“There is still a shadow in which these abusers hide and move, which gives this false sense of safety and security in our community.

“They could be your neighbor, football coach, youth leader… they’re everywhere, and we need to stop thinking they’re the bogeyman because they’re not.”

The woman said she wanted the name of her attacker Matthew Elliott made public so everyone around him knew “what he had done”. She believes the proposal would alleviate a lot of stress for victims who felt the same way she did, and would be one less hurdle to overcome in the legal process.

“I’m really excited about it,” she said. “I think it will contribute to a broader social conversation about who these people are.”

Under current law, the court must consider the victim’s opinion regarding permanent removal, but the judge is not obligated to agree with her or do what she wishes. That would change under the proposal, and courts could not grant permanent name suppression unless the victim explicitly agrees to it.

Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said he hoped the proposal would prioritize the views of victims of sexual violence.

“Currently, only the courts must take into account the opinions of victims. The long battles over name suppression traumatize victims, as does the inability to discuss what happened to them and warn others,” he said.

“I recognize that some victims will not want to make this decision, others will not be able to, and others may not be available. In these cases, the court will decide to suppress the name of the convicted person.

Revenge porn and non-consensual recordings

Another proposed change in the law would be to grant automatic name suppression to victims of intimate visual recording offenses, such as victims of what is colloquially called “revenge porn” downloaded from the Internet, or secret recordings of consensual sexual encounters without one party’s knowledge.

“There is a legislative gap, which means that some victims of sexual offenses have automatic name suppression and others do not,” Goldsmith said.

“New Zealand’s name suppression laws must better empower victims of sexual offenses, ensure transparency in court proceedings and ensure that those convicted of serious sexual crimes are identified and held accountable.

The Criminal Bar Association, however, fears that this will actually put “fetters” on a judge’s ability to make decisions and take away their power.

“This empowers victims who may not have all the information, legal training or experience to interpret the legislation,” said the association’s vice president, Sumudu Thode.

“Their views should be taken into account, which is currently the case, but they should not have the last word. »

Thode said the law, as it stood, already took into account the victim’s opinions, which a judge would evaluate when making a decision about permanent name suppression.

“It’s about the law and how the law is interpreted by the court and by the judges…this is the case of the accused, and his views and his situation could be completely ignored for the benefit of the personal opinions of the victim,” Thode said.

“It’s an emotional reaction, understandable from a victim, but you don’t expect that from a judge.”

Victims’ advocate Ruth Money said she was not surprised by the association’s opposition to the change, but

it was to oust convicted sex offenders who had pleaded or been convicted, not those still awaiting trial.

“You have been convicted of the most heinous type of crime, so why should you continue to have your name suppressed? Money said.

“Sexual violence is about power and control and it hides in the shadows because we can’t talk about it, and we won’t talk about it because it’s uncomfortable. »

The money hoped it would “change the lives” of sexual abuse survivors who “have been literally gagged by the system”.

“It is incredibly difficult for a survivor to face sexual abuse in criminal proceedings. An offender, if they have the necessary resources, can continue to appeal and it can take years before they are named.

“Meanwhile, survivors cannot speak about their story and are gagged even if the person has been found guilty.

“Meanwhile…convicted sex offenders continue to hide and the community is none the wiser.”

Money said the proposed change to bring victims of intimate visual recording offenses closed a gap that should never have existed in the first place.

Jeremy Wilkinson is an Open Justice journalist based in Manawatū who covers courts and justice issues with an interest in the courts. He has been a journalist for almost a decade and has worked for NZME since 2022.