A violent rapist will live in the community under a supervision order, despite expert evidence that he poses a high risk of reoffending.
But the community will not know the man's identity, with the judge suppressing his name and whereabouts, saying the potential adverse effect of publicity on his rehabilitation outweighed the principle of open justice.
The man was convicted of raping a 15-year-old girl in the 1990s. After being freed from jail, he pleaded guilty to charges of possessing objectionable material. He has been freed under an order of extended supervision for 10 years – the maximum a judge can impose.
Offenders under supervision orders must report to a probation officer regularly, may be obliged to attend treatment programmes and counselling, must live at an approved residence and can have only restricted contact with people under the age of 16.
But Justice Alan MacKenzie ordered that the man's name, address and identifying details be suppressed.
"The possible effect on rehabilitation does outweigh the general principle of open justice here," he said in the High Court at Wellington.
What could Justice Alan McKenzie be thinking? In his decision, he has placed the "rights" of a convicted rapist who has a penchant for teenage girls ahead of the rights of the community where the man has been placed. This is especially worrying given what follows in the story (our emphasis added):
Several reports given to the court concluded the man's overall risk of reoffending was "medium to high".
"If he continues to demonstrate a number of characteristics which have been seen to be revealed by the testing, there is a high probability ... that he will engage in serious sexual offending involving violent sexual assault within five years of release, with this risk remaining over 10 years," Justice MacKenzie said.
"This offending will place female adults and adolescents under the age of 16 years at risk."
Now Justice McKenzie may have made a decision which is legally correct. But is it a decision which takes the safety of the community into account? We don't think so. We have a teenage daughter, so perhaps that clouds our judgment. But a law which affords this level of anonymity to a convicted rapist is patently wrong in our always-humble opinion.
8 comments:
I have 3 dayghters now all in their 30's but my eldest grandaughter turns 14 at the beginning of October. I would not want this man living within 100k's of her and her friends.
Well said pdm - many would argue that all the words in your last sentence from "within" to the end could be deleted ...
Good point INV2 - not an angle I had thought of.
I wonder what the Whale will make of it?
Justice Mackenzie now has the official Pedobear seal of approval?
How is it possible that individuals with judgement this poor are appointed (for life, mind you) to make judgments?
I have a Miss Four at home, and I know how I'd feel if I discovered this animal had been released to live near us.
@ Gantt Guy - I've just sent the link to WhaleOil, so we might see something from him later today.
Gantt Guy, good news, you wont discover hes been released to live near you.
That information is being supressed.
How do you know there are not already convicted sex offenders livng near you now? Onme of the problems the police have is the high number of suspects they have to deal with when a girl goes missing or is found dead.
I one case I am familier with they had 6 convicted offenders wiht a liking for young girls within 2km of the victims home.
The community at large was unaware of all of them.
I also read this with disbelief and would have commented on Kiwiblog if he had a 'General Debate ' today. It really shows how out of touch these Judges are. Instead of only a small circle of people having to take extra precautions, the whole country is left to wonder if it is the pervy looking newcomer down the street.
As for rehabilitation, most unlikely, and how much responsibility will Judge McKenzie take when this rapist strikes in the near future. Perhaps he ordered this complete suppression so that no-one will ever know that it was the rapist whose identity he concealed that committed the next foreseeable outrage.
@ Baxter - like you, I've been waiting in vain for DPF's General Debate today so that this story can be aired to a wider audience than my little slice of the blogosphere. This case really stretches one's faith in the "justice" system.
BTW - is it any surprise that the rapist was represented by Micahel Bott, chairman of the Council for Civil Liberties?
Post a Comment