. Photo: RNZ Explainer - A recently passed law aims to give victims of sexual offences more control over name suppression orders for convicted offenders. In June, Parliament unanimously passed the Victims of Sexual Violence Bill , which ensures the courts cannot issue a permanent name suppression order for an adult convicted of a sexual offence, unless the victim agrees to it. It comes into effect at the end of October. We often hear of 'prominent figures' facing charges reported in the media. The label - a prominent New Zealander, a [ former political figure or a prominent musician - keeps their identities under wraps. The secrecy surrounding alleged and convicted offenders can cause outrage and speculation among the public, but it is crucial for protecting the integrity of the justice system, legal experts say. So, why do offenders get name suppression, and what is changing? The name of Grace Millane's killer was suppressed for more than two years. Photo: RNZ / YouTube Name suppression is when someone's name and any details that may identify them are kept a secret. It can come in two forms: interim (temporary) or permanent. Permanent name suppression is granted to around 4 percent of convicted sexual violence charges. The judge can order name suppression if they are satisfied publication of a defendant's name is likely to: Interim name suppression is far more common. AUT senior lecturer in law Paulette Benton-Greig said prolonged name suppression can be frustrating for the public, particularly when the reason for name suppression is also suppressed. She said the high-profile Grace Millane trial demonstrated where the tension between public interest and transparency and a well-functioning justice system played out. Jesse Shane Kempson had name suppression for more than two years after he was arrested for the murder of British backpacker Grace Millane . The reason for suppression was also suppressed. It was later revealed he was facing two further trials for violent sexual offending against two other women. His lawyer argued that if the juries in the other trials knew he was the person convicted of Millane's murder, their decision would be influenced. "It's really difficult for the public to feel satisfied when they don't know why... There is a lot of detail in the media of her [Millane] out there in the world and some of it is really unpleasant, and so that feels really unfair to people and I can understand why," Benton-Greig said. "But other victims deserve their day in court too, and if we jeopardise their trials through wide knowledge about him, that can mean the trials don't go ahead." Jesse Shane Kempson had name suppression for more than two years. Photo: RNZ There is a notion that only the rich, famous and powerful get name suppression, but contrary to popular belief, that's not the case. "There's certainly a perception that well-known people are given easier times with name suppression," Benton Greig said. "For instance, we often hear about a 'high profile musician'... and it can feel a lot like the court is trying to protect them somehow." Chief Victims Advisor Ruth Money. Photo: RNZ / Niva Chittock Under the current law, the power sits with judges. The court must consider a victim's views about permanent name suppression, but a judge doesn't have to agree with them. The new law puts the decision in the victim's hands, ensuring courts cannot issue a permanent name suppression order for an adult convicted of a sexual offence unless the victim agrees with it. The changes do not affect name suppressions granted for non-sexual offences, such as murder. "These changes will help ensure victims of sexual violence and their needs are returned to the heart of the justice system," Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said. When victims do not want to decide or cannot be contacted, the court will make the decision. The act comes into effect on 30 October. Chief Victims Advisor Ruth Money said the move was a "huge step forward for victims and survivors". "When you are a victim/survivor, you're often excluded from information [and] communication about the case because of the way that the system works," Money told RNZ. "To prioritise victims' opinions around name suppression gives victims a sense of inclusion once again, because after all, they were the people who were assaulted." While victims and survivors of sexual violence have welcomed the changes, the move was opposed by legal groups, including the Law Society , and several recommendations were made. Lawyers and academics say they are unsure how the law change would work in practice. "Until it is actually happening, it's really difficult to know how it is going to play out," Benton-Greig said. The Ministry of Justice commissioning and service improvement group manager Donella Gawith said staff are developing fact sheets for court staff, police, legal professionals, the media and non-government organisations with information they need to adapt to the changes. The ministry is also developing information for victims that will go on the Victims Information website. The information will be available before 30 October, when the Act comes into effect. The bill also provides automatic name suppression for all victims of sexual offences. Automatic name suppression is provided to complainants or witnesses under 18 years old and victims of specified sexual crimes. The government's bill expands automatic name suppression for victims to occur under crimes "of a sexual nature", which means victims of crimes such as intimate visual recording offences would no longer have to apply for name suppression. The bill also amends the law so that children under the age of 12 will not be able to be questioned about whether they consented to sex. Criminal Bar Association president Annabel Cresswell said name suppression is extremely difficult to attain, and the current tests often require a nuanced assessment of factors and complex reasoning. She told RNZ that a victim is not an independent legal expert trained to make such assessments. "This appears to be another example of the government missing the complex issues involved in the justice system and making knee-jerk laws without actually consulting with the professionals doing this work at the frontlines," Cresswell said. For example, she said the offender may have children who could then be easily identified and severely punished as a result through bullying and or mental health harm. "A victim is not in a position to know or assess that issue independently," she said. "Courts often receive expert psychiatric evidence on risks such as risks to mental health and take it into account." She said it is important to remember the offender will ultimately be sentenced