Found Deceased NEW ZEALAND - Grace Millane, 22, British backpacker, Auckland, 1 Dec 2018 *Arrest*

[ilovematt]

His rights are important because he is not convicted. If he is found not guilty, he should not have to wear the mark of a guilty man simply because he was accused.

It is important that no one is guilty of slandering an accused man.

IF New Zealand protected everyone’s face and name then I’d fully agree. They dont though. It’s a tool used to not let high profile cases feed into a media frenzy or to protect witnesses or to not alienate a future jury pool. I’m not arguing with the statute and why it’s in place. I simply said it irks me that he’s under protection and she had none.

 

[otto]

Ok, but is it any different in NZ than where you live? Does that make NZ any less safe than women in your country?

At this time, the only question is how New Zealand might sentence a man who may have lured a woman to her death, and who may well blame her for her death. Domestic violence, and attacks on women, seem fairly well entrenched in society in NZ.

"But we're not a clean-green country; we're not a safe country at all. I guess people have to get that idea out of their minds completely.

"For something like this to happen on a random basis shows you just how bad we are over here."

Mr Elliott said he's appalled at New Zealand's high levels of domestic violence.

Last year former Justice Minister Amy Adams said New Zealand has the highest rates of family violence in the developed world, which she called a "shameful record".

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said this year that in the longer-term, a culture shift was needed in New Zealand if it was to fix its domestic violence problem."​

Sophie Elliott's father Gil reflects on Grace Millane killing

 

[otto]

He would not wear the mask of a guilty man if, after trial he was found not guilty.

After a trial and if he is convicted, there is no option to suppress his name. While he is presumed innocent, he has every right to protect his identity.

For example, Vincent Tabak murdered Joanna Yates in Bristol and he was known only as Vincent T. until he was convicted. Then his full name was published. Christopher Jeffries was falsely accused and slandered accross the tabloids but he was completely innocent. He won a substantial lawsuit as a result of the slander.

 

[Jennifer17]

At this time, the only question is how New Zealand might sentence a man who may have lured a woman to her death, and who may well blame her for her death. Domestic violence, and attacks on women, seem fairly well entrenched in society in NZ.

"But we're not a clean-green country; we're not a safe country at all. I guess people have to get that idea out of their minds completely.

"For something like this to happen on a random basis shows you just how bad we are over here."

Mr Elliott said he's appalled at New Zealand's high levels of domestic violence.

Last year former Justice Minister Amy Adams said New Zealand has the highest rates of family violence in the developed world, which she called a "shameful record".

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said this year that in the longer-term, a culture shift was needed in New Zealand if it was to fix its domestic violence problem."​

Sophie Elliott's father Gil reflects on Grace Millane killing

The world needs to fix its domestic violence problem, not just NZ. In the US, domestic violence assaults are misdemeanors. And probably in many other countries. Not a real crime.

 

[cluciano63]

Not sure if tougher sentences would reduce violence against women but they should be in place anyway to show that it is taken seriously. Personally I think men inclined to violence will never change or be held back by laws. I don't think any society will ever be free of the violence women have come to endure (and almost expect.) It goes back centuries and if the world continue to exist in the future it will continue...jmo and all that. I don't foresee any great enlightenment.

 

[otto]

IF New Zealand protected everyone’s face and name then I’d fully agree. They dont though. It’s a tool used to not let high profile cases feed into a media frenzy or to protect witnesses or to not alienate a future jury pool. I’m not arguing with the statute and why it’s in place. I simply said it irks me that he’s under protection and she had none.

It must be some remnant of the commonwealth countries that prevents the identification of a suspect, or release of full name, until after conviction. It's fairly standard practice in the UK and the EU (see: Vincent Tabak, Christopher Jeffries). For example, Joran van der Sloot was identified as Joran v.d.s until USA media did not respect Dutch law and published his full name even though he was a minor and was only accused - never charged with the related murder.

Accused people are not guilty, and are entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. In today's crazy virtual world, an accused person can suffer the consequences of a convicted person for life simply because of the accusation (see: #metoo).

 

[Jennifer17]

After a trial and if he is convicted, there is no option to suppress his name. While he is presumed innocent, he has every right to protect his identity.

For example, Vincent Tabak murdered Joanna Yates in Bristol and he was known only as Vincent T. until he was convicted. Then his full name was published. Christopher Jeffries was falsely accused and slandered accross the tabloids but he was completely innocent. He won a substantial lawsuit as a result of the slander.

Was Christopher Jeffries charged? How can you claim being questioned is a false accusation?

 

[otto]

The world needs to fix its domestic violence problem, not just NZ. In the US, domestic violence assaults are misdemeanors. And probably in many other countries. Not a real crime.

