Editorial: Live by publicity sword, die by it

You would think Barry Hart would know better.

The high-profile Auckland barrister was yesterday revealed as fighting disciplinary charges, after losing a battle to keep his name secret.

Mr Hart denies misconduct charges brought against him by the standards committee of the Law Society, and is expected to face a disciplinary hearing this month. The specific charges remain suppressed, although they are not criminal in nature.

Mr Hart has done his absolute best to keep his name a secret, going through the High Court, the Court of Appeal and finally the Supreme Court.

But now, the Supreme Court has ruled his name can be published, rejecting Mr Hart's concerns about the effect publicity would have on his reputation, the people he worked with, and his relatives.

If nothing else, no one can accuse Mr Hart of being inconsistent.

The veteran barrister has long been an advocate for name suppression for many of his various high-profile clients.

But again, this issue goes to the crux of debate around name suppression for people loosely categorised as "celebrities".

While it might be stretching things somewhat to affix that particular title to Mr Hart, there can be no doubt that he does have a public profile through his years of high-level work in the legal sector.

But his profile is not solely a by-product of his success in his chosen career.

Never one to generally shy away from talking to media about his cases, he has kept his profile up through commentating on legal issues.

Mr Hart had argued that because there was no allegation of criminal offending, the usual principle around justice being open should not apply.

But a concept such as justice can never be applied solely and exclusively in a criminal context, and in any scenario where someone in a position of responsibility such as a barrister is facing allegations of wrongdoing, the proceedings around those allegations need to be as transparent as possible, in order for the public to retain trust in the profession as a whole.

Clearly an intelligent man, Mr Hart has dealt with the news media enough to know what is and isn't newsworthy. He can't have it both ways - he's been happy to talk to the media in the interests of his clients, in the process boosting his own profile.

To now turn around and argue that same profile means he should get to keep his name secret is simply an impossible position to try to maintain.

Feedback: editor@wanganuichronicle.co.nz