Tim Jago is part of a bigger ACT Party issue

Written By: - Date published: 11:51 am, February 2nd, 2025 - 95 comments
Categories: act, crime, david seymour, sexism - Tags: , , , , , , ,

Warning: This post contains references to sexual themes

On Saturday, I spent far too long editing a video on Tim Jago, the ACT Party President and criminal, who has given up his fight for name suppression after 2 years.

He voluntarily gave up just in time for what will be a highly covered Waitangi Day and the Parliament being in recess until 11 February.

Jago was first granted name suppression after being charged with sexual assault crimes in January 2023 –

At the time, ODT reported:

Lawyer Ian Brookie said publication of the man’s name would turn the story into a national political issue during an election year, rather than a court report focusing on the facts of the case…

Brookie argued the political dimension of the case drives the interest from media, resulting in an intense and unfair interest in the case that risks prejudicing his right to a fair trial…

the man had argued potential employers were not contacting him, which he blamed on the allegations.

Those pockets are deep to fight that hard and for that long on such light grounds, but Jago was defended ably by Ian Brookie, a well known criminal lawyer1 who also advertises himself for “regulatory work” for governments and citizens.

Indeed, Brookie “currently prosecutes cases for WorkSafe New Zealand” – a portfolio owned by ACT’s Brooke Van Velden, as well as for the Commerce Commission.

Good work if you can get it.

But who funded the ex-surf lifesaver and ACT Party President Tim Jago’s legal bills?

Look – it’s the way the system works, but I can’t help but reflect on the different treatment by the media and justice system when it came to Golriz Ghahraman.

If Tim Jago was able to secure 24 months of name suppression based on not damaging his ‘employment prospects’ and ‘risks of politicising the case’, what did the court think was different about Ghahraman?

Are first time shoplifting offenders with a long history of public service and advocacy usually served a criminal conviction that will ruin their employment prospects for life?

Do folks not get the benefit of the doubt from media and police when they are in supermarkets where they place items in bags on a trolley – but are cast as shoplifters by Stuff and NZ Herald headlines?

The system is not fit for purpose – and that goes for much of what we experience.

I digress.

Past ACT MPs have done some unthinkable things, but the truth is transgressions occur across all parties.

Still, ACT’s example here is that wealth, connections, and power appear to buy a lot more than an ordinary Green Party ex-lawyer could ever afford.

And helped to protect ACT’s image – during a critical election year and the first one after that.

This Hansard record from Parliament in August 2023 appears to be observant:

“Does the Prime Minister agree with a judgment that we’ve got the leader of ACT chiming in about law and order but is first to get name suppression for his president for heinous crimes?”

The Speaker intervened.

From that Hansard, we can also compute that David Seymour understands the importance of comity – the mutual respect and relationship between Parliament and the judiciary that’s essential to our consitutional democracy – because he objected immediately with:

“…Due to the long tradition of comity between this House and the courts, to make such statements is deeply disorderly, brings the House into disrepute and should face very severe consequences from you, Mr Speaker.”

Seymour doesn’t care if it’s him doing the attacking of judges and of our judiciary, though, is he?

Comity – anyone?

Regardless, it’s not the first time ACT has had its name linked to reports of sexual abuse through chance and/or circumstance.

And while I stress that Jago was not the ACT Party President when he sexually assaulted the male minors he was mentor to, Jago was in a position of power in ACT for other sexual assault cases.

Furthermore Seymour tried to divert the complainants to their own lawyers, suggesting to the victim’s family:

“We believe the best way forward is to offer you the option of contacting a lawyer who will ask for you to detail any allegation your husband is making. Having heard the details from you, they will advise us on how to proceed further.”

“It’s almost as if David doesn’t want justice, he wants silence.”

Former Young ACT Vice President on sexual abuse allegations from 2019-2020

Excerpted from Mountain Tui Substack

Post publication information –

1. Tim Jago, acting CEO And Chairman, left The Lifesavers Foundation in 2021 after alleged financial mismanagement and “long missing financials”. At the time, Seymour said he had “full confidence” in Tim Jago and that he was an “excellent” ACT Party President

2. Ex-Young ACT Vice President Ali Gammeter also made a statement after the Tim Jago name suppression lapsed – saying rumours about Jago’s treatment of young boys etc was well known in ACT circles in 2020 –

3. Seymour’s precise words to the complainant’s family after the party was personally informed Tim Jago was a sexual predator who had molested children. The family did not heed this advice, and went to the police instead.

95 comments on “Tim Jago is part of a bigger ACT Party issue ”

  1. Mike the Lefty 1

    The sad truth is that the wealthy and those with friends in high places have always been advantaged in our legal system.

    The modern legal aid system is supposed to fix this, but doesn't.

    At least we don't get the open and blatant political interference in the judicial system that is rampant in the US.

    • Tony 1.1

      Hi Mike you say .. At least we don't get the open and blatant political interference in the judicial system that is rampant in the US, if it's as rampant as you say can you provide us with lets say 5 solid examples of that political interference please? cheers Tony

    • Tony 1.2

      Or are you just blowing smoke .. Kinda like Advantage or some such label when he said GENOCIDE JOE who oversaw the latest Genocide was actually a pretty good guy ..