The attitude of "not a real crime" when a man is in some way sexually connected with a woman (girlfriend or wife) also translates to men who are not sexually connected with a woman but who perceive or view women sexually. If the suspect viewed Grace sexually and claims that when she accompanied him to his hotel room he believed that they would have sex, does that mitigate his guilt? Would that excuse him from becoming so angry or frustrated that he accidentally killed her?

Does he have the right to believe that if she went to his hotel room with him, he has the right to assume sex? ... that if she does not give him sex, he has the right to feel slighted to the extent that he might have accidentally killed her?

That seems like the legal argument to me, or perhaps he'll claim that she left through the parkade to another club and he knows nothing, the car rental was coincidental, and any evidence in his apartment happened while he was out.

 

[otto]

Was Christopher Jeffries charged? How can you claim being questioned is a false accusation?

It doesn't matter. He was convicted in the media. Everyone has a right to the presumption of innocence and to not have name dragged through the mud on the basis of arrest and accusation.

"The solicitor for Mr Jefferies, Louis Charalambous, told Mr Justice Tugendhat in the high court hearing that the newspapers had acknowledged the falsity of the allegations, which were published in more than 40 articles.

Ms Yeates, a Bristol architect, was killed in December last year. After her body was discovered, Mr Jefferies, who was her landlord, was arrested by police.

In subsequent days, into early January, the newspapers ran a series of articles about Mr Jefferies that were inaccurate and defamatory."​

Eight newspapers pay libel damages to Christopher Jefferies

 

[gregjrichards]

What do you all think of the autopsy results being sealed? I think it is the right action to take.

 

[Jennifer17]

​

It doesn't matter. He was convicted in the media.

"The solicitor for Mr Jefferies, Louis Charalambous, told Mr Justice Tugendhat in the high court hearing that the newspapers had acknowledged the falsity of the allegations, which were published in more than 40 articles.

Ms Yeates, a Bristol architect, was killed in December last year. After her body was discovered, Mr Jefferies, who was her landlord, was arrested by police.Y

In subsequent days, into early January, the newspapers ran a series of articles about Mr Jefferies that were inaccurate and defamatory."​

Eight newspapers pay libel damages to Christopher Jefferies

Yes, but that was not the fault of police. It was on the newspapers.

 

[Jennifer17]

What do you all think of the autopsy results being sealed? I think it is the right action to take.

I am not in NZ, but in Australia, and we don't release autopsy reports. The police can give a cause and method of death, but we don't get the nitty gritty and I don't think that we need to.

 

[otto]

Yes, but that was not the fault of police. It was on the newspapers.

Police gather evidence, prosecutors and lawyers make the legal arguments. Not sure what is not the fault of police, but it is the responsibility of the media to observe and respect law.

 

[otto]

What do you all think of the autopsy results being sealed? I think it is the right action to take.

If there was enough evidence in the apartment to determine that she was no longer alive, that must mean that there was too much blood for her to be alive. That could mean that there were many stab wounds.

Autopsy results should be discussed in court and I can't think of any reason to otherwise release that information.

 

[otto]

I am not in NZ, but in Australia, and we don't release autopsy reports. The police can give a cause and method of death, but we don't get the nitty gritty and I don't think that we need to.

Isn't the nitty gritty released during trial? There was a woman in Australia who was murdered by her husband during their honeymoon. They were from Virginia and he suffocated her during a scuba diving excursion. All the nitty gritty details came out during trial, but he was given such a short sentence that he was tried again in Virginia.

 

[Sarahlou]

The Daily Mail are posting his name again and also his picture now. So I guess they weren't stopped.

 

[gregjrichards]

The Daily Mail are posting his name again and also his picture now. So I guess they weren't stopped.

Yes I saw that I think we need to follow the NZ ruling here unless given authorisation to discuss him by Websleuths staff.

 

[kiwijayne]

I am not in NZ, but in Australia, and we don't release autopsy reports. The police can give a cause and method of death, but we don't get the nitty gritty and I don't think that we need to.

I’ve seen an autopsy report for a well known case of Alison Baden-Clay in Australia.

 

[libramoon175]

I'm really confused - I can see the DM article naming him, with all the pictures, so does that mean we can legally name him now? Or is it illegal in NZ but legal in the UK? And where does that leave me given I'm in the UK? And won't people from NZ be able to view the article anyway?

 

[gregjrichards]

I'm really confused - I can see the DM article naming him, with all the pictures, so does that mean we can legally name him now? Or is it illegal in NZ but legal in the UK? And where does that leave me given I'm in the UK? And won't people from NZ be able to view the article anyway?

From past experience we need to wait until Tricia or one of the moderators gives us permission to discuss him. Websleuths may want us to adhere to the NZ ruling for the time being. Hopefully we will get an answer when they are able to respond.