It was done with malicious intent by Plunket. He thinks he is above the law, letting him get away with this is bad for society and you. We love you and what you do
Absolutely done with malicious intent. I can only imagine the glee Plunket felt with he got a call from a Michael Organ going "David Farrier is involved in family violence, would you like the documents?"
Elaine, do you want the internet to have your email? (I live with a cyber security guru so it concerns me when people post their contact details openly.) Hopefully, this email is not your personal address that you use to sign up for everything. It may sound creepy but in the cyber world the awful people are always looking for personal data points to connect to individuals for nefarious purposes.
They very well may be following the letter of the law but certainly not the spirit.
It reads more like they didn't want to deal with the headache of prosecuting a prominent(ish) member of the media, so they took the first loophole they could find.
On some level I get it: Bigger fish to fry. I am not dying. The police are spread thin.
But also - they could have gone about this in a smarter way and not caved to Sean's lawyer quite so easily. Sean didn't redact that shit, even if he thought he did. He was calculated and callous.
Overall just a huge... bummer.
Anyway - thank you, Joe. It's all so tiring and silly!
As a long standing journo I think he (and all media) should be held to higher account. And I would agree with your reply to them (20 years in newsrooms and plenty of dealings with legal issues). We know better, we’re taught better and anyone who’s ever worked in a mainstream news media has had regular training on and contact with this stuff. Even if there’s a small chance that someone vulnerable may be harmed you just wouldn’t publish it. His ego got in the way of his ethics and that’s a massive problem for his future decisions and the precedent he sets for the increasing number of gung ho wannabe truth tellers in independent “media”.
Agreed. One advantage of being one of those plonkers who constantly brays "they are out to get us" is that the authorities think twice about appearing to be out to get them. Think the orange comb-over king or all those parliament occupation characters who had their parking fees paid by the police after getting towed from jamming up Central Wellington.
How many times do people in decision making positions let down a significant number of Kiwis?
How about the nonsensical and cruel decision to shut the border in 2021? That happened because a Government put red tape and political positioning before integrity and common sense.
If you call saving lives and the economy "nonsensical and cruel": Do the figures vindicate keeping the virus out until the population was highly vaccinated?
Worldwide as of 12 January 2023 6,711,227 deaths have been attributed to Covid-19, with a death rate per reported case of 10.092 per 1000.
In NZ, 2,393 deaths have now [January 2023] been attributed to Covid-19: a death rate per reported case of 1.118 per 1000.
The international death rate is 9 times that of NZ. If we had left the borders open, we could by now have seen
21,601 deaths instead of 2,393.
If the rest of the world had been able to hold off the virus until vaccines were widely available, and had the uptake been as high as it is here, 6,000,000 people may have avoided an untimely death.
BUT THE ECONOMY!?!
Did the lockdowns destroy our economy? The annual GDP growth worldwide, to today, according to the World Bank, is 5.9%.
NZ's annual growth is 6.1%.
The lockdowns saved over 19,000 lives and our economy is performing above average.
Use the actual figures, not some wacko on Facebook, to inform your opinions. It is so much more interesting.
All the statistics in your reply are completely arguable and vary according to the source. You obviously hold them in high regard and you are entitled to your opinion.
My opinion is based on the researched and published facts that the NZ Govt shut the border because the proposed vaccination timetable for 2021 was delayed because the vaccines weren't ordered in time to achieve the desired vaccination rate.
The fear spread from daily briefings that anyone coming into the country from July 2021 was likely to spread Covid was unfounded. Only those vaccinated and with a clear negative test were allowed to enter the MIQ raffle. By August 2021 Covid was in the NZ community and Auckland was in a long term lockdown. By the time the border reopened in late
Sept 2021 , people lucky enough to win the MIQ lottery returned fully vaccinated and negative tested to 14 days in MIQ and the opportunity to catch Covid in the community.
The Govt refused to consider allowing returning Kiwis to home isolate.
I stand by my belief that having taken a month to finally declare the border closed in July, the Govt deliberately disregarded the rights of Kiwis to return home
My reading is that you can't publish details of Family Court proceedings with any identifying information where a vulnerable person is a party or applicant. Not necessarily that the vulnerable person has to have been identified specifically.