      [Another attack on other commenters and a TS Author that’s uncalled for, irrelevant and without context, and a diversion. Your last ban should have been a permanent one but wasn’t because we gave you the benefit of doubt. This one is permanent because without a doubt you’re incapable and unwilling to add anything of value to discourse and simply cannot hold a civil mature conversation – Incognito]

  2. joe90 2

    Former Young ACT Vice President on sexual abuse allegations from 2019-2020

    Former young act VP.

    https://xcancel.com/AliGammeter/status/1885247677992231240#m

  3. tWig 3

    Thanks, MTui. A comparison of the column cms wasted here on manufactured Ghaharaman outrage, vs the near-silence following this news, says a lot about the reading habits (and possible gullibility) of some comentators at TS.

    ACT have been hugely strategic about managing this news. Down to probably manufacturing the recent non-story about Ghaharaman dropped by Leo Malloy a week or so ago. Which, again, attracted more comments than ACT’s behaviour over Jago to date. Wake up, people!

    To be fair, Damian Grant today in stuff gives respect to Ghaharaman, and recommends her new autobiography. But it's hard not to be cynical about even his surprisingly positive op piece. I haven't linked to Grant, because he normally deserves not to be rewarded, certainly not at stuff. Just know he respects her hard journey, and points out how much undeserved pressure she has attracted, as an outsider and a woman (and as a strategic beat-up to discredit the Greens, my words). Respect for him, too, for saying this (but please avoid his article!).

  4. adam 5

    I thought it was simple – you get name suppression is your a tory corporate phallus worshiper.

    No name suppression for people who question the system built for greed and naked power.

    • Obtrectator 5.1

      I thought it was simple – you get name suppression is your a tory corporate phallus worshiper

      …. or can play rugby half-competently.

    • tWig 5.2

      The issue is not name suppression per se, it's the way the ACT party hid its association and its initial inaction for so long. When I heard it at the time, I thought is was a Nats-Dilworth thingie.

    • Puckish Rogue 5.3

      Or if you attend Labour Party Summer Camps…

      My view is name suppression should automatically end if found guilty but should automatically be put on for the victims

      Unless the victim doesn't want it.

      • Bearded Git 5.3.1

        Puckish….the media suppressed/lied about the fact that the summer camp couple had been in a relationship for a year before the summer camp events.

        Pullya Benefit and Tova OBrien should hang their heads in shame.

      • Muttonbird 5.3.2

        Disappointing to see you both sides this. The Summer camp individual was discharged without conviction while the president of the ACT party was jailed for 2.5 years.

        And how does your sex offender policy work, is it automatic name suppression for all accused while it's in court and before a conviction unless the alleged victim waives it?

        • Puckish Rogue 5.3.2.1

          Innocent until proven guilty so yes automatic suppression for all

          Once found guilty (or discharge without conviction) its automatic loss of suppression and the victim can choose if they want to waive their suppression

  5. Rolling-on-Gravel 6

    This is a dead party walking.

    If this continues — it will mean that ACT will increasingly find it hard to defend itself of Jago and his allegations and since we as a country are closer together in terms of distance and lower in population than America, thus able to give voice to our outrages (if we really want to — that is) and this means that we are not like Americans so this really is a high risk, low reward approach for the ACT party to pursue.

    To be warned like this is to realise you may have a huge fall, ACT.

    I may read ACT as a party's obituary with pleasure, a la Clarence Darrow.

  6. Muttonbird 7

    Seymour appeared really keen to keep it internal and to keep the Police out of it:

    "We believe the best way forward is to offer you the option of contacting a lawyer who will ask for you to detail any allegation your husband is making. Having heard the details from you, they will advise us on how to proceed further."

    And the end of the article:

    Where to get help:

    NZ Police

    Victim Support 0800 842 846

    Rape Crisis 0800 88 33 00

    Rape Prevention Education

    Empowerment Trust

    HELP Call 24/7 (Auckland): 09 623 1700, (Wellington): 04 801 6655 – push 0 at the menu

    Safe to talk: a 24/7 confidential helpline for survivors, support people and those with harmful sexual behaviour: 0800044334

    Male Survivors Aotearoa

    Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) 022 344 0496

    Nowhere does it say David Seymour or his lawyer…

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/540537/former-act-party-president-tim-jago-named-as-former-political-figure-who-abused-teenage-boys

    • David 7.1

      Yeah you should go to the police, however it can be difficult for someone to go to the police if they’re not ready to do so. Obviously the victims ended up being referred to the police, maybe by the lawyer. All the lawyers who I know do take these accusations very seriously, so they would have given the victims some advice and referred them to an appropriate person like the police or woman’s refuge

      • Belladonna 7.1.1

        Unless, of course, it's a lawyer involved. Don't see that Russell McVeagh had any interest in referring complaints referencing the serial abuse by partner James Gardner-Hopkins to the police.

