Thursday, March 24, 2011

Lucia Sex offenders and Name Suppression

A well-known comedian/entertainer in NZ has pleaded guilty to performing an indecent act on a child - a 4 year old girl.

This man has had his name suppressed all the time he was waiting for his trial, and if he was found not guilty, then this name suppression would have protected him from an unjust allegation that was eventually proven false. For that reason, I will grudgingly allow for concept that temporary name suppression is a good thing. Such a vile crime should not smear the innocent.

However, the man now admits to his guilt, and it appears from the news items I've been reading that he's not going to be jailed, and was offered a "non-custodial sentence" by the judge if he pleaded guilty to a lesser charge.

This is where I really have to question whether the NZ justice system really thinks that child sex abuse is a serious matter. Why not have a trial? Why not then imprison him on the more serious charge of unlawful sexual connection? At least other children would be safe from him while he was locked up. I don't get it.

Then there is the issue of name suppression, which appears as if it will continue. Hopefully it won't, hopefully when this pervert is sentenced then the name suppression will be lifted and all parents will know which man they need to keep their children away from. For it makes absolutely no sense to not lock the man up, but then also not let his identity be known. There is no justice in that, and gives him and men like him a free pass to keep molesting children with very few consequences.

Which makes me think that sexual molestation of children is not something NZ is terribly concerned about preventing.

Related links: NZ comedian pleads guilty to indecency charge

9 comment(s):

Andrei said...

The issue here is protecting the identity of the child, rather than that of the perpetrator.

In one very high profile case of similar nature some possible charges were not laid because to do so would identify the victim.

Lucia Maria said...


I think protecting the child is a smokescreen. It's not his child (as far as I can tell), it's his "partner's", therefore one can assume they are not married. I doubt they are still together, either, after an incident like this. Therefore, unless someone knows who the partner of the man used to be, they wouldn't be able to identify the child. Which is most of us.

And then there's the fact that most of the people who know him, know it's him already. That's what the talkshow host was talking about this morning.

KG said...

We have too much law and not enough justice. Give me his name and I will publish it.

Andrei said...

I know, Lucia, all that you say is true.

It all makes me sick to the stomach.

Lucia Maria said...


I don't actually know his name. Totally agree that there's too much law and not enough justice. The law is designed to protect the wrong people, and I'm beginning to think that is done on purpose. Maybe there are too many well-connected individuals in society with this particular vice.


Same here. A 4 year old is not an accident, no matter how drunk you are. What's more likely is that being drunk removed inhibitions.

KG said...

"Maybe there are too many well-connected individuals in society with this particular vice."
Ah yes...I grew up in Adelaide, which always had a reputation for this kind of thing and the highest levels of the judiciary and politics were involved.Yet there were very, very few prosecutions. One develops a nose for cover-ups.

Ackers said...

Dunno. Seems fairly obvious to me the people who need protecting here are the children.

I have no problem at all with this name supression.

What I find more interesting is your desperate desire to know who it is.

Seems to be on par with your obsession with homosexual sex practises.

Clearly linked and quite sad.

Lucia Maria said...


This post is about name suppression, not about any desire to know on my part. If I wanted to know, I would have deciphered all the clues that WhaleOil left .. was it last year?

ZenTiger said...

Ackers, aren't you just a little bit obsessed with homosexual practices? You just finished telling me on another thread you were unable to resist your urges. It's a bit lame you try to use that to imply Lucia is so obsessed as an attack on her character. Why don't you shoot yourself in the other foot whilst you are at it?

Seems fairly obvious to me the people who need protecting here are the children.

And what about other children this pervert might come in contact with?

So why doesn't the public have a right to know?

Why would protecting the identity of the current victim (given the age) make their pain and hurt go away? He's already done the damage.

So far we have a criminal about to be punished extremely lightly for a serious offence: a bit of home stay, and no impact (consequences) on his life. All it takes is the public to buy into the "think of the children"

Well, I'm thinking of the children, the next ones.

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.