11B(3) reads:
A person may not, without the leave of the court, publish a report of proceedings in the Family Court that includes identifying information where [...] a vulnerable person (b) [...] is an applicant in the proceedings (b)(iii)
It doesn't say they may not publish identifying details of a vulnerable person, or even that they may not publish details that could identify a vulnerable person. Just that they can't publish a report about proceedings that involve a vulnerable person.
So the question isn't whether David was a Vulnerable Person in the law (he clearly wasn't, and the Police seem to believe that's the end of it). It is whether the applicant or any other party to the case was (or was asserting to be).
Vulnerable Person is defined in the act in 11D and while I don't know the details of the claim that was filed against David, I believe (based on Sean's inflammatory tweets, the way in which the application was made, and the default anti-violence course order that was made) that the applicant would have been considered a vulnerable person under 11D(h) at the time of Sean's publication.
David's case also demonstrated very clearly WHY that is the rule, because even if Sean had redacted the details properly, it was immediately evident to anyone familiar with David's work at the time who the applicant (allegedly a Vulnerable Person) would be. It was made even more obvious by Mr Organ's participation in Twitter conversations stemming from the reporting that Sean did.
By publishing a report that clearly identified David as a respondent, Sean created a situation whereby the details of the applicant could be easily surmised.
In this case it was a frivolous claim, but in a more typical case where direct families are involved and there is real domestic violence or other harms at issue, the publication of details of any party might easily identify the Vulnerable Person or persons also involved.
The argument for harm in this case isn't great, but establishing this idea that simply not directly identifying the Vulnerable Person is all that the law requires would seem to set a bad precedent for other cases. And, while the Police choice here isn't a legal precedent established in an actual court, it could inform the Police's internal policies, and may encourage other less ethical "journalists" to disclose Family Court details in the future.
Soon people will be able to use a highlighter to highlight things that should be redacted and write "redacted" in the margin. That should be sufficient for the police.
I am a lawyer. People often tell me I am not that smart (something to do with being a Lady Lawyer, I think). But I don't think you're wrong.
I read s11B in the same way you do. You need leave of the Court to publish a report on FC proceedings that includes identifying information (about anyone) where a vulnerable person is the subject of/party to/the applicant in the proceedings. Doesn't matter that it's not the vulnerable person being identified.
In conclusion, this is all very dumb. Ol' mate Plonket is dumb. Sorry.
You’d have to meet the test of ‘vulnerable’ before non-publication would apply under S11B, whether as the applicant or tangentially associated.
What NZ Police / CPS have done is broadly correct.
I think though that you could reasonably ask for the Whanganui FC’s determination under s11D(i) to be reviewed as they seem to have taken a fairly narrow interpretation of ‘adverse consequences’ given that you are a public figure.
I'm so sorry all this happened, David 😪. Try not to let it get to you but I know how infuriating this must be. I hope this is the end of this particular chapter for you. Keep speaking your truth though and we all 100% support you no matter the outcome.
And I stand by what I said in the last comments section. You are indeed brave. Standing up to bullies like Plunkett and Organ is huge. You're an absolute inspiration, brave one. Never forget that ❤️❤️❤️.
I'm with you on at what point is poorly redacted just NOT redacted?? I mean software is pretty intelligent nowadays...And not that you would want to necessarily involve the person who replied with the edited "redacted" snippet, but it seems like he should be liable? I'm no lawyer, and I don't live in NZ! Hell, in Louisiana, we have our own legal system, Napoleonic Law, and I'm not really familiar with that either.
I was able to view the "redacted" info just using a phone image viewing app that could alter contrast and brightness. It certainly didn't take complicated or expensive tools.
I personally know (have known, past tense) SP and am not surprised he with the aid of police has got off. But it wasn’t always the case and to my knowledge fortunately he got his just desserts on several occasions but he never learns. He’s a right-wing shit stirrer of the first order. Not a nice man.
This is all quite messed up but it's the easily-recovered "redacted" content thing that's really driving me up the wall. I'm now stuck with the thought, "If someone publishes something with the names highlighted and then says 'I thought I was using the pen tool not the highlighter and didn't notice my mistake until it was already out there ', would that suddenly make it okay?"
If I redact something I print it out then take a scalpel and physically remove the things I dont want in, then copy it again. All the offcuts go in the shredder. Painstaking, time consuming and with a danger of cut fingers. Can't be reconstructed though because the data is not there.
