Now Name Suppression includes Dog names!

While the NZ Herald was spending hundreds of thousands of dollars with Bell Gully overturning Mark Hotchin’s name suppression in the interests of touting more newspapers a well known political figure is currently before?the?courts with name suppression.

He has been for some time but to my knowledge the Herald hasn’t hired a bevy of lawyers to publish his name in the “public interest”. bell Gully should be licking their chops with glee at the prospect of their new found revenue stream.

Using their new logic that when things materially change in a person’s circumstances, no matter how much time has?elapsed?you can trot off to court and overturn name suppression orders I have to wonder why they aren’t doing so in this case.

However on to the matter at hand and the now ridiculous situation where name suppression also applies to the names of dogs:

A leading political figure has given evidence about allegations of dog-napping and assault on a street in an upmarket suburb.

The man, his ex-wife and his new partner cannot be named because of strict suppression orders. Even the two dogs have name suppression.

Yesterday’s hearing in the Family Court at Auckland is the latest legal chapter in the long-running matrimonial dispute.

The alleged dog-napping took place in Remuera last November. In court yesterday the former wife (to be referred to as D) admitted taking one of the two dogs as they were being walked by the new partner of her ex-husband (to be referred to as C).

The court was told how D allegedly “grabbed, pushed and tried to wrench the dog” from the partner’s arms. The partner’s complaint of theft was rejected by police as the dogs had been ruled the couple’s matrimonial property, and D had a joint claim to them, although she had not seen them since the separation.

After D refused to give the couple legal assurances that she would not try to take the other dog, the couple began legal action.

In court yesterday, D referred to the dogs as “her babies” and admitted driving around the neighbourhood in the hope of seeing them. She denied stalking the couple, however.

C defended his decision not to hand over the dogs despite D’s numerous appeals because they were all he had left of the marriage. “She insists to this day that both dogs go to her, so I would be left with nothing.”

At one point Judge Burns said: “I have never dealt with this type of issue before.”

I can understand why there is name suppression in most family court cases, they involve children. However in this case we have middle aged adults with no children involved. The pretense of name suppression is purely for the sake of protecting them from embarrassment, precisely the same situation that prompted the NZ Herald to apply for Mark Hotchins permanent suppression order to be overturned.

Surely in the interests of consistency the NZ Herald their expensive lawyers should be down at the court today seeking to have the?suppression?orders overturned because of the public interest in the individual concerned.

Meanwhile I think the Judge can solve all this bullshit by ordering the dogs destroyed.