Monday will begin the final question of who the Prominent NZer is who has been charged with serious offences



A grotesque set of charges aimed at a Prominent NZer…

Prominent New Zealander charged with indecent assault keeps name suppression

A prominent New Zealander facing indecent assault charges will keep the name suppression protecting his identity until the end of his trial.

The trial is due to begin on Monday. The man has denied the charges against him.

There are heavy suppression orders over the case, meaning the man cannot be identified, nor can his alleged victims or their ages.

The man is facing 12 charges of indecent assault against two people including two representative charges.

The charges, which include allegations of touching the complainants on the breast, buttocks, groin and thigh, are punishable by up to 10 years’ imprisonment.

…the manner in which this Prominent NZer has been protected post the allegations first surfacing is as sickening as the charges laid. The millisecond suppression orders are lifted there must be some hard questions asked of those who were aware of this.


  1. Money talks and justice walks.
    This coward will be exposed eventually for all to see.
    Run – run – but you can not hide.

    Thanks ! Martyn and you are doing a great job on Waatea / 5th Estate.

    • Waatea / Fifth Estate is and has been a “must watch” in my household since it started! Great show, and such a pleasant change to hear the left perspective in every show. Good, interesting, well-informed panellists every time. Thank you, Martyn!! Well done!

      • Yeah great work Martyn
        Really enjoyed Fri nights show and Cunliffe looks like a new man and gets the point accross and tells it like it is and not a HHH (horrible henery hosking) to spread lies and bullshit and using entrapment methods in these interviews
        What a difference with this platform
        Real current affairs lives after all

      • Yeah great work Martyn
        Really enjoyed Fri nights show and Cunliffe looks like a new man and gets the point accross and tells it like it is and not a HHH (horrible henery hosking) to spread lies and bullshit and using entrapment methods in these interviews
        What a difference with this platform
        Real current affairs lives after all

      • @ Jack Ramaka –

        I was initially going to give you the thumbs down Jack for your comment. However, I re read what you said and realize where you are coming from. You have a constructive point there.

        I’m sure if the defendant had been any ordinary Kiwi, not only Maori, name suppression would have been lifted by now and his identity would be out there in the public domain, regardless of whether he had been found guilty of the charges or not!

        Unfortunately it’s to do with status in this country now. NZ much to its shame, has become a class/status conscious society! Those with the power and the money, including prominent sports people, are given more protection than those at the other end of the social spectrum!

    • Martyn you are awesome on Waatea Friday night just brilliant mate.

      The MSM is rubbish and hollow compared to watching your in-depth commentaries and exquisite panel selections today awesome.

    • I wonder if he has leave of absence from the [Redacted. Details may identify the person facing charges, and currently enjoying name suppression. – ScarletMod] while he is away ?
      Reputation is everything isn’t it ?

  2. Watch them go for permanent name suppression to “protect the identity of the victims”. Anyone with a brain knows that this was out in the open prior to the last election and that John Key and National with help from the MSM covered it up because they knew another hit on top of the revelations in Dirty Politics would have resulted in National losing the election. Hard questions should be asked Martyn but what are the chances of that happening from the sock puppets that pose as our fourth estate. The case will be barely mentioned and watch out for a “Jihadi Bride” distraction to rear it’s ugly head.

  3. Are the rights of victims of indecent assault higher or lower in the order of things?

    Meaning that if suppressing the name of an alleged offender protects the alleged victims by giving them anonymity, isn’t suppression then

    • It’s understandable that you should be given name suppression until found GUILTY. I don’t want our society to be like the US where a false accusation of a crime can ruin your life.

      • It’s understandable that you should be given name suppression until found GUILTY. I don’t want our society to be like the US where a false accusation of a crime can ruin your life.

        I agree that name suppression should be mandatory before a verdict, both for the alleged victims and to protect the presumedly (until conviction) innocent,i.e the accused but not yet convicted.

        In addition, once a guilty verdict is reached then all the more reason to protect the identities of the victims by continuing suppression unless the victim or victim’s guardians make a case for not doing so.