This still leaves open the issue where the way letters in words are laid by software out limits the options of words that could fit exactly in this space and can give the game away. Especially if there are limited options of what words could be redacted and the redacted part is fairly short.
Very thorough - this should be the standard for cases like this, not just "well he 'tried', so it doesn't matter that people were able to recover the names". Thank you for your dedication to doing things the right way.
At a time where information security is such a masssssssiveeee concern, I’m shocked that you can just put a line through a name with a 2B pencil and call it a day.
Imagine if we did that with your health information.
So ... based on the police’s email - are they going to sue the person who posted the name in the comments then? (I’m not suggesting they do, just emphasising how absurd that response from the police is)
My guess is that just as YOU David have better things to do with your time & resources than suing SP (although it would be delicious to watch!) the NZ Police have been on the receiving end of his lawyers et al, and have decided he is more trouble than he is worth given the semi-arguable issues raised (he redacted - someone else removed it etc.) which might make it a) less likely to win the case, and b) him & his mates constantly bagging them & whingeing & moaning on their platforms.
Personally, just for protection of the Family Court privacy provisions, I think they should have gone ahead anyway to get it thrashed out & possibly even win, because now they have given a#@!holes like SP an out - do a bad job of redaction then get a mate to remove it.
I have him blocked 5-ways to Sunday so have no idea what he says about anything, (unless he is being prosecuted) so let's hope we hear about him being up before the Courts for other breaches! It seems the good ole USofA scumbags he emulates are starting to get their wings clipped, so perhaps there is hope ...?
Also very much not a lawyer, but married to one before he started law school (fifteen years today woo) and there's been some osmosis. To me, it seems clear that Plunket was not technically in the wrong legally. His sloppy redaction method is what makes it iffy. I think in the US, whether a judge would dismiss the case would be entirely dependent on the judge (I hope that makes sense–the law seems clear, whether Plunket's actions complied is grey).
There are best practices associated with legally required redactions and a journalist publishing such information should fucking know what they are.
Also American here and agree with your interpretation. From the reading I’ve done and talking with my hubby, while there are differences, the US and NZ have similar legal systems overall (as with many they’re based on English common law - except Louisiana as someone mentioned earlier). There is much less corruption perceived in the NZ legal system however.
I don’t know if you’ve read any of Mariame Kaba’s writing about prison abolition but highly recommend. Also, I live near Oakland and “The Riders Come out at Night” is a great read. Horrific but the Oakland PD and LAPD really outdo themselves on how awful they are.
Same here on prison abolition! You’ll really enjoy Mariame Kaba. She’s on a lot of podcasts as well. One I’m particularly found of is “Delete Your Account” - she’s been on that about 8x. The most recent time is the episode called “The Abolitionist Horizon” which I would recommend starting with.
What I found to be very concerning is the way the legal system was used by an abusive person against David in the first place when filing the temporary order of protection against him making him the respondent and supposed dangerous person. This is such a common tactic for abusers to use.
There is a good documentary on Netflix called Victim/Suspect that came out recently about a journalist exploring stories of those reporting sexual assault to the police in the US and then ending up being the ones charged and arrested with filing false police reports because the police didn’t believe them or it was easier to close the case. It’s a tough and infuriating watch but very important.
"What I found to be very concerning is the way the legal system was used by an abusive person against David in the first place when filing the temporary order of protection against him making him the respondent and supposed dangerous person. This is such a common tactic for abusers to use."
Saen Plunekt is a prat (real name redacted to protect relevant parties)
Crying!
It was done with malicious intent by Plunket. He thinks he is above the law, letting him get away with this is bad for society and you. We love you and what you do
Absolutely done with malicious intent. I can only imagine the glee Plunket felt with he got a call from a Michael Organ going "David Farrier is involved in family violence, would you like the documents?"
Lords!
Elaine, do you want the internet to have your email? (I live with a cyber security guru so it concerns me when people post their contact details openly.) Hopefully, this email is not your personal address that you use to sign up for everything. It may sound creepy but in the cyber world the awful people are always looking for personal data points to connect to individuals for nefarious purposes.
Thanks, I have fixed it
Super! Was gonna let you know too! (thankfully this comments section is sane and I don't imagine anyone sending you spam off the back of that!)