        • David 7.1.1.1

          I’m not a lawyer, I do have a couple in my family. My understanding is that all lawyers, as officers of the courts, are obligated to handle these matters seriously, and do the right thing for the victims. This is very similar for myself, should I become aware of an issue like this in relation to the business I work for, I must act in the interests of the victims. For example I may need to refer a woman to womans refuge, or the police. However it’s up to the victim to contact the police. Many victims do need support before they are ready to take that step. It is a very sensitive discussion to have with a victim. The first and most important consideration is the safety of the victim, and then to ensure that the victim is supported. Lawyers are also able to give advice that I can’t. In this case Mr Seymour probably did the right thing, unless ACT, or parliament has policies about this.

          • Belladonna 7.1.1.1.1

            My point is that RMcV did not take action. Did not encourage the victims to make complaints to the police. And continued to support and enable the criminal behaviour from their Partner.

            As far as I know, they have faced no sanctions from the Courts over this.
            Their ‘obligations’ to take the accusations seriously didn’t pass the hurdle of their own self-interest.

            • David 7.1.1.1.1.1

              Belladonna, I believe the lawyer involved in this case is Mr Paul Wicks KC. So I don’t know what Russell McVeigh’s involvement is with this particular case. Mr Wicks KC is with City Chambers, however if Russel McVeigh were involved initially, they may well have advised to ACT to retain the services of a KC.

              • Belladonna

                Zip to do with the ACT/Jago case – I was referencing their involvement with their partner James Gardner-Hopkins who was convicted of sex offenses – committed during his time at the firm, and against other employees/interns.

                The law firm and the individual partners (other than the convicted one) appear to have suffered no consequences from the Courts.

                • David

                  Belladonna, I thought we were discussing the current case, involving a former ACT president, not the actions of a former partner of Russell McVeigh. If you have first hand knowledge of wrongdoing by Russell McVeigh, may I suggest that you contact the relevant authorities, perhaps the police or the NZ Law Society. This is probably not the best place to make accusations about Russell McVeigh.

          • Muttonbird 7.1.1.1.2

            Don't mind Belladonna, his motive here is to obfuscate and distract from criticism of David Seymour's handling of the Jago sexual assault case for which he has been jailed for 2.5 years.

            [3 days off for flaming – weka]

            • Belladonna 7.1.1.1.2.1

              Don't mind Muttonbird. It's motive here is to pointlessly attack anything I say – since it appears to be triggered by every comment I make.

              • weka

                please don't refer to people here as it.

                • Belladonna

                  In response to Muttonbird deliberately misgendering me.

                  • weka

                    well they copped a ban. I don't care why you did it. What I care about is whether you are flaming back. Plenty of ways to point out that someone is being a dickhead without annoying the mods (and this mod has a particular dislike of calling people it, because it's dehumanising).

              • David

                Belladonna, my apologies that you feel I’m attacking you. My intention is to point out what should happen in these circumstances. One overall rule which has not been mentioned is privacy. For example if I become aware of a serious complaint, due to privacy concerns, I could only contact the police, or some other external agency, if I reasonably believed the victim is in danger of violence or self harm. I am however obligated to refer further up to senior management, or our confidential whistleblower agency. I do take my compliance obligations seriously, & expect others will do the same. Unfortunately human nature means some people don’t take these responsibilities seriously. In this case Seymour could have advised the victim to contact the police, however from my experience, many victims are initially reluctant to go to the police, or when they do, they make an informal complaint, but stop short of taking the next step. My discussions with the police have informed me that the victim must be ready, or in the right space to make the formal complaint. This is especially true in cases of sexual abuse and domestic abuse. I hope this clarifies my position on this matter for you.

                • Belladonna

                  Oh, I don't feel that you're attacking me. I think we're having a robust discussion. And hopefully gaining different perspectives from each other.

                  I absolutely agree that victims need to be in the right place to go to the police. Taking a sexual abuse case through the courts is a profoundly difficult and very frequently re-traumatizing experience for the victims or survivors.

                  And, I think that as a society we need to find a better way to handle this. I don't have the answers. But what we have now, is profoundly unsatisfactory.

                  However, the reluctance of victims to make a complaint – puts employers in a very difficult situation. If the employee vigorously denies the allegations (as Jago apparently did to the ACT party) – what can an employer actually do? They don’t have the resources (or probably the legal right) to conduct a criminal investigation.
                  It was only when the victims actually laid a complaint with the police, and the police had an active investigation – that they were able to force his resignation.

            • weka 7.1.1.1.2.2

              mod note. I see Incog warned you on the 18th for flaming. You know how we hate negative patterns of behaviour. Keep it up and expect a longer ban.

            • Belladonna 7.1.1.1.2.3

              I apologize for misusing pronouns in reference to you.

      • Muttonbird 7.1.2

        Obviously the victims ended up being referred to the police, maybe by the lawyer. All the lawyers who I know do take these accusations very seriously, so they would have given the victims some advice and referred them to an appropriate person like the police or woman’s refuge

        But that is not what happened, is it? If you read the updated OP and the article in my comment @ 7 you will know that the victim did not speak with Seymour's lawyer at all. It was probably the insistence by Seymour to speak to his lawyer that made them go to the Police.

        Then you might like to consider that media, when writing articles about sexual abuse, depression and suicide, always put links at the bottom which help vulnerable people in similar situations. This is also in my comment @ 7 which you obviously didn't, or couldn't read.

