What's happening with the Sensible Sentencing Trust?

As most readers will know the Sensible Sentencing Trust (SST) is currently due to face proceedings from the Human Rights Commission (HRC) over it's offenders website. The HRC say that the Trust has broken suppression laws, the Trust say they haven't and ask for proof that a suppression order is in place, all this according to media reports. A quick reading of the HRC indicates that the Trust is highly like to be breaking a range of statutory law encompassed in the HRC act and that of the Privacy Act. Included in those would be that 'agency' holding or publishing information in respect of NZ citizens is required to give the individual involved notice, be accurate, confirm the details with the citizen where reasonably possible, be mindful of the impact on the citizen and consider factors such as the amount of time that has passed since the reported crime, and so on. In this case it appears the Trust's publication resulted in an offender losing his job in  a situation where it could be argued that he was progressing favorably, living his life in a lawful manner, not offending and generally doing what most expect a person does after serving a prison sentence - reform and gets on  with a law-abiding life.

In the overall context it would be assumed a reasonable and prudent organisation would abide directions from the HRC rather than flout them, either look for a compromise, or simply get back within the parameters of what is effectively a public watchdog for privacy and human rights. It's clear the late Greg King  had been acting for the Trust in this matter and it would be safe to assume his advice would, in the current circumstances, have been laced with caution and compromise so as to ensure no legal action was taken against The Trust. I think most people would agree that The Trust is giving the finger to the law because of a fair dose of self-righteousness and because it has been able for years been able to be act in a twilight world in terms of the law.

In terms of the case the HRC have said they will bring against the SST. the question is raised as to whether the Trust think they're not required to obey the law in their pursuit for their catch cry of Justice for the victims of crime. That seems to become the crux of the matter, whether or not New Zealand law encompasses the concerns that the Trust reinforce to the public, or if the Trust is 'creating' laws of it's own. If it is creating it's own laws or is in defiance of Law of course then it is acting unlawfully and with contempt, the very thing that it gives as a reason for listing offenders. It will be noted by some who have read the details of the case being taken against the Trust that it published leaked information from a police officer who has since lost his job. The 'victim's that fall by the wayside due to the Trust's activities are one by one coming to the public's attention. In the case of the Trust holding silent on the criminal background of one of it's members who was elected to Parliament on the Trust's ticket of law and order . Now of course the public are aware of the Trust's willingness to publish information that resulted in a police officer losing his job. What isn't clear, but which may well ultimately become public knowledge. is that the details of the offender the Trust has named has led to victim's of that offenders crimes becoming known to the public.

The first time I became aware of the SST offender database was when we were gravely concerned about the attention and interest a 43 year old man had in an 11 year old family member. My suspicions and reasons to look for this information was based only on 2^nd-hand information and hunches that something didn’t feel right.  

 His name didn’t appear on the SST offender database back then as he had name suppression for 3 prior sexual offences against children and as such this information was prohibited from being made public. Our girl was his 4^th victim when he raped her before her 12^th birthday and I sincerely wish this offender’s name had not been suppressed and that it had been on that database when I looked first looked as we may have averted years of trauma and heartbreak.  

 Btw. His name is now on the database and he is serving a Preventive Detention Sentence … too late for us …too late for victims that preceded

The foregoing is an unconfirmed account of the rape of a child that appears to be the imaginative work of the Trust to gain sympathy for their cause in allegedly breaking the law. The 'letter' was printed on Kiwi Blog recently and is 'glaring' for it's inconsistencies. Particularly that the author would not be irate that information stored on the Trust's site was inaccurate and therefore may have resulted in the purported crime. Frankly, not something the average Joe or Jodie Bloggs would be happy about. It looks like the clandestine work of the Trust to me, poorly thought out and an attempt to manipulate sympathy.

It seems that manipulation is the transparent key of the SST. Manipulating public fear and directing criticism against the Courts and the Law as the means to an ends. So who are Trust members, say compared to the police? The police members are vetted and sworn to uphold the law. The Trust members, as we have seen some examples of, are convicted criminals and others willing to break the Law, just as the Trust now defy the Law. I'm able to go further than that, thanks to those that commented on the above kiwi Blog topic are also members of the hate-sites which are now being sued over the David Bain case, people who have stalked and threatened people on line and made false complaints to the police against their opponents. Just to confirm that, many members of the hate-sites currently being sued, subject to harassment constraints under the Harassment Act are member of SST. People  willing to target opponents and their families on a public debate issue as enemies. Most folks don't take personally the David Bain case for example to the point that they threatened to set the Mongrel Mob on their opponents, nor indeed  talk about their children in an environment where some paedophiles apologists lurk. Most members of the SST also I'm sure, don't have 'unusual' attitudes to pedophilia as are publicly recorded by some SST members, in fact the general thrust is that the Trust is law abiding (well, maybe not) and protective of children.

If Garth McVicar of the Trust speaks of defiance against the law, and has a record of suppressing 'misfortunes' of the members of his own Trust then it is probably not to be unexpected that some members of The Trust feel that they are on a 'crusade' and that therefore the Law should not apply to them, I think that is where the problems begin. I agree that the basic sentiments of the Trust resonant with the public generally, however that resonance has been seen as 'opportunity' by some Trust administrators, a chance to influence the law makers and, unfortunately, to break the law, or at least turn a 'blind eye' when it's members (whoever they are, and whatever their backgrounds might be) use the Trust, or the facilities of the Trust. A properly vetted Government organisation would never do that, nor would it flout the Law, incite fear or allow itself to be taken advantage of by a few feeling entitled to use the 'tools' of being a member to carry out personal vendettas.