        Supression orders in sexual assault and abuse cases become mandatory because of lobbying on behalf of alleged victims, not due to lobbying on behalf of the accused.

        People appear to have lost sight of that.

        • I agree that name suppression is a reasonable precaution to take before a guilty verdict, BUT along with this “precaution” needs to be access to a faster prosecution and court appearances.

          This is NOT the case at the moment.

          If we are looking to provide an evenhanded approach – a faster resolution of the issue works for both complainant and accused. The delay of the trial – whether for the eventual legal “victim” or the “wrongfully accused defendant” is a travesty in either case.

          • Again, I agree that justice delayed is justice denied, but the mob indignation expressed by many in this comment thread is little to do with that aspect. In fact, I think your observation is the first time the delay aspect and its impact on justice has been mentioned in this manner.

            The indignation by most here has simply been about suppression of a high profile name, as if it is something out of the ordinary.

            Well, it’s not out of the ordinary for these cases, it’s the norm – and it has nothing to do with the status of the accused.

            It would be out of the ordinary for such suppression in the case of most other offences but not these cases.

            What is of concern is that John Key appeared to retain the person (whom we assume to be involved) in positions that are wholly inappropriate for someone under investigation for these offences.

            • “What is of concern is that John Key appeared to retain the person (whom we assume to be involved) in positions that are wholly inappropriate for someone under investigation for these offences.”

        • True, but revealing the name of a convicted sex offender can help prevent further abuse.
          If you knew a sexual predator lived nearby, would you let your children go near him?
          Now imagine the same predator but with name suppression and posing as a good, honest, decent citizen, would you allow your children near him?

          • You can only do that once they are found guilty. Otherwise the risk of innocence people becoming pariahs in their community is too great.

        • There have been two cases where the victims have been back to court to get their own name suppression lifted because they want the perpetrator named and shamed. They were not allowed to do that, so I ask you, who is the name suppression really protecting?

      • This is a small country and every one knows who it is and those that dont can go back a year and see how the story broke and who said what at the time
        Suppresion weather you agree with it or not has certainly not worked in this high profile case that has serious political element to it
        Ordinarily this would have massive implications on leading figures but after being swept under the rug this one has crawled back out a year later and the lies and exscues and damage control will be well rehearsed.
        i am sure MacCready along with other thinking New Zealanders will be watching the outcome

    • Understandable, but indicative of how far we have to go when the supposition that the victims will be shamed by knowledge of assault, instead of supported by society and those around them.

      We need to stop treating victims of assault as irreparably broken as a matter of course. Support (and funding for effective support and care) is imperative, but so is the societal conversation about where the shame and guilt for crimes like this lie.

      It is never with the victims.

      • It pays to be careful of how you use the term victim.

        In some sexual assault and sexual abuse cases there is no direct physical evidence of any offence. Such difficult cases must be determined on credibility of the parties and upon other grounds.

        In such cases, until the verdict we are dealing with accused persons and complainants. Only after a guilty verdict we can define them as offenders and victims.

        We need to stop treating victims of assault as irreparably broken as a matter of course.

        This is a far too complicated issue to pass blanket judgement upon. I have some sympathy for your viewpoint, but many victim support groups would disagree with it. Many of these groups have put a lot political capital since the 1980s into highlighting such damage and shouting down any minimalisation of the damage.

        • If we are talking legal definitions – then you are correct – “complainant” and “victim” as legal terms are pre and post guilty verdict.

          My reference was not legal. Those who have had some kind of assault, who have not reported or had their claims upheld in court but who have still had an assault on their person are to me are victims. The common English use most likely preceded legal definitions. Along with those whose relationships with them are impacted by those assaults. Not all that is legal is justice. But that is by the by.

          “This is a far too complicated issue to pass blanket judgement upon.
          I completely agree which is why deliberately refrain from making it a “blanket” proclamation. (That was your assumption). And I cannot even begin to comprehend how change can be achieved. But we don’t even have that discussion going on at present – and it will – of course – be flawed, and require constant review and updates.