        The main point is that nowhere in victim support public service announcements does it say to first contact the lawyer of the organisation your abuser is president of, particularly on the advice of someone in whose interest it is to protect that president.

        • David 7.1.2.1

          My understanding is that the partner of the victim, contacted ACT and Mr Seymour. Unless Mr Seymour had the consent of the victim, due to privacy concerns, he couldn’t contact the police about this directly. As the victim was making a complaint about the ACT party president, Mr Seymour should have referred the matter to an independent lawyer, who could then only contact the victim, with the victim’s consent. Mr Seymour should however have advised the victim to contact the police.

          Unless the victim was in danger of violence, self harm, or maybe causing harm to others, Mr Seymours hands are tied. All he could do would be to commence an independent internal investigation.

    • An important point – I've added to the highlighted article

      • Muttonbird 7.2.1

        In Key, Trump, Peters and Jones style, Seymour doubled down and said he'd do the same thing again, that is to refer a sexual assault complainant to his lawyer rather than the police or a victim support organisation.

  7. Poldark 8

    ACT is sure a hard act to follow. Can someone enlighten me. Didn't they have a president or leader a little while back who was advocating relaxation of our incest laws?

    • Muttonbird 8.1

      Jamie Whyte by name, white by nature. Immediate predecessor to David Seymour as leader:

      During his tenure as leader, Whyte drew controversy when he stated his opinion that incestuous relationships between consenting adults should not be illegal.

      Doubled-down:

      He did not believe the increased risk of congenital disorders in children from incestuous relationships was a valid reason for it to (be) illegal.

      4th in the Pakuranga electorate in 2014, although 2,030 people still voted for him. Incest seems to have been popular there…

    • Psycho Milt 8.3

      They didn't, it was a media gotcha. Journalists raised it and he gave the reasonable answer that consensual sex between siblings might be a bad idea but shouldn't be a matter for the criminal justice system. Journos duly filed "ACT leader advocates for incest between siblings" stories. Political naivety is the worst you could call it.

      • tWig 8.3.1

        I had a school friend who was coerced into sex by her brother for years from 13 yo. Past 18 years, and not living at home, maybe, maybe. Never when either are underage (and couldn't be prosecuted).

        And grooming is almost as exploitative, again, even if you're 13 and 12. You are being stunted emotionally, unable to develop your adolescent sexual identity within your peer group.

        There are taboos around incest for a reason: the family power dynamics mean it's almost never a relationship on an equal footing. And what parent would allow this to go on between their adolescent kids?

  8. thebiggestfish 9

    Personally, I don't draw comparisons between Jago and Golriz. One was an elected member of the house of representatives, the other a high-ranking employee of a political party. Our members of the house of representatives should be held to the highest account as they are some of the most powerful members of our communities and are directly responsible for the law-making process in the country.

    There are crooks and disgusting individuals across the political spectrum. I don't really see the point in playing whataboutism every time some politician or person associated with a political party finds themselves afoot of the law.

    • Snotbaboon 9.1

      Golriz was a private citizen when the paknsave footage was filmed and publicised so not sure what you're saying here other than leave the poor pedo alone!

      • weka 9.1.1

        I think tbf is saying that MPs should be held to a standard particular to that role, hence the difference in media treatment.

        I agree with that, but I also think that it should apply to office holders in political parties too.

        • Psycho Milt 9.1.1.1

          Yes – party leaders often get a powerful say in who gets to be an MP for their party, so there's no reason the MP should be held to a higher standard than the leader should.

    • tWig 9.2

      It's not the disparity between MP and Party President, it's ACT's putative support of the suppression for political reasons. Say, for example, that the Greens had hid and looked for name suppression in the shoplifting conviction.

      • tWig 9.2.1

        Just had a another thought – maybe the suppression is because Yago had a lot more potential complainants out there. Who may now be consoled to some extent that he's got his just desserts; and understandably feel they don't want to go through a police/ court ordeal. But which may have turned into a rolling, ongoing mess for ACT during the election campaign.

        And another-other thought. Just as I thought the name suppression was to do with Nats- Dilworth, any blowback at the time from speculation actually tarred the Nats. Forking decision trees.

  9. Belladonna 10

    I see the bigger issue here is the very routine use of name suppression for prominent figures.
    It's fair enough to have name suppression for the initial trial – especially if the accused is vigorously denying their culpability.
    However, once someone has been convicted, name suppression should automatically lapse – and only be imposed at the request of one or more of the victims (thinking here of family sexual abuse, where identifying the offender would automatically identify minor child victims).

    Given the long legal wait for appeals – I'm also disinclined to allow name suppression while the appeal is underway. A conviction is a conviction. If an appeal was carried out within (say) 6 weeks of the conviction – then I'd be open to being swayed – but not when it's years away.