They very well may be following the letter of the law but certainly not the spirit.
It reads more like they didn't want to deal with the headache of prosecuting a prominent(ish) member of the media, so they took the first loophole they could find.
On some level I get it: Bigger fish to fry. I am not dying. The police are spread thin.
But also - they could have gone about this in a smarter way and not caved to Sean's lawyer quite so easily. Sean didn't redact that shit, even if he thought he did. He was calculated and callous.
Overall just a huge... bummer.
Anyway - thank you, Joe. It's all so tiring and silly!
As a long standing journo I think he (and all media) should be held to higher account. And I would agree with your reply to them (20 years in newsrooms and plenty of dealings with legal issues). We know better, we’re taught better and anyone who’s ever worked in a mainstream news media has had regular training on and contact with this stuff. Even if there’s a small chance that someone vulnerable may be harmed you just wouldn’t publish it. His ego got in the way of his ethics and that’s a massive problem for his future decisions and the precedent he sets for the increasing number of gung ho wannabe truth tellers in independent “media”.
Agreed. One advantage of being one of those plonkers who constantly brays "they are out to get us" is that the authorities think twice about appearing to be out to get them. Think the orange comb-over king or all those parliament occupation characters who had their parking fees paid by the police after getting towed from jamming up Central Wellington.
Good explanation.
How many times do people in decision making positions let down a significant number of Kiwis?
How about the nonsensical and cruel decision to shut the border in 2021? That happened because a Government put red tape and political positioning before integrity and common sense.
If you call saving lives and the economy "nonsensical and cruel": Do the figures vindicate keeping the virus out until the population was highly vaccinated?
Worldwide as of 12 January 2023 6,711,227 deaths have been attributed to Covid-19, with a death rate per reported case of 10.092 per 1000.
In NZ, 2,393 deaths have now [January 2023] been attributed to Covid-19: a death rate per reported case of 1.118 per 1000.
The international death rate is 9 times that of NZ. If we had left the borders open, we could by now have seen
21,601 deaths instead of 2,393.
If the rest of the world had been able to hold off the virus until vaccines were widely available, and had the uptake been as high as it is here, 6,000,000 people may have avoided an untimely death.
BUT THE ECONOMY!?!
Did the lockdowns destroy our economy? The annual GDP growth worldwide, to today, according to the World Bank, is 5.9%.
NZ's annual growth is 6.1%.
The lockdowns saved over 19,000 lives and our economy is performing above average.
Use the actual figures, not some wacko on Facebook, to inform your opinions. It is so much more interesting.
All the statistics in your reply are completely arguable and vary according to the source. You obviously hold them in high regard and you are entitled to your opinion.
My opinion is based on the researched and published facts that the NZ Govt shut the border because the proposed vaccination timetable for 2021 was delayed because the vaccines weren't ordered in time to achieve the desired vaccination rate.
The fear spread from daily briefings that anyone coming into the country from July 2021 was likely to spread Covid was unfounded. Only those vaccinated and with a clear negative test were allowed to enter the MIQ raffle. By August 2021 Covid was in the NZ community and Auckland was in a long term lockdown. By the time the border reopened in late
Sept 2021 , people lucky enough to win the MIQ lottery returned fully vaccinated and negative tested to 14 days in MIQ and the opportunity to catch Covid in the community.
The Govt refused to consider allowing returning Kiwis to home isolate.
I stand by my belief that having taken a month to finally declare the border closed in July, the Govt deliberately disregarded the rights of Kiwis to return home
My reading is that you can't publish details of Family Court proceedings with any identifying information where a vulnerable person is a party or applicant. Not necessarily that the vulnerable person has to have been identified specifically.
11B(3) reads:
A person may not, without the leave of the court, publish a report of proceedings in the Family Court that includes identifying information where [...] a vulnerable person (b) [...] is an applicant in the proceedings (b)(iii)
It doesn't say they may not publish identifying details of a vulnerable person, or even that they may not publish details that could identify a vulnerable person. Just that they can't publish a report about proceedings that involve a vulnerable person.
So the question isn't whether David was a Vulnerable Person in the law (he clearly wasn't, and the Police seem to believe that's the end of it). It is whether the applicant or any other party to the case was (or was asserting to be).
