TY  - BOOK
AU  - Pender, Nikki
TI  - Name suppression processes for victims of sexual violence : : research report
PY  - 2020///
PB  - Chief Victims Advisor to Government, 
KW  - CRIMINAL JUSTICE
KW  - EVIDENCE
KW  - Criminal Procedure Act 2011
KW  - INCEST
KW  - LAW REFORM
KW  - LITERATURE REVIEWS
KW  - OFFENDERS
KW  - PRIVACY
KW  - SEXUAL VIOLENCE
KW  - Victims’ Rights Act 2002
KW  - VICTIMS OF CRIMES
KW  - VICTIMS OF SEXUAL VIOLENCE
KW  - NEW ZEALAND
KW  - INTERNATIONAL
KW  - AUSTRALIA
KW  - CANADA
N2  - I. The name suppression of the victim and the offender involved in sexual violence cases are often linked. The law presumes that victims of interpersonal crimes want their names suppressed. Section 201 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 provides for automatic suppression of a defendant’s identity in incest-related cases with the stated purpose of protecting the
complainant. Section 203 in turn provides for automatic suppression of the complainant’s
identity in all sexual offence cases (including incest).2 However, some victims believe some offenders use the excuse of ‘protecting’ the victim to keep the offender’s name suppressed. These examples are especially highlighted when the victim and offender have a close
relationship.
2. Some victims do not want a defendant to have name suppression and are willing to have their
name suppression removed so that people can know who harmed them. Victims often fear an
offender can hide under their name suppression and go on to harm others, who have no
knowledge of their previous history of harm. Other victims simply want the right to self-report.
3. Section 203(3) allows all complainants to apply to have their own name suppression lifted and
s. 201(3) allows complainants in incest cases to apply to have the defendant’s name suppression
lifted. However, complainants often have to bear the cost of a lawyer if these applications are
made after the trial has ended. Some victims have spent thousands of dollars attempting to have
their name suppression lifted so that they can tell their story and the public can know who
harmed them.
4. The Canadian and Australian approaches to name suppression are different, but each of them
gives victims of sexual offending more choice and autonomy than the New Zealand system 2
currently does. A bespoke solution, which combines the best of both systems would be even
better. Giving complainants choice at the start of the process and allowing survivors the right to
self-report at every stage of the trial process would be empowering for them and would also be
more consistent with the principles of open justice and freedom of expression. (From the Introduction). Record #8362
UR  - https://chiefvictimsadvisor.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Publications/Namesuppressionprocessesforvictimsofsexualviolence.pdf
ER  -