    Personal or family consequences for the offender should never be a reason for name suppression. Not even briefly (if you haven't got around to telling your elderly mother, or your minor children that you're facing a serious court case – then that's on you). Nor should business associations (or, in this case, political parties). It's unlikely that their employer is going to face serious consequences for their un-wisdom in hiring the offender – especially where the offending was prior to their employment, or was carried out in a private, rather than an employment capacity. And if the offending was carried out during employment, then the employer *should* be held up to public scrutiny (thinking here of James Gardner-Hopkins at Russell McVeagh – where the culture at the law firm enabled him to continue offending)

    I have zero sympathy for high profile offenders claiming that media or public interest in their crime is a reason for name suppression. They've benefited in the past from this profile (opportunities, social lionizing, and $$$), losing this benefit is just part of their fall from grace so far as the public are concerned. No one is entitled to be regarded highly by the community. They stand or fall on their own actions.

    • Muttonbird 10.1

      Can you and PR discuss which threshold it is to be for automatic lapse of name suppression; is it conviction, or a being found/pleading guilty?

      Because he got all upset that the Labour summer camp assaulter has permanent name suppression despite not being convicted.

      https://www.adamholland.co.nz/near-me/discharge-without-conviction-applications

      • Belladonna 10.1.1

        Well, yanno. I have my opinion. Which has nothing to do with PR.

        Just as your opinion is all your own, and nothing to do with that of any other commenter.

      • Puckish Rogue 10.1.2

        I replied to you previously but discharge without conviction would also mean automatic loss of suppression if I had my way

    • Rolling-on-Gravel 10.2

      I'll be honest – Golriz should have had name suppression instead of Tim. She – regardless of what she did – and her crime was nothing in comparison to what Tim Jago did but she got strong harassment, slurs and hatred out of proportion to what she did.

      She should have been left to go through the process of justice as a private citizen and given that shoplifting is lesser of a criminal charge than sexual molestation & sexual assault (and related charges) – also should have been treated as a cursory examination of a crime but not much more than that.

      The crime of shoplifting should have been treated as an easily forgivable crime, not what Tim Jago did.

      • Bookmad 10.2.1

        100 % agree with you there.

      • Belladonna 10.2.2

        It's very difficult to see any way that Ghahraman could have had a trial, while a sitting MP, under name suppression.

        And, even a cursory examination of the crime, would have resulted in a conviction (as, indeed it did)

        I have more sympathy over former MPs (even ones who are apparently vile human beings – like Aaron Gilmore) – to be treated as private citizens – once they are long out of parliament.

        But, if you are currently elected to represent NZ voters – then your moral character (as evidenced by any criminal cases) is an entirely valid thing for the public to know about.

        Disproportionate abuse is another issue altogether.

        • Rolling-on-Gravel 10.2.2.1

          She is a former MP now. Her Pak n Save arrest etc after resigning was something that was not of public interest in the first place, thus name suppression should have been enabled to prevent misogynistic & racist harassment and media not emphasising anything too much on the coverage of the crime either, to tamp down on the vitriol that was ratcheted up when they found out it was a POC female refugee politician. Public figures should be covered yes, but not at the cost of tolerating hate and vitriol towards people for characteristics that are out of their control. Stochastic abuse is never okay and that's at the crux of my argument that the media and the system should balance both public interest and humane measures to reduce or stop bullying, harassment and death threats.While she was a MP, she shoplifted, yes, and yes, that was something that was of some public interest, though not too intense like when we covered her crime.

          However, imo, shoplifting is something that should have belonged further back into the newspapers, to something like the back pages rather than the front page, and the coverage less intense just so that harassment are crimped from the get-go.

          It is my thought that a public citizen/public citizen that just became a private one that has been a target of strong harassment for inherent characteristics subject to historical oppression in the past should have some kind of short-term name suppression so that excessive coverage encouraging abuse and hate would dry down.

          Shoplifting is inherently more forgivable in comparison to sexual assault and rape – so that's one reason why I'm softer on having name suppression for Golriz than I am on Tim.

          • Belladonna 10.2.2.1.1

            Agree that the PakNSave incident occurred as a former MP – and the media reporting of it in the 'public interest' was highly questionable. Nor was she charged (let alone convicted) of shoplifting in that instance. Indeed, I don’t think she was even arrested. So would certainly agree that she had the same rights to privacy as anyone else.

            No one is claiming that sexual assault is an equivalent crime to shoplifting.

            However, to claim that, therefore, there should be automatic name suppression of people convicted of the latter – is IMO a bridge too far. Especially for someone who was a sitting MP. Which Gharahman was at the time the initial offenses (which she's admitted – so not in question) were committed.

            My contention is that both were convicted, and neither should have been entitled to name suppression – once convicted.

            Further accusations – especially ones which don't even progress to a charge, let alone a trial and conviction – are very dubious ethical reporting. Do we (the people) need to know? I sincerely doubt it.

            • Rolling-on-Gravel 10.2.2.1.1.1

              I can agree that we should enact name suppression upon private citizens that were once public figures.

              I want temporary name suppression for people who are subject to previous harrassment and abuse for their inherent characteristics (like being gay or Maori or etc) or a way to ensure that the media does not sensationalise or draw this sort of thing out of its proportion – so we don't have a chilling effect upon other innocent people who would want to get involved with serving the public who would be great but be scared off by the intense coverage that results in abuse and harassment towards people like them (gay or POC or disabled etc)

              We need a welcoming sort of politics that does not cause out-of-proportion negativity towards people that could offer something vital and new, so we can get great & sorely needed voices from a greater amount of people balanced with holding politicians to account and without the circus attached.

