Review finds several new sexual abuse breaches

File photo / NZH

An investigation into why two sexual victims' names were wrongfully published on a Ministry of Justice website has found nine more cases of similar breaches.

Justice Minister Simon Power today released a report into the mishap, which he ordered after the publication of victims' names on the Judicial Decisions Online website.

The names were published online in a judge's decision, and the Herald on Sunday revealed the breaches in a story on February 13.

The names of victims of sexual crimes are, by law, automatically suppressed. The ministry apologised to the victims directly.

The report was compiled by John Marshall QC, immediate past-president of the Law Society, who found nine other name suppression breaches after reviewing the website.

The website's database contains 1530 sexual abuse decisions; 10 of them (including the original breach) were identified as likely to be in breach of the statutory prohibition.

Judgments are sent by judges to the ministry with an indication as to whether they should be published on the website. Judges 'flag' a judgement if suppression applies by inserting a banner at the top of the decision.

Mr Marshall found that of the 10 cases, none had a suppression banner or 'flag' at the top.

But he said it was the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice, as the website publisher, to "carefully read and check them [the judgments] to ensure suppression requirements were complied with, whether or not there were 'flags'.

He suggested that the ministry thoroughly check all judgements, whether regardless of whether a suppression order is made.

The Chief High Court Judge, Justice Helen Winkelmann, said judges are working with the Ministry to ensure that similar mistakes would not be repeated.

"The report confirms the Ministry is responsible for ensuring judgements published on its website comply with suppression requirements," she said.

"The recommendations to improve Ministry processes for checking decisions are a proper reflection of that responsibility. The decisions that were published in error were subject to statutory suppressions which the Ministry ought to have picked up."

Mr Power welcomed the report and the immediate steps the Ministry has taken since the breach was identified.

He said the judiciary and the ministry needed top sort out "a foolproof system, and I know the Ministry is working with the judiciary on establishing appropriate protocols".

"Though the initial decision to publish lies with the judge, there is an obligation for the Ministry, under the Criminal Justice Act, not to publish if they identify a potential breach.

"They need to be more careful about that process."

In the meantime the ministry has suspended publishing decisions to the Judicial Decisions Online website, and is reviewing training of staff.

"The relationship between the Ministry and the judiciary, where that responsibility lies, and who can inform the other's decision-making, are things that have to be sorted.

He said even though the decision that lead to the original breach had not been properly flagged, "the ministry should still have picked up the fact that the judgment contained the names of victims and sent it back to the court for anonymisation".