          But the current system is also very flawed. When two “victims” of a convicted assault can release their names publicly, but have to appeal to the High Court to have the name suppression lifted – then we have an ongoing issue.

          If our funding for our frontline staff and counselling was secure and permanent, then this contentious issue could be worked by those most likely to come up with workable solutions – ie. the support network and those who have been assaulted.

          It may be, that the final choice when it is borderline lies with the complainant or victim. In any case, there needs to be a support protocol developed when the knowledge becomes public, especially if it is associated with a high media profile personality.

          This support also needs to be securely funded by the government, if it is in any way serious about this issue.
          Unfortunately, it never is.

          • I disagree with your use of language.

            Activists involved in social change are acutely aware of the power of language.

            Victim does not have a different meaning in a legal context as against other contexts.

            It has the same meaning. That is why those with a concern for due process in justice matters (including trained journalists) avoid using it pre-conviction.

            One should not assume that all complaints are truthful, because sometimes they are not.

            Those who have had some kind of assault, who have not reported or had their claims upheld in court but who have still had an assault on their person are to me are victims.

            Sure, they are entitled to call/consider themselves victims but third parties should refrain from judgment until evidence is presented and weighed, because false complaints do occur.


  4. Everyone knows some very powerful people will use all of the considerable resources at their disposal to ensure all details of this case are never released to the public.

    Don’t be surprised if the job of shining a light in some very dark and murky spaces is left to you and the folks at the Daily Blog, Martyn. We’re counting on you.

  5. John Key and his cohorts are above the law
    As Nixon said once when the president does it it’s not illegal
    That’s how Key treats the law here it does not apply because he can buy justice any time he likes
    I don’t believe Key will ever be answerable for anything and face the full weight of the law
    After the last 7 years of watching him escape from events that would have bought down other Prime ministers and members of the cabinet he is untouchable.
    He has written the manual of how to use executive powers to full effect and not be scrutinised or held to account
    He will carry on running the country like he owns it and kiwis will let him
    Its become the new norm as kiwis know how dishonest he really is and they love him for it
    Must be something in the drinking water.

  6. Most people in Northland know who he is.He has been given a good job in the meantime.
    John Key might protect him but his old job will be history or it will be the finish of National.

  7. Me personally
    I don’t think we should
    Know who this person is
    Even if everyone does, he deserves the to be innocent untill proved guilty
    So maybe then we could
    Ask all the hard questions then
    But now we shouldn’t speculate who it is
    I know it’s hard not to but it’s the law


  8. I don’t see the point of this name suppression myself. It’s trivial to find out who this “prominent New Zealander” with good old Google via offshore websites. There is no anonymity in the digital age – something the GCSB knows only too well.

    • The point of the name suppression in this instance is to protect the Nat government – most people know who the accused is, But because of name suppression it cannot be mentioned and so no fingers could be pointed. Whereas name suppression normally only relates to the accused and victims in this instance it has serious political implications and my bet is that an excuse will be found to keep it in place even after conviction (if that happens).
      We need to find an ingenious way to expose this travesty. I can think of a number of ways to achieve this.

  9. I very much doubt the name suppression is to protect the “prominent NZer,” or his vulnerable victims.

    It’s more to protect those despots in high places who allowed this creeping piece of filth to carry on in his position, at one stage even giving him a promotion! All during a police investigation of the perpetrator of the indecent charges, then claiming ignorance of this fact!

    Someone in a powerful position of responsibility should be made accountable to the people, by being asked some very hard questions about this!

      • What makes you think hes white.
        Mary A maybe we should see if hes guilty before calling him names, remember the law “innocent until proven guilty.”

        • True Elle.

          However in my previous post, I’m saying this case goes further than the actual alleged charges. There was an obvious cover up prior to and after the last election, when investigations were ongoing, which require addressing, instead of pleading ignorance to what had been and was still going on.

