Sexual offenders would need the approval of their victims in order to keep their names secret, while people who have fallen prey to crimes like revenge porn will get automatic suppression under a proposed new law change.

The proposal, announced today by Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith, would essentially give victims of sexual offending more say in what happens in court when it comes to name suppression. It also protects a wider number of victims by extending who is entitled to automatic suppression.

And that’s something that’s being welcomed by victims of sexual abuse who say the current laws can prevent the public from knowing the truth about what’s happened.

“Name suppression gags the victim and stops other victims from being able to come forward,” one survivor of sexual assault, told NZME ahead of today’s announcement.

“There’s still a shadow these perpetrators hide and move in that gives this false sense of safety and security in our community.

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

The woman said she wanted her abuser Matthew Elliott’s name in the public domain so everyone around him knew “what he’d done”. She believes the proposal would alleviate a lot of stress for victims who felt like she did, and be one less hurdle for them to overcome in the court process.

“I’m really excited about it,” she said. “I think it will help the wider social conversation about who these people are.”

Under the current law the court must consider a victim’s views about permanent suppression, but a judge doesn’t have to agree with them or do what they would like. That would change under the proposal and the courts wouldn’t be able to grant permanent name suppression unless the victim explicitly agreed to it.

Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said he hopes the proposal will put the views of victims of sexual violence first.

Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith announced the proposed changes today. Photo / Mark Mitchell

“Currently victims’ views only have to be taken into account by the courts. Long battles over name suppression traumatises victims, as does the inability to discuss what happened to them and to warn others,” he said.

“I recognise that some victims will not want to make this decision, some will not be able to, and others may not be available. In these cases, the court will decide about name suppression for the convicted offender.”

Revenge porn and nonconsensual recordings

Another proposed law change would be to grant automatic name suppression to victims of intimate visual recording offences, such as victims of colloquially-termed “revenge porn” being uploaded to the internet, or covert recordings made of consensual sexual encounters without a party’s knowledge.

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

“New Zealand’s name suppression laws need to better empower victims of sexual offences, ensure openness of court proceedings, and that people convicted of serious sexual crimes are identified and held to account.”

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

“This puts power into victims’ hands who don’t necessarily have all the information, nor do they have the legal training and background in terms of interpreting legislation,” the association’s vice president Sumudu Thode said.

“Their views should be one consideration, which it is now, but they should not have the final say.”

Thode said the law as it stood already took into account victim’s views, which a judge would assess 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…it’s the defendant’s case, and their views and their circumstances could be completely disregarded in favour of the victim’s personal views,” Thode said.

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

Victim advocate Ruth Money said the change would be life-changing for survivors of sexual abuse. Photo / Dean Purcell

Victims advocate Ruth Money said she wasn’t surprised at the association’s opposition to the change but

this was about ousting convicted sex offenders who had either pleaded or been found guilty, not those who were still awaiting trial.

“You have been found guilty of the most abhorrent type of crime, so why should you maintain name suppression?” Money said.

“Sexual violence is all 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.”

Money anticipated it would be “life-changing” for survivors of sexual abuse who “have been literally gagged by the system.”

“It’s so incredibly difficult for a survivor to navigate sexual abuse in any criminal process. An offender, if they are resourced, can continue to appeal and it can take years before they’re named.

“All the while, the survivors can’t speak of their story and they’re gagged even though 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 offences was closing a loophole that should never have been there in the first place.

Jeremy Wilkinson is an Open Justice reporter based in Manawatū covering courts and justice issues with an interest in tribunals. He has been a journalist for nearly a decade and has worked for NZME since 2022.