The name of a rich-lister’s son is suppressed – but could news media let us see a photograph?

Oh dear, The bloody courts have done it again.

The name of the son of a New Zealand rich-lister is being kept secret – for now, at least.

Alf can understand his concern for anonymity because he has been accused of punching a female police officer in the face.

This is not chivalrous behaviour in Alf’s circles, although it must be said it might be acceptable behaviour, and even laudable, among the scions of rich-listers.

But the cop has cause to be aggrieved.

According to this report:

The police officer suffered a black eye, serious swelling to her face and needed hospital treatment.

The man has been charged with aggravated assault, resisting arrest, assaulting a security guard and damaging a window during an incident outside the popular Dunedin student haunt Shooters Bar back in March.

The name of another prominent businessman – now sullied by his vile sex crimes – stays secret

There’s been news in the media of another prominent businessman coming before the courts.

Because of his name being suppressed – at least for now – we can’t be sure if it’s the same prominent businessman who has appeared on previous occasions and had his name suppressed, or a different prominent businessman.

This one has been jailed for 15 years for sexual violation and plying girls with methamphetamine for sex.

Judge Russell Collins also imposed a minimum term of eight years before he is considered for parole because of his high-risk of re-offending.

In other words, the villain of the piece is a prize ratbag.

Alas, we are not allowed to know who he is in the meantime.

An indecent attack is odious enough – but why should assailant be allowed to keep victim gagged?

It’s unacceptable enough that a woman is subjected to some sort of indecent assault.

But it becomes outrageous when her attacker can then gag her as well, aided and abetted by the justice system.

Alf refers to a Sunday Herald report that tells us the victim of an indecent act is outraged her attacker is allowed a say in whether she can reveal her identity.

A “please explain” is sent to the Teachers Council over its blanket protection of the wayward

We hesitate, on this blog, to give any credit to lefites (or greenies, bankers and tossers, among others).

But it looks like a Parliamentary select committee chaired by a leftie is on the right track, given a good steer – no doubt – by the Nats among its members.

The committee is the Regulations Review Committee and according to the Herald on Sunday (here) it is seeking explanations from the New Zealand Teachers Council.

It wants to know – as most of us do – how come it has thrown a blanket suppression order over all complaints against teachers.

Breast-fondling case raises beguiling questions about how prominent figures are demoted

And was he ever considered “prominent”?

It’s very teasing of the court to continue to suppress the name of a bloke found guilty on three charges of indecently assaulting his stepdaughter.

He is described at Stuff today (here) simply as a former prominent figure.

Not a prominent figure, but a former prominent figure, it should be noted.

According to Stuff –

After a three-day retrial a jury of six men and women today found him guilty on three charges of indecent assault which date back to 30 December 2009.

They reached a unanimous guilty verdict on a charge relating to stroking the girl’s breast and majority verdicts on two other charges of indecently touching her and kissing her back.

The man, who has name suppression, shook his head in disbelief at the verdicts.

This is not the first time he had been found guilty.

Another ex-All Black has name suppressed – but that’s not how Parliament wants the game played

Are the bloody judges listening to we legislators?

Two court cases reported in the papers today have triggered this question and sparked Alf’s sense of outrage.

First, a former All Black who pleaded guilty to child assault yesterday was granted name suppression.

Judge should have ordered child sex offender to see if he could get some laughs from prison inmates

They could do with a dose of laughter.

The outrage is mounting, after Judge Philippa Cunningham dealt bizarrely with a comedian who had pleaded guilty to a not-so-funny sexual offence against his infant daughter.

She let this fellow go free without conviction, partly because he “makes people laugh”.

He will still be making people laugh, because we don’t know who he is and therefore we can’t express our contempt for him by steering clear of his shows.

At sentencing in the Auckland District Court, Judge Philippa Cunningham said he had stopped drinking, paid a high price in his personal and work life, and had shown remorse.

Machete case: the Youth Court might be okay for an impish lad caught pinching a few apples but….

What namby-pamby judicial nonsense is this?

Alf is choking on his porridge after reading that…

Police will meet the 14-year-old boy accused of being involved in an attack on a police officer with a machete near Taihape, to see if his charges will be elevated to the district court.

Meet with him to do what?

Indulge in chit-chat over a cuppa?

It may well be that talking with this young feller is obligatory for reasons that have not been explained in the Stuff report.

If that be so Alf will be talking with Simon Power about changing things so the buggers accused of being involved in cases like this in future can be flushed into the open without ceremony.

The lad has not come to police attention for something inconsequential like pinching a few apples from a neighbour’s backyard orchard or tugging on the plaits of the lass who sits in front of him at school.

Nah. The offences with which he has been charged are much too serious to entitle young defendants to be coccooned by a system of youth trials and family conferences.

Suppressed names short-change us in reports about a naughty step-father and a political smear campaign

Lest any of the good people of Eketahuna North suspect otherwise, even for a brief moment, let’s have this on the record.

Alf is not the bloke found guilty on charges of indecently assaulting his stepdaughter.

Nor is he Don Brash’s love child.

Mrs Grumble – fair to say – urged Alf not to make this declaration.

She said it was only attention-seeking. Moreover it was thoroughly unnecessary, because it would be obvious to constituents that he is not the mystery feller in either case, because –

* He is still married to her, his first wife, and they do not have step-children;

* He has never been a national figure (she unkindly said “and you never will be”); and

* He is bloody near as old as Don Brash.

Martin Devlin won kudos for outing himself – but he has lost brownie points for slandering plums

His footwork wasn't so fancy on Auckland's Quay Street...

...and why should he imagine this could be done for disorderly conduct?

A Martin Devlin, sports broadcaster, turns out to be “the celebrity” who was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct in Auckland a week or so back, but whose name has been kept secret until now.

His lawyer asked yesterday that the suppression order be lifted.

The Auckland District Court obliged and the news media rushed to put the name up in lights.

Devlin says he sought name suppression to protect his children from embarrassment.

But doing so only made things worse, he admitted yesterday.

“I sought name suppression in an effort to try and protect my children from being identified and embarrassed by my behaviour,” he said in a statement to media.

Good for him for outing himself. An army of 46-year-old celebrities and blokes who think they are celebrities will be relieved they are no longer suspects.