Summarised by Centrist
Five months after being convicted of abusing two teenage boys in the 1990s, former ACT Party president Tim Jago has abandoned his fight for continued name suppression.
Victim advocates argue that powerful figures can hide their identities for too long, but legal experts stress that the right to appeal is a key part of the justice process.
Canterbury University professor of media law Ursula Cheer pointed out that name suppression isn’t exclusive to the wealthy, with hundreds of such orders granted weekly.
She acknowledged the frustration of victims but emphasised that suppression is not part of an offender’s punishment. “Judges do their best to deal with this discretionary issue… But the criminal justice process has to run.”
Public law expert Graeme Edgeler, however, believes suppression shouldn’t last months after a trial, arguing that appeals should be prioritised to prevent drawn-out delays. “These should be treated as high-priority appeals,” he said, adding that current laws allow well-funded defendants to prolong suppression through repeated appeals.
The government is considering changes to name suppression laws, including a proposal that would give sexual abuse survivors the power to decide if convicted offenders get permanent anonymity.
While Jago has now been publicly named, he continues to maintain his innocence and plans to appeal his convictions and sentence.
