000			03439nam a22003497a 4500
999			_c8362 _d8362
005			20250625151646.0
008			231005s2020 -nz|| |||| 00| 0 eng d
040			_aAFVC
100			_aPender, Nikki _910489
245			_aName suppression processes for victims of sexual violence : _bresearch report _cNikki Pender
260			_bChief Victims Advisor to Government, _c2020
300			_aelectronic document (22 pages) ; PDF file
520			_aI. 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
650			_aCRIMINAL JUSTICE _9167
650			_aEVIDENCE _9237
650			_aCriminal Procedure Act 2011 _96129
650			_aINCEST _9305
650			_aLAW REFORM _9338
650			_aLITERATURE REVIEWS _9350
650			_aOFFENDERS _9413
650			_aPRIVACY _9461
650		4	_aSEXUAL VIOLENCE _9531
650			_aVictims’ Rights Act 2002 _95211
650		4	_aVICTIMS OF CRIMES _9623
650		0	_aVICTIMS OF SEXUAL VIOLENCE _96716
651		4	_aNEW ZEALAND _92588
651			_aINTERNATIONAL _93624
651		4	_aAUSTRALIA _92597
651		4	_aCANADA _92602
856			_uhttps://chiefvictimsadvisor.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Publications/Namesuppressionprocessesforvictimsofsexualviolence.pdf _zDownload report, PDF
942			_2ddc _cREPORT _hnews123