Here's how you report cases without name suppression

Look at how the Aussies have handled the exact type of case that the hand-wringers say name suppression is needed to protect the victim. That premise is complete tosh of course and here is why.

A BENDIGO man charged with serious child sex offences including making child pornography with a minor has failed in his bid to have his name suppressed.

Michael Peter Smart, 34, was arrested last Thursday morning after police searched his East Bendigo home.

He has since been charged with sexual penetration of a child under 16, making and producing child pornography, possessing child pornography, procuring a child to make child pornography and blackmail.

See…not hard is it. Bendigo is not that big, only 76,000 people. To get an idea of size the population is in between Palmerston North and Hastings in size. So the argument about protecting the identity in a small town goes out the window too. You can hardly call Bendigo, Palmerston north and Hastings cities, more like provincial centres. Hell more people live in manukau than live in Wellington.

Now onto why name suppression wasn’t used in this case. Note the victim in this case is under 16.

Police allege the offences relate to the sexual assault of a young girl during the past five years.

They say more charges are expected to be laid.

?We believe there are more victims out there who will come forward,? a police spokesman said.

In an out-of-court hearing before a bail justice on Thursday night, Smart, a former train conductor, was denied bail.

He appeared via video-link in the Bendigo Magistrates Court yesterday morning. Smart was not required to enter a plea and no application for bail was made.

Good. He is in the slammer and they don’t need his sorry ass in Court when a video-link will suffice. Now you see why it is so important to name the accused, to find other victims. This is what we should have here. No suppression of the accused, name suppression of the victims, which the media wont publish anyway as you can see here.

During the brief hearing, defence lawyer Luke Docherty asked the court to grant a suppression order prohibiting the media from publishing his client?s name and employment details.

He said if made public it could bring undue stress and embarrassment to the victim as well as Smart?s family.

The prosecution opposed the suppression order.

Leading Senior Constable Jeff Lavery said the public should be made aware of such court proceedings, particularly if there are other victims involved.

?Police may need the assistance of the media to track down further victims.?

The suppression order was not granted and Magistrate Richard Wright remanded Smart in custody.

Bloody good judge. As for the undue stress and embarrassment, well boo-f**king-hoo, cry me a river of tears. How about the embarrassment and undue stress placed on the victim because of his actions? huh? huh? Yeah in new Zealand I et you he would have name suppression for sure where we care more about crims than their victims.

Naming the accused can and is normal in many countries around the world, and the media never seem to name the victim or identify them in any way, and why would they anyway, the public is more interested in the accused. Change the law FIGJAM, change the law and don’t listen to the defence lawyers or Sir Geoffrey Palmer, listen to the public.