Webworm with David Farrier

Share this post

The New Zealand Courts Have Officially Called Me Brave

www.webworm.co

Discover more from Webworm with David Farrier

David Farrier's weird investigations, quirks & oddities delivered direct to your inbox!
Continue reading
Sign in

The New Zealand Courts Have Officially Called Me Brave

To be more accurate the New Zealand courts have deemed me “non-vulnerable”, but I prefer “brave”.

David Farrier
Jun 27, 2023
307
Share this post

The New Zealand Courts Have Officially Called Me Brave

www.webworm.co
157
Share

Hi,

This newsletter is so painfully specific to the New Zealand court system I am almost hesitant to write it, but I got something wrong so wanted to clear it up.

Back in March I wrote about how New Zealand broadcaster Sean Plunket had tweeted a bunch of documents from a Family Court case I’d been dragged into. 

The case involved Michael Organ, a con man I’d made a documentary about. You can read the background here.

I was surprised Sean Plunket had done this. This is what I wrote at the time:

“Now the thing about Family Court proceedings is that they are notoriously confidential. All the names involved are heavily suppressed.

I’d go so far as to say violating suppression in Family Court cases is taken even more seriously than other courts in New Zealand. 

Put this another way: as a journalist, you might be tempted to push suppression on a juicy court case — but when it comes to the Family Court you don’t dare push a fucking thing. Those names stay under lock and key.”

The New Zealand police seemed to agree, as the following month they charged Sean Plunket:

"Broadcaster Sean Plunket charged with publishing report of restricted court proceedings  Broadcaster Sean Plunket has been charged with publishing a report of court proceedings without leave. Plunket, who was briefly banned from Twitter earlier in the month, did not appear in Wellington District Court on Thursday for his first appearance."

Today I wanted to clarify that I was completely wrong.

I have discovered I was wrong and incorrect, and that it is in fact perfectly fine to publish the details of any family court case, as long as the people you name are considered “not vulnerable”.

I found this out when police dropped the charges against Mr Plunket. I found this out when Sean tweeted about it.

"Happy to report that all charges against me in relation to publication of a family court proceeding have been withdrawn by police. I trust legacy media will give this news the same extensive coverage they did when the charges were laid. #realjournalism"

Curious, I emailed the police to find out what had gone on. They seemed surprised too, writing:

“I am very sorry you have found out about this through Twitter. It is news to me.” 

A few days later (yesterday), I got an email from a detective who I assume was in charge of it all:

“On the 25th of May 2023 I was informed that the defendant [Sean Plunket] was applying to dismiss the charge under section 147 of the criminal procedure act 2011. 

His defense counsel indicated “the person allegedly identified was not a vulnerable person within the meaning of a s 11D Family Court Act 1980 and so his identity was not protected from publication”.

In the following weeks I attempted to get a statement from someone at the Whanganui Family Court in relation to making the complaint and get clarification around the definition of a vulnerable person in a Temporary protection Order. 

After a number of enquiries I was informed by the Whanganui Family Court  that the associated respondent [David Farrier] is not classified as a vulnerable person.

I passed this information on to our prosecution team who had conferred with our legal team who carried out further research into the definition of a vulnerable person under section 11D(h) Family Court Act 1980. 

It was decided between our legal team and our prosecution team that you as an associated respondent would not be considered a vulnerable person.”

I’d been taught in journalism school and in my newsroom of 10 years that you couldn’t ever publish family court documents without permission from the judge, especially if you were naming those involved in the case.

I was wrong, and would like to apologise on behalf of Webworm.

If a con man hands you family court documents you can definitely publish them wherever you like, just make sure the person involved in the case is “not considered a vulnerable person”.

To be fair this is a big of an ego boost: I am officially not vulnerable. I take this to mean I am very very brave, much like beloved children’s book character Mr Brave:

Mr Brave.

Don’t worry if the non-vulnerable person had nothing to do with anything and was just dragged into a case that got dismissed.

Because the person is brave, they won’t mind getting messages like this all day long:

David Would hate to say it you'd probably stalk and then you'd need a restraining order"
Farrier is actually hiding in America at the moment wanted on serious criminal activity according to Sean Plunket today"
"Farrier the fuckwit"
Hannah Tamaki: “Wow - I suppose David didn’t realise things he had done that went into the closet would be exposed - someone has brought it out into the open”
Bob Sainsbury: “Isn’t that the guy who had a court ordered violence protection order against him?? And our msm is propping him up”
"Wonder how he is getting on with that protection order against him"
Mark Allen: "When are you coming back to New Zealand to face the criminal charges laid against you?"
Nesse Renee: “Gonna report on his protection order someone has against him for threatening behaviour?”

Again, all that is fine because the person receiving them is not vulnerable, they are brave!

To be clear: in New Zealand, identifying people who are named in Family Court documents is fine, so long as that person is “brave”. 

This will be big news to many reporters in the New Zealand media, who have long exercised caution in reporting on the Family Court for fear of breaking the law. 

To them I say, don’t worry anymore. 

Go hog wild (in naming non-vulnerable and very brave people who are the victim of an elaborate plot by a con man). The gates have opened! 

David. 

Donate Subscriptions

PS: It’s the last day for paying Webwormers (AKA Worms) to get free worldwide shipping on the Hannibal-inspired Webworm tee! So far the t-shirt (in black and white, fitted and unisex, XS - 5XL) is worming its way out to readers in New Zealand, Australia, Mexico, the United States, Canada, Singapore, Hong Kong and Switzerland!

The Webworm worm, but chopped up!
The print on the latest Webworm tee!
307
Share this post

The New Zealand Courts Have Officially Called Me Brave

www.webworm.co
157
Share
157 Comments
Share this discussion

The New Zealand Courts Have Officially Called Me Brave

www.webworm.co
Rhys Jones
Jun 27Liked by David Farrier

In a completely unironic way David, I think you are a very brave man. Please keep doing what you do!

Expand full comment
Reply
Share
1 reply by David Farrier
Ramblingsometimesrantingrach
Jun 27Liked by David Farrier

Now I feel like I really need to know what qualifies a person as vulnerable? And who gets to decide? Seems very very open to interpretation....

Expand full comment
Reply
Share
10 replies by David Farrier and others
155 more comments...
Top
New
Community

No posts

Ready for more?

© 2023 David Farrier
Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice
Start WritingGet the app
Substack is the home for great writing