with their punishment. "Name suppression isn't meant to be part of that or used in a way that prioritises vengeance over the overall interests of justice," Cresswell said. Benton-Greig said while there were some good things in this bill, she was worried about the unintended consequences. She said victims tell her going through sex crime trials is horrendous and can cause them more harm. "The changes we can make that can help with that are really important," she said. "... I'm not sure, though, that this is going to achieve that. I am a bit worried that there will be unintended consequences. Both the risk of actual harm but also the responsibility for making the decision might not actually feel like being at the centre. It might feel like having a really, weighty responsibility and decision to make." Benton-Greig said she was concerned the law change creates potential for a lot of pressure and potentially violence against victims. Many sex crime cases involve intimate partners or ex-partners, and she is concerned that offenders, or family and friends of offenders, could put pressure or even inflict violence on some victims when deciding whether to agree to permanent name suppression. "Domestic violence doesn't just magically disappear when there's a trial," she said. "Unless we are sure there are no current safety issues for people, I am really worried about how that might put those victims under pressure." Ruth said the risk of coercion was a concern, but hoped the Ministry of Justice guidelines would help people make educated and safe decisions. In New Zealand, if a court refuses an application for name suppression, the applicant has the right to appeal that decision. The timeframe for filing an appeal is generally 20 working days (four weeks). Lawyers are concerned this law change could end the right of appeals as the victim becomes the final decision maker. The Law Society said in its submission that the victim's non-consent to a suppression order effectively gives the inability to appeal a decision. "The right to appeal is a fundamental human right. It's one of the ways in which we check and balance against inconsistent decision making [and] flawed thinking," Benton-Greig said. However, the length of the appeal process has been heavily criticised by victim advocates. Appealing a name suppression decision tends to lead to interim name suppression while the appeal goes through the courts, which can take time . There was frustration that former ACT Party president Tim Jago was able to keep his name suppressed for two years after he was charged in 2023 over abusing two teenage boys in the 1990s. He abandoned his fight for name suppression in January. Tim Jago had name suppression since being charged in January 2023. Photo: RNZ / Nick Monro Money said "delaying tactics" are often used to delay publication of the suppressed name, such as waiting until the last minute to apply for suppression or waiting on reports. "I would hope that this would see a drop in the without merit appeals that at the end of the day just clog up the courts and revictimise a victim more," she said. She said the changes were welcomed by victims. "I have had many, many, many communications from victims saying thank you and thank goodness the government is listening," Money said. "We will now be not just a consideration; we will be listened to." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Scoop
26-06-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
New Law To Give Victims Final Say Over Sex Offenders' Name Suppressions
Parliament has unanimously passed legislation that will ensure the courts cannot issue a permanent name suppression order for an adult convicted of a sexual offence, unless the victim agrees to it. The Victims of Sexual Violence Bill had its third reading late on Wednesday night. It also amends the law so that children under the age of 12 will not be able to be questioned about whether they consented to sex. The Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said this made it crystal clear children could not consent to abuse. New Zealand was now moving into line with many other countries in outlawing it. "It was well overdue and needed to be done." The law further closes what Goldsmith said was a legislative gap, by ensuring the victims of all sexual crimes, including intimate visual recordings offences, were automatically given name suppression. "These changes will help ensure victims of sexual violence and their needs are returned to the heart of the justice system. We've been clear from day one that victims are our priority as we work to restore law and order," Goldsmith said in a media release. He said at present victims' views on suppression only had to be taken into account by the courts. Long battles over name suppression retraumatised victims, as did the inability to discuss what happened to them and to warn others. Goldsmith told Morning Report he was concerned about people who had gone through the court process and then found there was a permanent name suppression for an offender and there was no opportunity to talk about their experience and most importantly, warn others. "We're talking about people who have been convicted of sexual crimes and they need to be named and held to account." While the legal profession had expressed some concern around reducing the powers of judges, he said it was a significant change focused on the needs of victims and a chance to do things differently. Police Minister Mark Mitchell spoke on behalf of the Justice Minister during the third reading. "It is abhorrent that the law allows questions about whether children enjoyed or agreed to sexual activity. We're fixing that. "It is unconscionable that victims feel silenced by our laws especially when they've braved the scrutiny of the court process to prove their case. We're fixing that too." Mitchell said victims had been clear that name suppression settings had disempowered victims, prevented them from speaking out about their experiences and warning others. New Zealanders also believed the way children were questioned in court was unacceptable, Mitchell said. MP Kahurangi Carter spoke in favour of the bill on behalf of the Green Party. "I know that we all feel this really heavily for victims under 12. It seems so obvious. "I'm glad today we're bringing our legislation, our laws into line with what is right." Goldsmith recognised some victims would not want to make the decision about name suppression themselves. In those cases, the decision would rest with the courts. He believed the changes would assist in ensuring 20,000 fewer victims of violent crime by 2029. While the bill was passed unanimously, there were no Te Pāti Māori MPs in the House at the time.
