Editorial: Name suppression emotion stirring

The topic of name suppression stirs up strong emotions.

When a criminal or accused criminal gets to keep their identity secret, there's often outrage from some sectors of the public who believe they should be "named and shamed".

The issue of automatic suppression for victims of crime is less often discussed.
But a woman who was sexually abused by a Rotorua man as a child, tells us she will be asking the court to lift her suppression. For now, we can't name her even though she approached us wanting to talk about her experience.

That may seem strange to some. After all, she was the victim, she didn't do anything wrong, and she never asked for that suppression. It's part of New Zealand's law, in order to protect sex crime victims, and it's something we as media vigilantly comply with.
She goes a step further and argues there shouldn't be automatic suppression - that it should be up to each victim to decide whether or not they want their identity kept secret.

I applaud her bravery, she seems to be in a strong space and wants to use her horrific experience in a positive way. It would seem only fair she is given the right to speak out and claim that experience without shame, as long as no other innocent people are negatively impacted in the process. The courts will consider her request in due course.

But removing automatic suppression is a step too far. Requiring traumatised victims all to be in the right frame of mind at the time of conviction or sentencing to make a decision with such far-reaching consequences would be unrealistic and wrong.
Because once a name is out there, there's no going back.

This is one situation where erring on the side of caution can be the only option.
***
There has also been debate on social media about the public naming of the baby who died tragically in Wanganui this week.

Many, including some in media, say no good can be served by releasing the name, that no one needs to know and that it can only put extra stress on his grieving family. All of which may well be right.

Yet it's the standard practice of New Zealand police to publicly release names of people - including children - killed in accidents or sudden deaths that have been in the news, once relatives have been informed.

If this case is different, as some argue, then where do you draw the line? Who decides which victims should have privacy and which shouldn't?

If the practice is to be changed it needs to be changed for all.