I see that Cameron Slater, also known as Whaleoil, has failed to understand one of the key reasons for giving name suppression, yet again.
He points out that a kickboxer facing aggravated burglary and blackmail charges has failed to have his name suppressed and that this shows that the Olympian charged with raping a family member should also have no name suppression.
Slater somehow decides that sporting prowess is the measuring stick here, for whether someone should get name suppression or not, and that therefore the Olympian should be named because his sporting achievements are not as signficant as the kick-boxer.
Actually, and I've said this before but clearly it needs to be said again, the reason for name suppression in the case of the Olympian is to protect the identity of the victim, not the accused.
We've discussed here whether name suppression really does aid abusers. Not all name suppressions are created equal. Some deserve to be challenged. But this case, the one of the Olympian, would seem to me to not be one of them and I don't think Slater is helping his argument by continuing to harp on about it.
2 comments:
Protecting the victim is essential.
That should be done by suppressing any information which could identify her/him which would include any mention of her/his relationship to the accused.
If that was done the case for name suppression of the accused would be weaker.
Unfortunely, name supression is given a lot to protect the accussed' career.
Case in point, several sports people got name suppresion over the years, not because the victim woould be identified, but because their careers would be hurt.
There was also the case of the so called entertainer who got permantent name suppression because it would effect his future album sales.
Despite his victim wanting him to be named. Isnt that what Cameron is upset about.
BTW the so called entertainer still hasnt paid his victim compenstation from what I have read.
Post a Comment