              Just calm and sober coverage of what happened with equally calm and sober discussion of that then moving on after that when it is needed.

              • Belladonna

                Goodness, I don't see much 'calm and sober' coverage going on on TS – when it's a 'gotcha' moment against a political opponent.

                So, using Gharahman as an example. Just when should the 'temporary name suppression' have kicked in? And how long should it have lasted for?

                I'm assuming that you agree that her initial conviction should have been reported. Media silence thereafter?

                For what level/type of offense?

                Her right to a fair trial (should one eventuate – it's clearly not going to in the reported PNS case) is likely to be affected by any reporting of a subsequent incident. Should media be barred from naming people accused of crimes – until conviction? Currently they're limited (I understand) if they are before the courts – but not prior to that time. Which is a loophole you could drive a truck through.

                How much does the public have the 'right to know'?

                How long should people continue to rake up offenses afterwards?

                • Rolling-on-Gravel

                  My hope is that the suppression is intended to protect people from extreme harassment and abuse as encouraged by the media before they face trial (and also during the trial – if evidence of extreme harassment & abuse is proven and verified.)

                  The name suppression can remain a short while after the trial is over (for a week) so the media can mostly report these trials more thoughtfully rather than to gin up more breathless coverage of the public figure.

                  Name suppression during the trial for a public figure is dependent on the actual public interest.

                  I think suppression could only be granted if there is a risk of extreme harassment and abuse against the defendant happening, due to a previous & ongoing history of being strongly abused & harassed in the past based in their innate identity(ies) while living everyday life.

                  Public figures are not entitled to name suppression, regardless of crime or circumstances (unless for justifiable reasons such as extreme ongoing abuse and harassment of the public figure if they request it and it is proven, or their victims wants the trial to be done out of the public lest they be traumatised further while undergoing the justice system) — so I do not think either Ghahraman or Jago inherently deserves name suppression for their crimes, unless there are justified claims of extreme harassment & abuse disproportionately targeted towards them, based on their innate identity, in the media and the conversation of New Zealand.

                  If you mean rake up acts after the public figure/citizen cease to be of actual public interest (like quitting being a MP or being an ex-PM or whatever) and becomes a private figure/citizen as in breathless reporting ever minor moment like eating food or whatever, then yes they should stop.

                  If the now-private figure/citizen does things that are crimes that is not connected to a public interest position (such as politician or CEO of a company or an army or whatever) then report them like any other person that is a private figure/citizen committing crimes.

                  Unless they are part of an actual public interest story and their presence is suddenly relevant to that story, there is no point in dredging things up again or in treating Golriz Ghahraman like Princess Diana in the photo gossip magazines (and I think that sort of thing is vile as well)

                  If Golriz murders somebody then that is of public interest and that means we should take a public interest in that. Same for anybody else in that situation.

                  The rules of preventing extreme harassment & abuse targeted towards them based on identity still applies if it is still provable and justified. This is so that the defendant can be safe and sound to appear in a courtroom of the law.

                  Abuse & harassment disproportionately targeted towards anybody being investigated and in trial then put in prison or being acquitted should not be justified.

                  Such things hampers justice and proper discussion of what is happening and often poisons the well of our public discourse.

                  We can vent to each other and write little letters to the editors (and they can be rejected) but the media is responsible for the discourse they create.

                  Proposals of name suppression to prevent actual and proven harassment & abuse disproportionately targeting a person for who they are should not be a thing in the first place.

                  We need a more responsible media and that starts with them reporting public interest stories in a more responsible, sober and calm manner. We can react all we like, however, the media should set the tone of the discussion properly.

                  No weird photos, no smearing, no thoughtlessness, no leaning into pre-existing bigotries and hatreds and so on.

                • Incognito

                  Goodness, I don't see much 'calm and sober' coverage going on on TS – when it's a 'gotcha' moment against a political opponent.

                  Who’s the ‘political opponent’ you’re referring to here?

                  • Belladonna

                    That would be any ACT MP.
                    ATM, any NZF MP (although not when they were in government with Labour)

                    Of course this is a left site – and you expect left-wing sympathies – and right-wing policies to be attacked.

                    However, little of it is 'calm and sober'.

          • Populuxe 10.2.2.1.2

            She wasn't arrested. It was an accusation made by professional t*rd Leo Molloy. Neither the Police nor Pak n Save pressed charges. It only made it into the media because it had been officially logged by the Police and the more right-leaning media made a bad judgement call.

      • Populuxe 10.2.3

        No, I think that's special pleading.
        No person of prominent political influence should ever be allowed name suppression where the public interest can clearly be proven. It is in the public interest if a politician, ranked party member, or public servant's probity or reliability are in question.
        It's not like the protocol is a mystery. If they admit guilt they should resign immediately. If they claim innocence, they should be suspended for the duration of the investigation and trial. It should always be transparent and public.

        • Rolling-on-Gravel 10.2.3.1

          Transparency does matter but I want to find a solution that is not encouraging of abuse and harassment.

