Editorial: A family saves face while we miss out

The Sensible Sentencing Trust brand has taken on a bit of damage in recent times, some accusing the lobby group and its popular frontman Garth McVicar of pandering to a lynch-mob mentality.
And yet it's hard to argue with the organisation's latest outcry, this time over the granting of name suppression to a man who possessed images of child rape. The Manawatu man, 50, who admitted 21 charges of possessing objectionable material, was sentenced to six months' home detention and fined $5250 at the end of last year.
The foul images depicted violent sex acts, including the pack rape of children.
But in a decision released yesterday, the Court of Appeal ruled the man's name should be kept secret to protect his family members. The judges said publishing the man's name would lead to "incalculable hurt" to his family.
This is a different scenario entirely from the often-controversial issue of sexual offenders receiving name suppression because to identify them would identify their victims. In all crime, the needs of victims should be paramount, and while it may be frustrating for some that that provides a veil of secrecy for convicted criminals to hide behind, it is a necessary part of our legal system. But this case is different.
Yes, publicising the man's name would likely cause extreme hurt and embarrassment for his family. But how is that any different from the families of murderers, arsonists or fraudsters, all of whom regularly have their name and images published when they appear before the courts. Surely these families are also suffering through publication of their relatives' actions? The families of offenders can also claim, with some justification, that they cannot be held responsible and should not be judged for wrongdoing by another family member.
In the case of the Manawatu man, he was old enough to know the basics of right and wrong, and to make his own decisions in life and deal with the consequences that come with them.
If there's no prospect of victims being identified through publication of this man's name, then surely the argument comes down to an issue of what is more important: sparing the man's family some embarrassment or the right of the public to know the identity of a convicted sexual offender. When you add in the deterrent factor that is often cited in arguments favouring the publication of offenders' identities, it's hard to escape the suspicion that the Court of Appeal has got this one wrong.
Feedback: editor@wanganuichronicle.co.nz