Vulnerable Person is defined in the act in 11D and while I don't know the details of the claim that was filed against David, I believe (based on Sean's inflammatory tweets, the way in which the application was made, and the default anti-violence course order that was made) that the applicant would have been considered a vulnerable person under 11D(h) at the time of Sean's publication.
David's case also demonstrated very clearly WHY that is the rule, because even if Sean had redacted the details properly, it was immediately evident to anyone familiar with David's work at the time who the applicant (allegedly a Vulnerable Person) would be. It was made even more obvious by Mr Organ's participation in Twitter conversations stemming from the reporting that Sean did.
By publishing a report that clearly identified David as a respondent, Sean created a situation whereby the details of the applicant could be easily surmised.
In this case it was a frivolous claim, but in a more typical case where direct families are involved and there is real domestic violence or other harms at issue, the publication of details of any party might easily identify the Vulnerable Person or persons also involved.
The argument for harm in this case isn't great, but establishing this idea that simply not directly identifying the Vulnerable Person is all that the law requires would seem to set a bad precedent for other cases. And, while the Police choice here isn't a legal precedent established in an actual court, it could inform the Police's internal policies, and may encourage other less ethical "journalists" to disclose Family Court details in the future.
Agreed. ESPECIALLY when you then look at the definition of “identifying information” in section 11C of the Act.
Section 4 though has a list of exceptions that apply to section 3 :(
Soon people will be able to use a highlighter to highlight things that should be redacted and write "redacted" in the margin. That should be sufficient for the police.
I think this would suit their prosecutor perfectly.
Hi David.
I am a lawyer. People often tell me I am not that smart (something to do with being a Lady Lawyer, I think). But I don't think you're wrong.
I read s11B in the same way you do. You need leave of the Court to publish a report on FC proceedings that includes identifying information (about anyone) where a vulnerable person is the subject of/party to/the applicant in the proceedings. Doesn't matter that it's not the vulnerable person being identified.
In conclusion, this is all very dumb. Ol' mate Plonket is dumb. Sorry.
Thanks Rach!
I am fine, and will be fine, it's just all so tedious. I mean, of course Organ found Plunket. And of course they both get away with it scott free.
You’d have to meet the test of ‘vulnerable’ before non-publication would apply under S11B, whether as the applicant or tangentially associated.
What NZ Police / CPS have done is broadly correct.
I think though that you could reasonably ask for the Whanganui FC’s determination under s11D(i) to be reviewed as they seem to have taken a fairly narrow interpretation of ‘adverse consequences’ given that you are a public figure.
I'm so sorry all this happened, David 😪. Try not to let it get to you but I know how infuriating this must be. I hope this is the end of this particular chapter for you. Keep speaking your truth though and we all 100% support you no matter the outcome.
And I stand by what I said in the last comments section. You are indeed brave. Standing up to bullies like Plunkett and Organ is huge. You're an absolute inspiration, brave one. Never forget that ❤️❤️❤️.
Thanks, Jo. Nice words are nice.
❤️❤️❤️❤️
I'm with you on at what point is poorly redacted just NOT redacted?? I mean software is pretty intelligent nowadays...And not that you would want to necessarily involve the person who replied with the edited "redacted" snippet, but it seems like he should be liable? I'm no lawyer, and I don't live in NZ! Hell, in Louisiana, we have our own legal system, Napoleonic Law, and I'm not really familiar with that either.
I think maybe a yellow highlighter redaction next time?
With a bolded underline added perhaps!?
All you needed was Photoshop's simplest of image contrast enhancement tools so the software bar was very low.
I was able to view the "redacted" info just using a phone image viewing app that could alter contrast and brightness. It certainly didn't take complicated or expensive tools.
You wouldn't even need PS. Plenty of free web-based apps could do it. Ridiculous.
Exactly! Pretty positive Canva would be robust enough.
I personally know (have known, past tense) SP and am not surprised he with the aid of police has got off. But it wasn’t always the case and to my knowledge fortunately he got his just desserts on several occasions but he never learns. He’s a right-wing shit stirrer of the first order. Not a nice man.
I agree that he is not a nice man.
There's a reason Organ found him, and found him willing.