          What I actually meant by proposing name suppression or whatever is that I want to help to find a solution to stop this sickening culture of abuse and harassment out of proportion by the media & the bigots leading or contributing to the media, due to the latent & pre-existent hatred towards a person's inherent identity such as being a woman or a gay man or whatever.

          I want the media to stop stoking unnecessary fires out of proportion, by encouraging people's worst instinct & urges and making unneeded hay out of anything not related to the criminal case of her shoplifting. Let her face whatever is necessary for her situation but she should not have to face extreme abuse and harassment while she is undergoing her trials.

          I want the media to stick to what is concrete actual public interest.

          I emphasise again that I want to search for a solution to this media-related problem of […] abuse out of proportion because of the latent and pre-existent hatred towards a person's identity.

          If name suppression then is not a solution to this reprehensible problem within media & reporting, then what is your suggestion to help stop this media culture?

          The problem is that the media is treating Golriz's crimes as if she has done the worst thing ever while the media is often treating much worse crimes by people that is perceived to be of "proper status" with silence or some understanding or actual dignity. They often report and move on as soon as the period of actual public interest is over.

          The Pak N Save accusation (thanks for the correction) is a prime example of that bias.

          I want a more dignified sort of media reportage applied more across the board, not as a circus where the ringmasters & the performers demonise and yell at the person the audience has pre-existent judgement towards.

          I'm okay with Golriz facing actual consequences but not at the cost of being abused and threatened in the process, whether public or private. Same for Tim.

          Both should be treated in the courtroom (or being accused and having charges pending) fairly and soberly with the media calmly and soberly reporting on both without much sensationalism & anger-baiting.

          That is what I actually want and hope for.

    • David 10.3

      Name suppression is a matter for the courts, the judges apply the law as it stands. I would guess that a wealthy person could easily afford to pay for a psychiatric evaluation to be submitted in evidence to support name suppression. The judge would to take that into consideration. My emotional reaction to name suppression is it shouldn’t ever happen. However the current laws allow for name suppression. Maybe this is an issue that needs to be discussed, and the laws changed if necessary

      • Belladonna 10.3.1

        I think that name suppression is much too widely used by the courts. And, yes, the wealthy and privileged have a greater access to this provision. (If I see one more case where name suppression is applied for because of someone's promising sporting career, or social position – it will be at least 100 too many)

        I think that a law change is the only way to achieve this.

        However, I don't see any appetite for any of the parties to make this change.

        • David 10.3.1.1

          I feel that most of the cases of name suppression which come to our attention are either high profile cases (murder), or when a wealthy or well known person is involved. There are many ordinary people who are brought before the courts, quite often a first offence, they apply for, and are given name suppression. Those who have already been through police diversion, and are facing new charges may have a more difficult time convincing the judge to grant name suppression. However at the time the media can’t report on previous charges or convictions. So that is likely to be the reason for known people being granted name suppression

          • Belladonna 10.3.1.1.1

            I think that name suppression during a court case should be an absolute right (innocent until proven guilty) – especially where the accusation is being vigorously defended. And the purient interest of the media should be firmly discouraged.

            FWIW, I think the media circus around the Polkinghorne case is a pointed example of this. While I (personally) think he is a vile human being – actually I don't have any need to know the details of the case – and feel that most of this was orchestrated by the media to sell column inches.

            The two big areas of name suppression after conviction are to protect public standing and future employment prospects – and I don't think that either is a valid reason for name suppression.

            The only time that I think name suppression is justified is to protect minor children – and, even then, it should be able to be overturned at the strong request of the family.

            Part of the reason for people's names to be published, is for the community to be able to protect itself against the criminals – whether accounting for historic crimes (it's very frequent for new complainants in sexual cases to come forward after a conviction); or for the future (you want to know about a serial fraudster before you offer them employment)

            No one has a right to an unblemished reputation, if they have indeed blemished it.

            • David 10.3.1.1.1.1

              I feel that part of the reason for things like police division and name suppression, especially for first time offenders, is to give the offender the best chance of rehabilitation, along with a form of punishment. Unfortunately in doing this, the focus is taken off the victim, who probably will feel further victimised. I guess this is all a balancing act for the police prosecutors and the judges. By the time an offender gets to spend time in jail, they most likely won’t be rehabilitated.

              • Belladonna

                Unpacking this a bit, I feel that there needs to be a distinction between one-off crimes, and patterns of criminal behaviour. The first may well be best handled via diversion and name suppression (in some cases); for the second, the community needs the right to know who the criminal is – in order to protect themselves. Sex offenders rarely commit only a single offense. Fraudsters typically repeat their criminal behaviour.

                I remember reading that a typical criminal (burglar, fraudster, rapist) will have committed dozens of offenses before he (or sometimes she) actually goes to court.

    • Puckish Rogue 10.4

      The courts can suppress certain details of crimes so you can still name the offender without identifying a family member

  10. Joe90 11

    Looks like an effort was made to memory hole this wee gem.