  10. This will truly test the ability of blue voters to ignore anything to stay loyal to their agenda.

    • A lot of blue voters in Northland showed their disdain but I doubt whether that will spread to the rest of country. John Key himself could be charged with these despicable acts and the Natzi party faithful would still vote for him as long as their house prices keep going up and Bill gives them another tax cut.

      • Lets face the ugly truth
        Most New Zealanders dont care about high standards in Government and this Prime minister being above the law and what othe members have been up to unless it hits them in the pocket!
        If they valued real standards of decency and honesty Key would be gone by now
        Wealth real or artificial always soothes ones concience and those who dont have are to stressed trying to survive
        Key knows this and it shows

  11. So if I was happening to pass by a courthouse tomorrow, and saw someone I recognised in the dock, and named him – completely unaware whether it was this ‘prominent nzer’ or not – would that breach the ban? Or would it just be unhelpful speculation?

  12. Are not courts meant to open to the public, will this be a closed court room? I am not very up on how these events are run, but I always thought courts were like churches, open to the public. Even if one cannot name this individual or anything pertaining to the trial, they could, if permitted, be allowed to sit through the trial???

  13. @ trey – don’t be so sure New Zealanders will let this one go so easily… As the saying goes ‘you can fool some of the people some of the time but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.’ They are starting to wake…

  14. It is truly disturbing that so many in this thread appear to have determined guilt before trial.

    • Out of the 27 comments at this time, with very loose definitions of presuming guilt only 5 comments are doing so, or implying it.

      And of those, most commentary is relation to the knowledge of appending charges not making a difference to those who could have taken a precautionary approach to putting the defendant in a high profile position and instead, chose not to do so.

      • Upon rereading the comments I concede the point, but the degree of vitriol often directed at the accused over the past months [for example “this creeping piece of filth” a descriptionfrom used in this very thread] is hard to read in any other manner than aa a predetermination of guilt, prior to trial.

  15. If one carries out even a small amount of research into the NWO, one finds a common theme – pedophilia, child trafficking, child sacrifices, and rituals (such as the scandal involving UK’s Cameron). Because these depraved behaviors are a foundation stone of the NWO, those that participate are protected by (in many cases) Heads of State down through the ranks of security and judicial systems to street level drug dealers/procurers. David Icke has done extensive research for 25 years on this subject and he does not hesitate to name and shame. Tory Smith in the USA has a site naming and shaming. Australia is notorious for protecting its pedophilia ring. It seems New Zealand is too!! But, as Key once said not so long ago, “we are part of The Club”.

      • Well done Jack – the mantra when ramming through GCSB laws applied to a Prominent NZer. Very ironic, whether intended or not.

  16. suppression orders just don’t work in the age of the Internet, I dont understand why our legal system doesn’t grasp that.

    Delaying this trail for so long has had zero impact on erasing it from public interest.

    Roll out the pandas.

  17. I’ve got no idea who this bloke is, but for the sake of those offended against (especially minors)and not the offender, suppression is pretty well always given in these instances. One needs to always bear in mind the victims of these hideous people. Sadly revictimising often occurs upon disclosure. People are pretty damned cruel.

  18. If only everyone stopped beating around the bush. We all know who the ” perp ” is. The court hearing will prevail and the evidence will be tabled. There is a key problem here and that is the PM successfully stalled for time.

  19. Bomber, the key negative about your words ” who was aware of this” is that the ” p m ” was aware.

  20. Ordinarily I agree, innocent until proven guilty and name suppression should apply if and when that happens, with the exception of those that hold positions of public office, particularly during an election. Then the voting constituents have a right to know if any charges are pending in that case.

  21. A friendly reminder to everyone: please do not even think of posting this person’s name, or clues hinting to his identity. The Daily Blog is subject to Name Suppression orders as is everyone else in this country, and as Cameron “Whaleoil” Slater learned to his misfortune.

    In protecting this website from possible legal action because someone decides to break the law, I will not hesitate to redact or delete posts.

    Repeat offenders will be given a very lengthy time-out.

Comments are closed.