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
Popularity: 29% [?]

{ 38 comments }
Like or Dislike:
0
0
You forgot to mention prison managers in the list of those who are more “equal” in the eyes of the law than the rest of us.
Like or Dislike:
2
0
But what was most alarm ing about Judge Fraser’s deci sion was his view that the offender’s sta tus in soci ety should afford him spe cial pro tec tion from publicity
Social standing in the community should have nothing to do with sentence imposed .
Shame judges are not elected here as they are in some jurisdictions.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
On the crime channel on sky they have a tv program… How to catch a predator.Most are doctors,teachers or men of god,rabbis,priests,salvation army or save the children,like the last few weeks when these peadofiles have landed in haiti to save the children……………
Like or Dislike:
0
0
No, most are not. At least use the cliches if you’re going to mindlessly label a group in order to further and reinforce whatever you’ve already decided is the case.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Russell(sns) i here some paper russ-a-ling in the background you must be a school teacher you are ‚male gay,and you have a fetish for young children.Please do not comment on this blog again trying to defend yourself…………….
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“To catch a predator” highlights the most shocking cases and does not mean the majority of them are that type of people. In most episodes you barely see half of them so your assumption there is a joke. There amazingly though is always some and I will try translate your nonsense for the people because there’s no use in exagerating facts.
Next time though don’t come back because if you can’t realise that T.V. shows are made to gain the best ratings you don’t deserve to even have an opinion even if by fluke you are on the right side.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Actually it seems the church group in Haiti were under the impression that they only need permission from the Dominican Republic to enter Haiti. While this is distressing in itself we are talking about a group who have difficulty placing their OWN country on a map. Try never to attribute to malice what can be explained by simple human stupidity, eh?
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Judge Grant Fraser is not the only judge given name suppression after conviction. Judge Raynor Asher also gave name suppression to the two scum bags who killed Daryl Graydon. Very little reason was given for name suppression, both were 18 at the time of the murder, so at an age of legal responsibility. The given of name suppression after conviction seems to becoming more and more prevalent and it is time that name suppression for those convicted of a crime, no matter what it is, ends. They have been convicted of a crime and no longer have any rights let alone that of name suppression.
Like or Dislike:
1
0
I can see the reasons behind name suppresion but that only relates to the fact that by identifying the offender will or is likely to identify the victim if that victim does not want to be identified. If someone is charged for any other offence they should not have name supression. To grant name suppresion is wholy unacceptable and an absolute breach of power from Judges and the like. Come on National, sort this crap out.
Like or Dislike:
2
0
We definitely seem to be scrapping the bottom of the barrel when we elevate people like this to be judges.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Depends which way you look at it.
People like “We”, as in “you and me”, generally speaking, have some silly and out-dated beliefs that the judiciary is here to serve justice equally upon all men, whereas the people who actually select the judges, and who probably wouldn’t want their computers forensically examined, would probably say that “the bottom of the barrel” is the ONLY place to be selecting judges from.
Gotta keep that funky-gravy train rolling, Old Boy!
Like or Dislike:
1
0
D’ya think Judge Fraser took into account that there is a pre-school at the same street address as the Prominent Palmerstonian’s business premises?
Like or Dislike:
0
0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtdGwiMtZ08
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Hi inventory2 …I totally agree….did the judge take this into consideration….NO…can u imagine what this sick bastard did on his lunch breaks while looking out the window, at the pre-school? makes u think
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“The judi ciary can’t be trusted. It is time for min i mum sen tenc ing and removal of judges dis cre tion as they have demon strated with out a shadow of a doubt that they can’t be trusted to fol low the wishes of the peo ple. Judges have lost touch with society.”
This. This is the bit that encapsulates the fact that you do not understand the concepts and arguments surrounding legal theory and have, at best, a simplistic retribution complex. “Follow the wishes of the people”? Yay for mob rule. Removal of judges discretion? Why not just have a flow chart following conviction if judges serve no purpose?
No, sorry, there are too many holes in your theory and post – it’s just more ill-conceived, badly reasoned, tripe yelled into the void. Only difference is, you’re busy getting your 15 minutes of fame.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
So now all organisations that have a prominent person acting in a position of trust or as a spokesperson when wanting ordinary citizens to spend time and or money for a cause will be looked at very closely to see who is involved in that organisation. Thus all organisations in Palmerston North and surroundings should advertise that it is not them or their employees/volunteers that were involved. No more giving till the guy is outed either by cancelling the name suppression or he comes forward.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
They should ban name suppression after conviction unless the victim signs a declaration saying that they want it suppressed. IF the victim is under 16 then let their guardians/parents decide…. (and this only in sex cases….all others should be no suppression ever)
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“…a guy who down loads 300,000 porno graphic images gets Home Detention.”
