Legal experts weigh in on length of Tim Jago’s name suppression saying there is a right to appeal

Tim Jago has been convicted of abusing two teenage boys in the 1990s. Photo / RNZ / Nick Monro

By RNZ

Legal experts have weighed in on claims that former Act Party president Tim Jago’s name suppression went on for too long – saying the right to appeal remains an essential part of the legal process.

Five months after being convicted of abusing two teenage boys in the 1990s, the former Act Party president abandoned his appeal for continued name suppression on Friday.

A victims’ advocate group had spoken of their frustration that people in positions of power could hide their identity for as long as he did.

Canterbury University professor of media law Ursula Cheer said it wasn’t just wealthy and prominent people who got to remain anonymous – with courts around New Zealand granting hundreds of name suppression orders every week.

“Judges do their best to deal with this discretionary issue. It is a tricky issue and they’re well aware that victims are there in the background, worried about the court process and feeling upset and distressed. But the criminal justice process has to run,” she said.

Cheer added that while she sympathised with victims who may have felt the process was extremely drawn out, the decision to release an offender’s name was not actually part of their punishment.

“Under the rule of law, they are entitled to have an appeal, as in any other criminal case in New Zealand. And that of course takes time because the court system takes time,” she said.

However, public law expert Graeme Edgeler said name suppression shouldn’t necessarily extend for months after a trial.

He said appealing a name suppression decision – as Jago did – tends to lead to automatic interim name suppression.

Edgeler, a Wellington-based barrister, believed those kinds of appeals should be heard quicker.

“We’re always going to have some level of suppression – but yes, timelines should be shortened. These should be treated as high priority appeals,” he said.

Edgeler said the Government was rethinking name suppression laws.

Last year it proposed a change to give sexual abuse survivors power to decide if convicted offenders got permanent name suppression.

When it came to the issue of preferential treatment, Edgeler said he did feel that the wealthy and prominent people were more likely to receive name suppression.

He said in part, that was because high-profile cases were more likely to receive high-profile news coverage, which meant the name suppression was likely to be more justified.

People who could afford their own lawyer could also continue to keep appealing a name suppression decision, he said, unlike people receiving state-funded legal aid.

“You can just delay and delay and delay ... if you’ve got money to spare, you can fund your lawyer to do these [appeals] even if you know actually, there’s very low chance you’re going to get name suppression. And it is very hard to get name suppression once you’ve been convicted,” he said.

Jago maintains his innocence, and still plans to appeal his convictions and sentence.

- RNZ

Sign up to The Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.