Free Speech Union backs bid to lift child abuse suppression

The Free Speech Union has backed the Crown's bid to lift the permanent name suppression of a member of a wealthy New Zealand family convicted of possessing and importing more than 11,000 files of child sexual abuse material. He was sentenced in August 2025 to two years and five months' imprisonment, with his name, his family's name, and the family company all permanently suppressed. The High Court heard the Crown's application on 2 June and reserved its decision.

"The Crown has appealed the decision, arguing for open justice, and we agree," said Jillaine Heather, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union. "Its own prosecutor told the court that the man's family wealth means he will have, in the prosecutor's words, somewhere pleasant to live where he need not engage with anyone he does not want to. However, ordinary New Zealanders convicted of the same offending face their community and public scrutiny. When the consequences of conviction appear to depend on your bank balance, equal justice is the casualty." 
 

The contrast raises a fair question about equal application, where one offender is named, the other is not, and the public cannot judge why, because the reasoning is suppressed.

The law sets a deliberately high bar for suppressing a convicted person's name. The Criminal Procedure Act requires "extreme hardship", which the courts have said means far more than the ordinary distress of being named. Much of the Crown's case is that this bar was not met, and that the District Court placed too much weight on the man's mental health.

"Rehabilitation is not a ground for name suppression, and for good reason," said Heather. "Every offender would rather not be named. If that were enough, suppression would be the norm, not the rare exception Parliament intended. The courts have been clear that even serious mental-health risk does not automatically override open justice."

The Free Speech Union is calling for courts to publish their reasons for suppression orders, anonymised where necessary. The Ministry of Justice already reports how many orders are granted and for what offences; what the public still cannot see is why any individual order is made.

"A free society does not keep its citizens in the dark about who has been convicted of serious crimes in their own communities," said Heather. "We hope the High Court returns this case to the daylight."