Kerre Woodham: Should there be name suppression for child sexual abusers?

I can't think of much worse than being labelled a child abuser, a child pornographer. It's such an abhorrent, vile, aberrant perversion of a crime. All crime is evil. But when it involves children, there's something particularly sickening about it.  Those who collect images of babies and children being sexually abused, in my opinion, are as culpable for the torture of these children as the men and women who actually inflict the damage. They deserve a special place in hell. And let's face it, the next world may be the only place where true justice will be delivered, because justice doesn't often get delivered in this world.  Last month, a member of an affluent New Zealand family convicted of having extreme child abuse material gave $50,000 and a bit of change to charities days before he was due to be sentenced.  The judge worked out his sentence this way: a starting point of five and a half years imprisonment with no mitigating features to his offending. So five and a half years, I think that's a bit light, given that without sick creeps like him, there wouldn't be an industry in child abuse, but there we go.  So five and a half years is the starting point. Then we get a 25% discount for the early guilty plea, 5% for remorse, 10% for rehabilitation attempts. He's had 50 one-on-one counselling sessions, and isn't he lucky he comes from an affluent family, so he can afford them, there was a further 3% reduction to represent the donations he made, for previous good character, there was another 5% discount. And the judge also outlined his long history of mental unwellness. ADHD and referred to a traumatic incident the man had suffered. For these factors, his sentence was reduced by a further 8%. An overall discount of 56%. He ended up with two years and five months imprisonment. He'll be out in no time. The man was automatically placed on the child sex offenders register. So that's good, isn't it? Because then you'll be able to find out who he is and if he's going to be working around children again, or if you decide to take up with him because he seems like a well-presented educated man and you're single and he's single, and oh, then you find out he's on the child sex offenders register.  But no, the man's name, his family's name and their high-profile company were permanently suppressed.  As we all know, nature abhors a vacuum, and human nature abhors a vacuum when it comes to information on offenders from prominent families. So, if the court won't name him, the internet will. And it doesn't matter if they get the wrong person because the internet's the wild west and no one's accountable. If the court's not going to give us the right person, well, bugger it. We'll just go out and we'll name everybody. Anybody and everybody, even if they're not 46. Even if they're not in prison. We'll just name them anyway. I simply do not believe anything I read or see on the socials. Mainstream media gets it wrong all the time, but at least we are accountable. If we go out and name Wayne Wright Jr or Matt Mowbray as the prominent New Zealander with child abuse material, we have to retract, we have to expunge the content off the internet, we have to apologise, we have to pay enormous fines.  Spreaders of disinformation on the net don't have to do a thing. And so anyone and everyone can be named and shamed, and if you come from a prominent or an affluent family, and a member of your ilk, your social cohort has received name suppression, well, you're in the firing line.  Same if you're a prominent sportsperson. They use the term prominent sportsman or prominent sportsperson, if you've once played pickleball for a masters age group tournament in Noosa. They use it for just about everybody and everything. So anybody who's ever played sport at any level, could be included as a prominent sportsperson.  In the case of this child abuser, Wayne Wright Jr and Matt Mowbray have already had to come out and declare they are not and have never been in any way linked to anything to do with child harm. They've got nothing to do with it.  Both of them have been named through social media, despite the fact that neither of them is in fact 46 and neither of them is in fact in custody. You think that might be a stumbling block for those on the net, but no.  Both of them have also come out and said people convicted of sexual offenses against children should never ever have name suppression, and they should not. They are quite right on that. I think name suppression is used far too often. I can understand it being used in the early days of a trial when somebody has been charged. It gives people time to tell the family or do whatever it is they have to do, but then once they're sentenced, no.  I think the bar is very low for permanent name suppression right now. And if you are convicted of sex offenses against children, why? Why should you have name suppression?  There are far fewer affluent families than there used to be, given the cost of living crisis that, you know, brings it down to a very small pool of people, so the wild speculation will continue.  So the courts have got it wrong when it comes to suppression, but people should also have a really healthy scepticism of anything that is said about anyone on social media, I simply do not believe anything until I've tested about three or four different sources, or until I'm stepping over the people who are supposed to be involved in the illicit act or you see the court papers. It's getting harder and harder to trust anyone or anything. And while we have the name suppression being applied willy-nilly, way too liberally, this kind of rank disinformation is going to be spread. You know, and it's fine when it's somebody else, but what about when you, you're the subject of the TikTok rumours, how do you defend your name when you haven't done a thing? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.