Blogger on breaching name suppression charges gets name suppression

Written By: - Date published: 11:54 am, April 10th, 2015 - 67 comments
Categories: blogs, crime, journalism, law, suppression orders, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags:

You may have to read the headline twice.  And whoever he is should hand in his blogger’s union card.  From the Herald:

A blogger accused of breaching a high-profile name suppression has been granted name suppression himself.

The 51-year-old appeared in Auckland District Court today facing two charges of contravening suppression orders made by Justice Helen Winkelmann – the former chief High Court judge, newly appointed to the Court of Appeal.

The Auckland-based blogger, who writes about corruption in New Zealand, is also charged with five counts of criminal harassment.

The complainants include a politician, civil servants, a real estate agent and the former partner of an Auckland businessman – all of whom feature prominently on his website.

It is alleged that both in August and December last year, the defendant named and posted photographs of two teens involved in a high-profile attack that left another teenager dead.

Their names and images, which were specifically suppressed by Justice Winkelmann at sentencing in the High Court at Auckland, are still up on the blog.

This person is in major risk of the Streisand effect kicking in.

Please note suppression orders are in place.  There should be no Speculation on who this blogger is although it took me about five seconds to work out who he is.

67 comments on “Blogger on breaching name suppression charges gets name suppression ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Clemgeopin 1
    10 April 2015 at 12:06 pm

    “There should be no Speculation on who this blogger is although it took me about five seconds to work out who he is”

    It has been much more than 5 seconds now and I am still no wiser! Frustrating!

    • MM 1.1
      19 April 2015 at 2:50 am

      “It has been much more than 5 seconds now and I am still no wiser! Frustrating!”
      His victims have had to wait YEARS for this. And some of them are vulnerable disabled people, not a politician, civil servants, a real estate agent and the former partner of an Auckland businessman. The falsely accused are disabled and innocent so deserve closure. So please remember we cannot jeopardise their opportunity to have that after years of unfettered abuse, unjustified defamation bullying threats and more. Please at least allow them to have that after he’s ruined their lives.
      You only need wait a month.

  2. DoublePlusGood 2
    10 April 2015 at 12:14 pm

    Well, based on the age, my first 10 guesses are wrong, so perhaps this is a suppression order that might actually work.

  3. Anita 3
    10 April 2015 at 12:19 pm

    Is there any indication (not the the Herald, useless rag! 😉 ) what the grounds for the suppression are?

    I am guessing it’s preventing more people accessing the content which is alleged to breach suppression. If so, it actually frustrates the blogger’s intent rather than acting for their benefit.

    • mickysavage 3.1
      10 April 2015 at 12:40 pm

      You might be right although there is an allegation involving sheep on a counter site …

      • Anita 3.1.1
        10 April 2015 at 2:26 pm

        There are always allegations involving sheep 😉

        On topic tho, it seems like it could well be an entirely sensible call by the District Court which is ensuring its own process does not act as a megaphone to someone who is alleged to have breached the order of the High Court. If prosecuting someone for breaching a suppression order only served to magnify the breach there would be an obvious problem.

      • Gareth 3.1.2
        10 April 2015 at 11:23 pm

        Which one is the troll blog?

        • mickysavage 3.1.2.1
          10 April 2015 at 11:25 pm

          I thought the one mentioning sheep shagging but you can never tell …

          • Gareth 3.1.2.1.1
            10 April 2015 at 11:37 pm

            How difficult, when you can’t tell which one is Robin Hood and which one is the Sheriff.

    • weka 3.2
      10 April 2015 at 3:28 pm

      “I am guessing it’s preventing more people accessing the content which is alleged to breach suppression. If so, it actually frustrates the blogger’s intent rather than acting for their benefit.”

      It does beg the question of why the state can’t forcibly remove the content. Anyone know?

      • McFlock 3.2.1
        10 April 2015 at 3:36 pm

        Technically it’s practically impossible: even if the servers are in NZ or a sympathetic jurisdiction that will respect a NZ court order, and all backup servers are also identified, and copies in google cache and Wayback are found and the process repeated to erase those copies, then people who have already viewed it will probably still have copies on their personal machines that can then be distributed via new websites or services like dropbox or mega.

        Dictators, movie moguls and the porn industry have been trying for years, and without all that much success.

        Actually, suppressing the blogsite is probably the best option, as it starves of oxygen the only blogsite that’s particularly interested in violating those suppression orders, anyway 🙂

        • weka 3.2.1.1
          10 April 2015 at 3:42 pm

          Technically it’s practically impossible: even if the servers are in NZ or a sympathetic jurisdiction that will respect a NZ court order, and all backup servers are also identified, and copies in google cache and Wayback are found and the process repeated to erase those copies, then people who have already viewed it will probably still have copies on their personal machines that can then be distributed via new websites or services like dropbox or mega.

