Untenable

If a political party had been playing host to someone accused of historical indecent assault, you'd think that's the sort of thing voters ought to be able to know during an election campaign. But not according to this snobby judge:

A former political party figure charged with indecent assault will keep his name under wraps until his trial next year.

His lawyer Ian Brookie successfully argued the case could have become a political football in an election year, jeopardising his client’s right to a fair trial.

Brookie defused what was alleged to be a potential election bombshell in two hearings about a month ago in the Auckland District Court.

Judge Anna Skellern recently released her reserved judgment to parties in the case, granting the man ongoing interim name suppression until his trial, scheduled to start on August 19, 2024.

This is terrible for voters, who are being denied information which could affect their vote. Its terrible for the party, who are being denied the opportunity to defend themselves and dispel the inevitable suspicion that they knew or were careless about this historical offending. Its terrible for the party's candidates, who face being tarred by association and suffering reputational damage when the truth comes out. But most of all, its terrible for our democracy. Because if the party ends up in government and helping to make justice policy after the election, and then suppression is lifted, voters will rightly feel that they have been defrauded at the ballot box and that the government gained power by covering up child abuse. Which is obviously horrific for its legitimacy, and for public confidence in our democratic institutions.

But hey, we couldn't inconvenience a rich person, could we?

This is simply untenable. The consistent use of name suppression to protect the rich and powerful from the reputational consequences of their actions is already undermining public confidence in the justice system. Lets not let it take down our democracy as well.