Why we didn't name defendant

...the basic premise, in this country, that you are innocent until the Crown proves you guilty.

THE court system, and to a larger extent New Zealand's system of justice, is not perfect.

No system ever is. But I would defend to the hilt the absolute necessity of having a system.

A case on Tuesday demonstrated the height of procedural justice in its duty to protect the defendant - the basic premise, in this country, that you are innocent until the Crown proves you guilty.

In this case of alleged sexual abuse, an incident of inappropriate touching by a chiropractor on a teenage boy 27 years ago, it rested on the complainant and the police proving to a judge it had happened.

The accused man, now in his 70s, was found not guilty by the judge.

This leaves media with an interesting ethical debate. Rather unusually, no name suppression for the accused had been entered. Media do feel general frustration about name suppression in courts, although we are not hard line or one-tracked about it like advocacy groups such as the Sensible Sentencing Trust. I can appreciate name suppression is sometimes an appropriate protection of a person's reputation, while a court process is under way. Again, it's an extension of innocent until proven guilty.

In this instance, the man was found not guilty, and no name suppression had been made - or even applied for, it seemed. The Times-Age was free and clear to publish the proceedings of the court, recount every detail of what this man was alleged to have done to the boy, and name him. And then remark that he was found not guilty because the police hadn't proven their case, according to the judge.

It becomes a question of what is fair, rather than what we are entitled to do. Many times I have argued those who appear in court take their chances. Those who have committed crimes are on public view and deserve to be named. But in a not-guilty situation, there is still guilt by association, especially in a situation which is literally one person's word against another, leading to a "not proven" situation.

In this instance the Times-Age chooses not to name him. And perhaps there's a message in this complainant's failure to prove his case: if it's just going to be your word against his after nearly three decades, what are you getting out of the situation?