          That’s largely beside the point though. I’m not talking about controlling the internet. I’m talking about content on one particular site. I’m curious as to why the state can’t compel the blogger to remove the content. NZ and other states have confiscated servers and computers etc before.

          I’m assuming that if it’s being hosted overseas it’s not a breach, is that not right?

          Is the blogger using a commercial blogging platform? Why have they not removed it?

          • Anita 3.2.1.1.1
            10 April 2015 at 4:57 pm

            I would have thought that it would be possible for the court to issue an order for the content to be removed by the person.

            Given the fact that the breach of suppression is currently only alleged and not proven – and appears to be disputed – it might be seen to be unreasonable to do that if there current posting is not causing widespread publication of the detail.

          • Anita 3.2.1.1.2
            10 April 2015 at 4:59 pm

            While I’m thinking of it, the long running Vince Siemer related litigation may well be the model here. There were, from memory, injunctions to have websites shut down.

          • jay 3.2.1.1.3
            19 April 2015 at 10:19 am

            “I’m assuming that if it’s being hosted overseas it’s not a breach, is that not right?”

            That’s what the man is relying on; that the site is an off-shore based blog. The co-writer is also domiciled in NSW and has a law degree. So they’ve been blatantly flouting the fact they’ve been able to avoid the rules, wilfully… Except the police know who they are… That’s retty much how TVONE news got the details of the twitter threats against the Christchurch based Indian student. Its not hard to find out who online bullies are as internet posts can leave a digital footprint. (Well done TVNZ news for that one too)

  4. Skinny 4
    10 April 2015 at 12:28 pm

    Sounds like a warning shot about exposing the worst kept secret relating to the prominent New Zealander by judge Winklepicker boots.

  5. Paul 5
    10 April 2015 at 12:38 pm

    51-year-old
    Auckland-based blogger
    Writes about corruption in New Zealand

    5 seconds have passed for me
    Any other clues?

    • felix 5.1
      10 April 2015 at 12:43 pm

      It is alleged that both in August and December last year, the defendant named and posted photographs of two teens involved in a high-profile attack that left another teenager dead.

      Their names and images, which were specifically suppressed by Justice Winkelmann at sentencing in the High Court at Auckland, are still up on the blog.

      I would add that so are those of the “politician, civil servants, a real estate agent and the former partner of an Auckland businessman”

      • McFlock 5.1.1
        10 April 2015 at 1:52 pm

        If written words were spoken, could you say that any louder?

        • weka 5.1.1.1
          10 April 2015 at 3:30 pm

          I have no idea either. Lots of politicians, civil servants, real estate agents and exs of Auckland businmen in NZ.

          • McFlock 5.1.1.1.1
            10 April 2015 at 3:39 pm

            indeed. Just googling an italicised phrase brings up loads of sites.

            • weka 5.1.1.1.1.1
              10 April 2015 at 3:46 pm

              lolz, you’re not suggesting a beige tinge to the offending are you?

            • felix 5.1.1.1.1.2
              10 April 2015 at 4:57 pm

              Well there are only a couple of sites displaying the photo related to the teenager who died. The victim’s name is (not suppressed) Stephen Dudley. Of those two sites, it’s unlikely that both of them would feature all of the other people mentioned…

                • felix …
                  10 April 2015 at 6:36 pm

                  hmmm, maybe I’m using a different google. I get one interesting result on the first page.

                  • weka …
                    10 April 2015 at 7:13 pm

                    ok, got it. It’s who I thought it was, but the thought of having to trawl through so much verbiage for such little gain probably means that very few people will actually get to see the breach 😉 If you didn’t already know the site, I’m not sure how many people would pick it.

                    (was on the phone before, where google is pretty much useless).

                    • felix …
                      10 April 2015 at 7:24 pm

                      Yes well I suppose I used the word “interesting” pretty loosely 😀

                      Also I would have thought the blog was more known than the blogger.

                    • weka …
                      10 April 2015 at 7:51 pm

                      Yes, I don’t know the blogger’s name.

                    • Anne …
                      10 April 2015 at 8:02 pm

                      ok, got it. It’s who I thought it was,
                      Same here, but its taken me all bloody day to confirm it. And I had better things in mind to do. 🙁

                • Tracey …
                  11 April 2015 at 12:20 pm

                  Ever noticed how illiterate [Please be careful – MS] writers canbe while having an air of intellectual superiority in what they write?

                  I was googling blogs and found this

                  “[Please be careful – MS] report went virile and received over 700,000 views in a few days after its release. ”

                  ” values it has installed in its pupils “

                  • Anne …
                    11 April 2015 at 5:22 pm

                    [Please be careful – MS]’s report went virile and received over 700,000 views..

