Judge Grant Fraser

Judge Grant Fraser is the judge who thinks that 300,000 pornographic images help by the convicted man is on the light side of offending, he also wants the man to continue on his career uninterrupted by this little scrap with the law and so has sentenced him to home detention (so he can continue is personal habit in comfort) and he also fully suppressed his name.

The Manawatu Standard has come out swinging against judicial meddling by judge Grant Fraser.

If there were any lingering doubts that the guidelines for suppressing names in this country needed strengthening, the case detailed in today’s Manawatu Standard should shatter them.

The creeping secrecy pervading our justice system has long since passed what the public should accept as a reasonable restriction on their freedom of expression in order to safeguard the administration of justice.

The decision to suppress the name of a prominent Manawatu man convicted of downloading pornographic images of children is a salient example of how the principle of open justice has been reduced to little more than a passing mention before a judge abdicates his or her duty to ensure our public court system belongs to the people.

Judge Grant Fraser’s reasons for banning publication of this man’s name and occupation are breathtaking in their flimsiness, placing too much weight on the interests of the offender, and too little on the interests of the public.

For Judge Fraser to say publication of the man’s identity was not required because none of the thousands of children pictured were New Zealanders is logically outrageous. Such an argument requires one to believe this man investigated the background of each of his young victims to determine they were not from this country. Does Judge Fraser believe that had the man known the children were New Zealanders he would have not downloaded the images?

But what was most alarming about Judge Fraser’s decision was his view that the offender’s status in society should afford him special protection from publicity.

That is tough stuff and wholly accurate.

Judge Fraser said: “The punitive consequences are more extensive for you than for others, particularly in light of your position, your achievements and the consequential outcome.”

It is this statement, above all others, that exposes the judge’s decision not only as poor, but as an insult to the central tenet of justice ? that it applies to everyone equally.

Publicly revealing an offender’s name will have different consequences for individuals depending on their life situation. It is not for the courts to attempt to manipulate those consequences to make them equal for everyone. It might sound paradoxical, but justice isn’t always fair.

Those who hold a high social status must accept that with it comes greater scrutiny when they behave in a manner unbecoming that status. There cannot be one set of rules for them, and another for everyone else.

The Law Commission has recommended the Government raises the threshold for name suppression and sets clearer guidelines on how it should be applied.

What happened in the Palmerston North District Court yesterday might not have exposed the identity of a sexual deviant, but it has revealed how important it is for the Government to adopt those recommendations.

Yeah Simon “FIGJAM” Power. Pull your finger out. We have a situation in New Zealand now where the government seems to care more about dogs and animals than victims of crime.

This is NOT the first time that Judge Grant Fraser has meddled with the intent of the law. A quick Google reveals a crim hugging, liberal menace to the people of the Manawatu.

A Massey University student who accidentally shot a friend while out hunting possums has escaped conviction in what a judge called a unique and unprecedented case.

Judge Grant Fraser also prohibited publication of the student’s name when he appeared before him in Palmerston North District Court on Friday.

The student was ordered to pay the victim, whom Judge Fraser said had made “miraculous” recovery, $5000 for emotional harm……

….He added that publication of the defendant’s name would hamper his ability to “move forward” and would impact on his rehabilitation.

So what, why does this Judge like placing name suppression on case so people can get ahead. They have committed drimes, been convicted and the one thing missing is shame. They can carry on as if nothing bad happened. This is the liberal elite at its worst, cossetting criminals in cotton-wool, so they don’t feel bad about what they have done.

Judge Grant Fraser is not stranger to the other side of the bench either;

A man who suffered a broken leg and cracked ribs when a District Court Judge collided with his moped has described the $1800 reparation ordered in the case as an insult.

Judge Grant Fraser, of Palmerston North, who admitted a charge of careless driving causing injury, was disqualified from driving for six months and ordered to pay reparation.

While driving in Tauranga in January the judge collided with moped rider Selwyn Parker, who suffered a broken leg, cracked ribs and bruising.

He was sentenced in the Wellington District Court on Friday. Chief District Court Judge Russell Johnson said it was clear that Fraser was remorseful for what had happened.

The judge was ordered to pay $1800 in reparation for emotional harm.

So Judge Grant Fraser got a nice little helping hand from fellow Judge Russel Johnson who pinged him just $1800. Compare that to the other case above where Judge Grant Fraser decided that similar injuries warranted $8000 in compensation.

It really does seem that if you are a celebrity, a judge, a doctor, a lawyer or accountant that you get special treatment before the courts and the boy clubs look after their own, not to mention that the judiciary seem to have taken a rather simple but flawed law and applied it rather liberally in order to give criminals carte blanche with access to name suppression.

The judiciary can’t be trusted. It is time for minimum sentencing and removal of judges discretion as they have demonstrated with out a shadow of a doubt that they can’t be trusted to follow the wishes of the people. Judges have lost touch with society.

Cross posted at shame.co.nz

31%
×