    One serious violent or sexual offence might be a regrettable mistake. Perhaps even two, at a pinch.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20240523091315/https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2021/11/act-party-newsletter-slammed-for-saying-one-violent-or-sexual-offence-might-be-a-regrettable-mistake.html

  11. Max 12

    "What did the court think was different about Ghahraman?"

    1. She never asked for name suppression.
    2. Her name and the allegations were in the news for weeks before she appeared in court.
    3. The Green Party had already publicly addressed the allegations and stood her down from her portfolios.

    The horse hadn't just bolted, it had been entered into the Melbourne Cup and given great odds by the TAB.

    • The context is much wider than name suppression.

      Golriz Ghahraman was on a first time shoplifting incident with an otherwise impeccable and proven background and history of public service, advocacy and good works.

      She fought for victims for the Khmer Rouge and was professionally harrassed, threatened, and had murder plots from white supremacists enacted upon her for years while in Parliament.

      Would another first time offender be sentenced with a criminal conviction, with full remorse, and disable their lifelong employment prospects as a lawyer?

      The judge found that it was irrelevant – they discounted her mental condition, psychiatric diagnosis, they discounted her first time offending, her past record and her employent prospects.

      And while you point out name suppression is irrelevant – it is not. What we know is Tim Jago's high powered lawyer argued for name suppression based on politicisation and employment prospects. Furthermore, they played the system to maximum effect e.g by delaying appeals to prolong the name suppression i.e with endlessly deep pockets – anything was possible.

      Golriz had no such protection and no such resources – as Tim Jago the ACT Party President, paedophile, and someone with open question mark on how he handled charity money with "missing financials for years" under him.

      Finally – Seymour praised Jago as an "excellent president" despite, according to Young ACT VPs, it being widespread about how Jago "treated young boys" even back in 2020.

      These are significant points and the name suppression is a tiny mark within it all – but still significant for what endless money can and can't afford.

      Interestingly Jago was begging for $3500 a few years ago, but now his lawyers could cost hundreds of thousands. Spot the difference.

      https://www.reddit.com/r/nzpolitics/comments/1ifpmid/tim_jago_plans_to_appeal_a_few_years_ago_tim_jago/

      He's also remorseless and plans to appeal based on his supposed innocence – spot the difference.

      • Max 12.1.1

        I totally agree that Jago is immeasurably worse than any shoplifter, and that he got a lot of name suppression time which is hard to understand. The question of legal bills is an very good one to ask, too. But the "one person got name suppression and the other didn't" angle is an absolute waste of time, because it was such a non-issue for Golriz Ghahraman.

        • Mountain Tui 12.1.1.1

          I'd recently written an article on Golriz Ghahraman so her circumstances, and media treatment, were fresh in my mind when I wrote the above.

          To me, it's a technicality – and also speaks to – when ACT have issues, they immediately lawyer up and have KCs advising them. (Reference: Young ACT rape allegations, Tim Jago paedophilia reporting to ACT)

          When Ghahraman got into trouble, as far as can be seen, she had little support and few resources.

          All of this context and circumstance is relevant to the topic – and technically, while it was out before she could, if that was Brooke Van Velden in her place, I'd bet that she would have had the full protection of the legal system and therefore the name suppression could have followed.

          Thanks for your notation.

          • Belladonna 12.1.1.1.1

            I don't think that holds true. Darlene Tana 'lawyered up' against the GP – although, again, name suppression was pretty much irrelevant – since her name was in the media before the issue went to court (indeed, I don't know if it's gone to court yet)

            What I think you have in Gharahman's case, is that she put the GP party welfare and wellbeing ahead of her own. Jago didn't and Tana didn't.

        • Belladonna 12.1.1.2

          It does seem to me, that if you have wealth and power, if you choose to apply for name suppression – (and your association with the case is not already a matter of public knowledge, via the NZ media) then the courts are highly likely to grant it.

          To take a step away from the political dimension.

          We can see this in the relatively recent cases of James Wallace (who fought to the bitter end to avoid having his name published after conviction for sexual offending); and Philip Polkinghorne – who was publicly associated with the death of his wife, before the trial – making any attempt at name suppression pointless.

          There is a very strong argument that actually Polkinghorne (who was not convicted) was treated 'worse' by the judicial system. [NB: I think he's a despicable human being, but the fact remains that he was not convicted]

          Gharahman, in this instance is not really relevant to the name suppression argument. She never applied for name suppression. And, in fact, admitted the crimes.

          I do not think that wealth and power should be a reason for name suppression – after conviction. Prior to conviction, I think everyone should be entitled to it.

  12. tWig 13

    Big hairy News cover this issue (from 11 min). They cover all the bases, with these extra points: Chour, Minister for Children and for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence, is ACT; and most critically, the fact that ACT did not stand down Yago until he went to court. Where other parties, definitely Labour and the Greens, have stood down people under investigation, even before any formal court process.

    • Belladonna 13.1

      It would be interesting to know at what point the police informed ACT that they were actively investigating Jago.
      Obviously the investigation commenced sometime between the beginning of November, and January 19th when he was arrested.

  13. Most parties stand people down with such serious allegations i.e paedophilia – not ACT though.

    After failing to send victims to their own lawyers who act in the interests of ACT, ACT keep them on for 180 more days.

Leave a Comment