                    Not surprised.

                  • weka …
                    11 April 2015 at 5:25 pm

                    Just going to bring this to the MODS attention I think, looks a step to far maybe?

                    TROLL NAZI keywords (not that you are a troll nazi 😉 ).

                    edit, Good grief, what do you have to do to trip the mod filter?!

                    • Tracey …
                      11 April 2015 at 7:47 pm

                      funny thing is… i genuinely didnt know who was the subject of the suppression nor the site. I find the site i mentioned a bit wierd and saw it when i searched and saw their torture of the english language. it was that i was genuinely commented on.

                      the odd thing is now i think i know and i wasnt even speculating.

              • miravox …
                10 April 2015 at 6:26 pm

                I can only get an Australian-based site using this info. However, that was interesting.

                Also interesting (I thought) is that a combined Google search on the accused and victim gets “Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe”. This appears to to be due to an application to remove information under the Right to be Forgotten law in Europe. A potential international career may be problematic if names are linked, I guess.

                So anyway, the NZ blogger is still a mystery to me.

  6. Paul 6
    10 April 2015 at 12:41 pm

    The Streisand effect
    Had to look this up.

    The Streisand effect is the phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet.

    It is named after American entertainer Barbra Streisand, whose 2003 attempt to suppress photographs of her residence in Malibu, California, inadvertently drew further public attention to it. Similar attempts have been made, for example, in cease-and-desist letters to suppress numbers, files, and websites. Instead of being suppressed, the information receives extensive publicity and media extensions such as videos and spoof songs, often being widely mirrored across the Internet or distributed on file-sharing networks.

    • lurgee 6.1
      11 April 2015 at 12:52 am

      I always thought the Streisand effect was so-called because the less you wanted to hear it, the louder it seemed to get. You know, like her singing.

  7. Puckish Rogue 7
    10 April 2015 at 12:51 pm

    Well its not who i thought it was, the age has got me stumped

  8. swordfish 8
    10 April 2015 at 1:00 pm

    Ha, I guessed correctly as well. Took me a little more than 5 secs, though.

  9. Paul 9
    10 April 2015 at 1:04 pm

    How does one find out the ages of prominent New Zealand bloggers?

  10. Lord Donkey 10
    10 April 2015 at 1:04 pm

    the article in the NZ Herald would frankly have to be one of the dumbest i have seen in terms of complying with any Court rulings. It is rather obvious what the case was by naming the Judge. As for who the blogger is – what fact is that based on?

  11. Kiwiri - Raided of the Last Shark 11
    10 April 2015 at 1:21 pm

    darn. from what i am aware and searches online, the age is out by 4 years.
    i wonder why. quite sure i had the correct guess.

    • Kiwiri - Raided of the Last Shark 11.1
      10 April 2015 at 8:28 pm

      Ok. I have figured it out. Was not my first guess.
      Age matches now.

  12. The Murphey 12
    10 April 2015 at 1:37 pm

    No need to speculate it is clear which blog site this article is referring to

    • Paul 12.1
      10 April 2015 at 1:37 pm

      I can’t work it out.
      You use questions a lot The Murphey.
      Maybe some would help here?

  13. The Murphey 13
    10 April 2015 at 1:43 pm

    Q. Mods with the blog site involved currently online including a recent update what is the consensus on linking to the site concerned ?

    • te reo putake 13.1
      10 April 2015 at 2:00 pm

      I imagine that would be a breach of the suppression order, which would put TS in legal jeopardy. Not a sensible course of action. I also note that the post specifically asks for there to be no speculation. That should be enough in itself.

      • weka 13.1.1
        10 April 2015 at 3:31 pm

        Micky probably shouldn’t have said it took him 5 mins then. Human nature and all that.

    • mickysavage 13.2
      10 April 2015 at 2:03 pm

      Best not to. The treatment of name suppression is a valid topic of discussion but reinforcing the breach is not.

    • The Murphey 13.3
      10 April 2015 at 2:40 pm

      Thanks for the responses

      Q. What of the historical mentions of the blog site on this site as recently as last month when the ‘prominent New Zealander’ discussion was circulating ?

      • te reo putake 13.3.1
        10 April 2015 at 2:49 pm

        Again, it should be obvious that anything that identifies the person subject to the suppression order is not permitted. You’re bordering on wasting author/mod time, bud.

        • The Murphey 13.3.1.1
          10 April 2015 at 3:05 pm

          Try not interpreting the questions with such prejudice TRP

          The question was legitimately seeking to understand the position of historical references to the ‘blog site’ involved which has been named and discussed in recent times on this blog site

          Q. Do historical references require removal from The Standard until such time as name suppression is lifted ?

          • mickysavage 13.3.1.1.1
            10 April 2015 at 3:06 pm

            No but current references to them are dangerous.