Pornography isn’t illegal, last I looked.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Child porn is, which this guy had.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
What if the sicko’s profession has brought him into contact with children or will in the future. Don’t name suppression then prevent potential victims coming forward. This man’s unfortunate family could surely relocate and change their names if required, presumably if they wish to distance themselves from the upstanding member of society. Is it that Judge Fraser is thinking in terms of ‘what if I was in his shoes’?
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I agree that the crims should not get name suppression….however listing judges names etc is not the right way to go about it.
It opens up a whole can of worms…..
keep up the good work…but be careful
Cheers Steve
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Nonetheless this ‘outing’ of people accused of pedophilia or having child porn actually is dangerous. In our society the person accused is not guilty of anything until they have been tried and all the evidence has been seen. This blog cannot do that, cannot allow people access to all the information. What you are doing here is bypassing the ‘innocent until guilty’ provision which is the basis of the western legal system.
As well what will you do when you get it wrong? As you surely will sooner or later? What apology can you make for the damage done to someone when inevitably you make a mistake?
Like or Dislike:
0
0
If you had read the article you would have realsised that this guy was found guilty of child sex pornography. So what apology do you have for the victims?
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I was not just commenting on the one case, friend.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Put a hyphen after thier name and add, “was found innocent.”
after all looking up court records affords you the same information.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
That information is found AFTER a person is found Guilty / Not guilty not while they are still accused. That is the difference and my goodness me, it’s a big one.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
What?? The same Dr who is also a pain specialist at the PN hospital pain clinic?
Like or Dislike:
0
0
There are two very separate issues. Should there be name suppression for those accused of a crime and should there be name suppression for those convicted of a crime?
This post is about the latter so talking about the former confuses the issue.
I can only see cases where the victim would be adversely affected that name suppression should apply. If the victim calls for the offender to be identified then they should be provided there are not other victims who object. If the victim is underage when the offence occurs then but want no name suppression when he or she is an adult then the name suppression should be lifted.
This judge’s suitability must be called in to question and not just for the decision to grant name suppression but his faulty reasoning. I hope that everyone who has commented has read the full editorial. Has the judge checked all 300,000 images? Can he say for certain that this man has not downloaded any image of a New Zealand child? Even if he has not would he if he had the chance?
What amazes me is that the man’s wife will stick with him and risk their children’s safety. I wonder if CYPS has checked him out. Parents have had their children removed for smacking them on the bottom. Surely a pervert like this would be a risk to all children. If the rumours about his job are correct children will be a t risk there as well.
If someone has a high position in society they are often less affected by a penalty than someone on a low income. The $1,800 compensation the judge paid would not affect him near as much as someone on a low income. These people who enjoy high income and status get off relatively lightly when in comes to monetary penalties. I do not have a problem with that. Life is not always fair. However, I do have a problem when they also get off lightly when it comes to name suppression.
Tough penalties do not deter P addicts because their thinking is stuffed up. However, the thought of public humiliation will have a deterrent affect on highly intelligent sick paedophiles.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
So, do we know if the DHB has revoked this man’s contract? Unfair to those of us who have a chronic pain condition; require ongoing specialist treatment/review; and do not get to chhose which specialist we are designated.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
So Diana, what if the good doctor actually fiddled with kids and not just downloaded kiddy porn? Do you think he should still be practicing?
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Sorry Cam but you’re dead wrong to attack this Judge… http://www.paulgardner.info/life/cameron-slater-i...
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Like or Dislike:
0
0
>
Like or Dislike:
0
0
judges are corrupt as the next crim
like how can one judge imprission a guy for his 1st offence? and the cops dident seek any jail time. cause judges suck they are nothing more than fuckers who do what they like and stuff anyone else.
the guy should be named no sain person has child porn…
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Okay I guess from all of the comments on here we are just about to tighten the noose on this guys name.
Through my reading of these “tid Bits” of information there is only one place in Palmerston North that has a Pain Clinic…..I am all up for naming this guy because I believe that his offending could be more than he was charged with…..He also has alot of friends in his High Society profile that have helped him to pretain his supression….Why should people of a lower social grade be the only ones to have their names littered through the news paper when convicted and this guy because he has a high standing social order……..I am going to expose this guy anyway I can
Like or Dislike:
0
0
What you all have to remember is that the Judges who make these decisions are making them within the parametres of the law. If the Judges allow these people to be named then they themselves are breadking the law. It is the law itself that needs to be reviewed instead of personal attacks on Judges who are doing there jobs within the parametres that they have been set.
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Pain clinic or pain management? Is there any where we can find this person’s name? I am sorry but no one gets lots of child porn on their computer by accident!!! So let him be named and shamed!
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Ray sounds a little confused. He may recall the 72–75 tried a law that suppressed ALL names until conviction. It sounded fair but didn’t work. Outing an accused paedophile whose name’s been suppressed is simply to reveal the name of an accused person. The danger is there could be valid reasons for suppression. That’s not the case here, at least based on what the judge had to say.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 2 trackbacks }