Let The Victims Name Paedophiles

Derryn Hinch is in the news again for naming another convicted paedophile. The linked article ran with the stupid headline: “Derryn Hinch Has Done It Again”.

Maybe he should be doing it “again” because it’s the right thing to do.

In this case, the offences occurred around 20 years ago. It was the victim herself who wants her father named, as the transcript shows.

On sentencing, the offender’s barrister made the standard attempt to have publication of his client’s name suppressed. Trying this on is expected. It’s also expected that the defence will come up with ludicrous reasons for the suppression. In this case, it was to “protect the man’s reputation” and “not to destroy his ability to earn an income after his release from prison”.

What should not be expected is that the judge will agree to the suppression order for any other reason than to protect the privacy of the victim and siblings.

According to Derryn Hinch on his broadcast, the victim wanted her father named at the time of sentencing. The timing of the court case is nearly 20 years after the dates of the offences. The victim brought the complaints as an adult.

It does not follow that because a victim wants the perpetrator named, that this should necessarily happen. If the victim is still a child, they may not grasp the full consequences for themselves of doing this. I don’t care about the offender, however the child may not understand the results of everyone knowing and may subsequently be unable to cope with the emotional effects.

There are also siblings to consider. Even if the victim is now an adult, there may be younger siblings who may be damaged by the publicity.

One possibility is that once all siblings are adults, the suppression order can be lifted, only if the victims agree. If some siblings were victims and others were not, only the wishes of the victims should be taken into account.

One element remaining is what to do if some victims, who are now adults want the suppression order to continue and some do not. In a sense, it is a denial of free speech to prevent adults from naming someone convicted of molesting them when no children of the family will be at risk of emotional harm by doing so. The law should not extend the coverage more widely, for example to protect children of now adult victims if for example, their aunt wishes to expose their grandfather.

The only other reasons for granting a suppression order should be if the defendant intends to appeal the verdict. In this case, despite the victim’s mother and siblings supporting the father, he does appear to have been correctly convicted – wouldn’t you appeal if you had wrongly been convicted of molesting children?

So, in this case, I can’t see any reasonable impediment to naming the convicted offender. Self serving arguments as to damage to his reputation and earning capacity should be treated with the contempt they deserve. If a court accepts them, it too should be treated with “contempt”.

What if someone were convicted of stealing from clients? Surely that would damage reputation and future earning capacity. Yet publication of their name is highly unlikely to be suppressed.

How about the victim naming her father?

Let's see if a judge is "brave" enough to jail HER for contempt of court and show us all how stupid this law really is.