            • The Murphey 13.3.1.1.1.1
              10 April 2015 at 3:12 pm

              I appreciate the explanation MS

              A complex and sensitive space where taking the conservative path so as to avoid any blow back makes the most sense

  14. her 14
    10 April 2015 at 1:45 pm

    Maybe he will leak his own name on his blog. Or is that illegal too?

    • Anita 14.1
      10 April 2015 at 2:23 pm

      It would be as illegal for him to name himself as the person covered by the suppression order as it would be for you to do it.

      That is, he is welcome to tell you over coffee, he is not welcome to publish it.

      There is a slightly awkward process that happens with statutory suppression (which this does not appear to be) where the identity of a victim of some types of crime (e.g. rape) is automatically suppressed. That means that the victim needs to ask the court to remove the suppression if they wish to talk about it in a way which would see their identity published (e.g. write a real name article of their story of surviving rape).

    • Chris 14.2
      10 April 2015 at 2:35 pm

      Interesting he doesn’t name himself anywhere on his blog.

      • mr plod 14.2.1
        10 April 2015 at 11:08 pm

        Would you if you were intentionally abusing, harassing (criminal harassment), defaming, and slandering innocent people … as well as breaching suppression orders?

        Who ever it is may have many victims sitting in Court next month watching the prick spoil his pants!

        • Stephanie Rodgers 14.2.1.1
          11 April 2015 at 10:34 pm

          Would you if you were intentionally abusing, harassing (criminal harassment), defaming, and slandering innocent people … as well as breaching suppression orders?

          It’s never seemed to bother Cameron Slater, to be fair.

        • MM 14.2.1.2
          19 April 2015 at 1:50 am

          Yes indeed. He may very well have many victims sitting in Court next month watching the prick spoil his pants! One bedridden lady in particular suffered harassment, stalking, defamation and veiled death threats in a case of mistaken identity.

          “… is unmarried and has no kids….wait until our readership sees the latest pictures…..fuck she is one ugly old brown cunt who will not be missed when right is done.”

          She’s been blamed for the writings of another blogger who routinely posts news links about the man’s criminal activities and violent behaviours.

          I can say no more since its subjudice. SORRY. Wait until next month.

  15. Richard Christie 15
    10 April 2015 at 2:11 pm

    I wondered why the site has been rather dormant since February.

  16. McFlock 16
    10 April 2015 at 2:39 pm

    Damn.
    Too many puns and jokes to be made on the blogsite’s name, especially in this context.

    Once again the draconian court system prohibits base and unimaginative humour.

  17. the pigman 17
    10 April 2015 at 5:41 pm

    Practically every post here is speculation on who the blogger is. Was that your intent MS?

    I mean, presumably if this blogger breached suppression orders in relation to Stephen Dudley (per Felix above) he has a history of breaching suppression orders related to other prominent New Zealanders…

  18. Hanswurst 18
    10 April 2015 at 7:01 pm

    Regardless of the he possible accuracy of any given theory espoused on the blog in question, it always strikes me as being the result of jumping to conclusions and then going out in (extensive) search of any details that might support them, all of which is then presented in a long-winded and rambling style that fails to prove or even convincingly present anything at all.

  19. jay 19
    19 April 2015 at 10:03 am

    “long-winded and rambling style that fails to prove or even convincingly present anything at all.”

    You’d be surprised the amounts of people who do believe the blog, esp the damning defamation he posts about his targets. One doctor had to go to court and get his name cleared but the damage has been very hard personally and professionally on the doctor’s reputation.

    The defamer falsely insists that the Dr is a disgraced medical practitioner; that he was and remains struck off the Medical Register that is maintained under statute by the Medical Council of New Zealand; that he pretended/pretends to be a doctor when he allegedly was/is not one; that in 2004 he lost his licence to practise Medicine; that he has been in the business of supplying drugs illegally; that he is intemperate and dishonest; that he is a proven “fraudster”; and, finally, that many years ago he was one of six conspirators involved in a bomb-plot to kill over a hundred staff in the Takapuna Accident Compensation Corporation.

    Every one of the above eight statements is not only false, but was made knowingly, recklessly and, arguably, maliciously by the man and his brother. However, despite the gross falseness of the statements having been repeatedly pointed out to the brothers, every one of the statements persist on their blog and so remain continuously and highly damaging to Dr’s personal and professional reputation.

    The man’s a psychopath and his manic brother in NSW co-authors the site, knowing they can hide behind the off-shore base of the blog and the legal quals of that psychotic brother. They hide behind anonymity but like the Twitter death threateners to the Indian student in CHCH, their identity has been found out. The double standards and the privacy they demand is not what they respect for their victims.

  20. The Murphey 20
    19 April 2015 at 12:00 pm

    So many agendas …

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.