Scoop
26-06-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Law Change Better Protecting Children's Rights In Sexual Violence Cases Welcomed
Chief Children's Commissioner Dr Claire Achmad says legislation passed last night to strengthen protections for young victims of sexual violence is a step in the right direction. The Victims of Sexual Violence Bill amends the law so that children under the age of 12 cannot be questioned about whether they consented to sex. 'It was wrong that this provision was still in our law, so I'm pleased the Government led work to change this. It's positive too, that there was support from many parties across Parliament for this change. When it comes to children and their rights, the best thing the Government and Parliament can do is to work together, putting children first. This is a good example of this,' says Dr Achmad. The Chief Children's Commissioner says that better protections for victims of sexual violence have been a long time coming. 'I've had the privilege of meeting with children and young people throughout New Zealand who are victim-survivors of sexual violence, and they talk to me about the systemic change that's needed to protect their rights and help them heal. 'While there's still much more to do, so that no child experiences sexual violence of any form, I strongly welcome the changes passed last night. They are important steps towards strengthening the rights of children and young people in court processes. 'I acknowledge the immense courage of victims, especially mokopuna survivors of sexual assault, who shared their lived experience to help shape the legislation,' she says. 'The changes to the law that recognise that mokopuna cannot consent to abuse, and that they should not be questioned or challenged about whether they consented to sex, are crucial to keeping them safe from re-traumatisation.' In its submission to Parliament on the Bill, Mana Mokopuna – Children and Young People's Commission supported the Bill's overarching goal to amend the Crimes Act 1961 to give victim survivors of sexual assault more agency in court processes. 'I also advocated for stronger protections for mokopuna aged 12-16 years in these court processes, and training and education for the legal sector and judiciary to ensure they apply the legislation as intended,' says Dr Achmad. 'I hope that the changes passed last night signal continued commitment and action to recognise the rights and wellbeing of children and young people in all court processes affecting them. 'Supporting mokopuna to have agency in these processes and to be recognised as the children that they are is so important – both upholding their rights and in ensuring they can begin their healing journey,' she says.
Otago Daily Times
25-06-2025
- Politics
- Otago Daily Times
Victims to get final say over sex offenders' name suppressions
Parliament has unanimously passed legislation that will ensure the courts cannot issue a permanent name suppression order for an adult convicted of a sexual offence, unless the victim agrees to it. The Victims of Sexual Violence Bill had its third reading late on Wednesday night. It also amends the law so that children under the age of 12 will not be able to be questioned about whether they consented to sex. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said this made it crystal clear children could not consent to abuse. The law further closes what Goldsmith said was a legislative gap, by ensuring the victims of all sexual crimes, including intimate visual recordings offences, were automatically given name suppression. "These changes will help ensure victims of sexual violence and their needs are returned to the heart of the justice system. We've been clear from day one that victims are our priority as we work to restore law and order," Goldsmith said in a media release. He said at present victims' views on suppression only had to be taken into account by the courts. Long battles over name suppression retraumatised victims, as did the inability to discuss what happened to them and to warn others. Police Minister Mark Mitchell spoke on behalf of the Justice Minister during the third reading. "It is abhorrent that the law allows questions about whether children enjoyed or agreed to sexual activity. We're fixing that. "It is unconscionable that victims feel silenced by our laws especially when they've braved the scrutiny of the court process to prove their case. We're fixing that too." Mitchell said victims had been clear that name suppression settings had disempowered victims, prevented them from speaking out about their experiences and warning others. New Zealanders also believed the way children were questioned in court was unacceptable, Mitchell said. MP Kahurangi Carter spoke in favour of the bill on behalf of the Green Party. "I know that we all feel this really heavily for victims under 12. It seems so obvious. "I'm glad today we're bringing our legislation, our laws into line with what is right." Goldsmith recognised some victims would not want to make the decision about name suppression themselves. In those cases, the decision would rest with the courts. He believed the changes would assist in ensuring 20,000 fewer victims of violent crime by 2029. While the bill was passed unanimously, there were no Te Pāti Māori MPs in the House at the time.