This is all quite messed up but it's the easily-recovered "redacted" content thing that's really driving me up the wall. I'm now stuck with the thought, "If someone publishes something with the names highlighted and then says 'I thought I was using the pen tool not the highlighter and didn't notice my mistake until it was already out there ', would that suddenly make it okay?"
If I redact something I print it out then take a scalpel and physically remove the things I dont want in, then copy it again. All the offcuts go in the shredder. Painstaking, time consuming and with a danger of cut fingers. Can't be reconstructed though because the data is not there.
This still leaves open the issue where the way letters in words are laid by software out limits the options of words that could fit exactly in this space and can give the game away. Especially if there are limited options of what words could be redacted and the redacted part is fairly short.
Very thorough - this should be the standard for cases like this, not just "well he 'tried', so it doesn't matter that people were able to recover the names". Thank you for your dedication to doing things the right way.
Wot? Do it manually? Nah - can't be arsed. The easy way, all the way, for some.
I think that would probably float pretty well with the NZ police :)
Hey David. Please keep being awesome 😘
At a time where information security is such a masssssssiveeee concern, I’m shocked that you can just put a line through a name with a 2B pencil and call it a day.
Imagine if we did that with your health information.
So ... based on the police’s email - are they going to sue the person who posted the name in the comments then? (I’m not suggesting they do, just emphasising how absurd that response from the police is)
That last point crossed my mind too!
My guess is that just as YOU David have better things to do with your time & resources than suing SP (although it would be delicious to watch!) the NZ Police have been on the receiving end of his lawyers et al, and have decided he is more trouble than he is worth given the semi-arguable issues raised (he redacted - someone else removed it etc.) which might make it a) less likely to win the case, and b) him & his mates constantly bagging them & whingeing & moaning on their platforms.
Personally, just for protection of the Family Court privacy provisions, I think they should have gone ahead anyway to get it thrashed out & possibly even win, because now they have given a#@!holes like SP an out - do a bad job of redaction then get a mate to remove it.
I have him blocked 5-ways to Sunday so have no idea what he says about anything, (unless he is being prosecuted) so let's hope we hear about him being up before the Courts for other breaches! It seems the good ole USofA scumbags he emulates are starting to get their wings clipped, so perhaps there is hope ...?
Also very much not a lawyer, but married to one before he started law school (fifteen years today woo) and there's been some osmosis. To me, it seems clear that Plunket was not technically in the wrong legally. His sloppy redaction method is what makes it iffy. I think in the US, whether a judge would dismiss the case would be entirely dependent on the judge (I hope that makes sense–the law seems clear, whether Plunket's actions complied is grey).
There are best practices associated with legally required redactions and a journalist publishing such information should fucking know what they are.
Also American here and agree with your interpretation. From the reading I’ve done and talking with my hubby, while there are differences, the US and NZ have similar legal systems overall (as with many they’re based on English common law - except Louisiana as someone mentioned earlier). There is much less corruption perceived in the NZ legal system however.
I don’t know if you’ve read any of Mariame Kaba’s writing about prison abolition but highly recommend. Also, I live near Oakland and “The Riders Come out at Night” is a great read. Horrific but the Oakland PD and LAPD really outdo themselves on how awful they are.
Adding both to my reading list. I'm hardcore on both prison and police abolition.
(Really need to learn more about Louisiana's laws...such a strange state.)
Same here on prison abolition! You’ll really enjoy Mariame Kaba. She’s on a lot of podcasts as well. One I’m particularly found of is “Delete Your Account” - she’s been on that about 8x. The most recent time is the episode called “The Abolitionist Horizon” which I would recommend starting with.
What I found to be very concerning is the way the legal system was used by an abusive person against David in the first place when filing the temporary order of protection against him making him the respondent and supposed dangerous person. This is such a common tactic for abusers to use.
There is a good documentary on Netflix called Victim/Suspect that came out recently about a journalist exploring stories of those reporting sexual assault to the police in the US and then ending up being the ones charged and arrested with filing false police reports because the police didn’t believe them or it was easier to close the case. It’s a tough and infuriating watch but very important.
"What I found to be very concerning is the way the legal system was used by an abusive person against David in the first place when filing the temporary order of protection against him making him the respondent and supposed dangerous person. This is such a common tactic for abusers to use."
That's it.
That is the whole thing distilled.
Sometimes I forget how simple it all is.