The NZ Police On Dropping The Charges Against Sean Plunket

And my reply. I'd love to know your take! See you in the comments.

Hi there,

Thanks for all your comments on yesterday’s newsletter about me being brave. It was written somewhat tongue-in-cheek — and a lot of you had questions about the actual law, and why certain things had happened.

Me too.

Well, the police just got back to me with exactly why they dropped the charges against Sean Plunket, the man who blasted court documents all over social media that lead to a torrent of abuse from various idiots on the internet who listen to Sean Plunket.

I’m gonna keep it simple. I am going to post the New Zealand police’s explanation. Then I am going to post the statute they’re talking about. Then I’ll post what I wrote back to the detective with my understanding.

I am not a lawyer. I am not that smart. I might be wrong.

Let me know what you think in the comments, and thanks for coming to my TedTalk about New Zealand family court law.

David.

PART 1

The New Zealand Police on why they dropped the charges:

Good morning David

Mr PLUNKET posted the Temporary Protection Order on his Twitter feed showing your name as the associated respondent (deemed not a vulnerable person) and redacted the applicant and respondent names albeit poorly. Another individual has then used photoshop and removed Mr PLUNKET’s redactions and reposted it in the comment section. Mr PLUNKET therefore didn’t publish a vulnerable person’s name at the time of posting so would come under section 11B(1) as he didn’t breach section 11B(3) or section 11B(4).

Ngā mihi | Kind regards

Danny Farrell

Detective Constable
Wellington District

---

PART 2

The Applicable Parts of the Law: On publishing court proceedings

The Applicable Parts of the Law: On the definition of a vulnerable person

---

PART 3

With That In Mind, My Reply to The Fuzz

Thanks Danny,

My reading of 11B(1) and (3) is that a person can’t publish proceedings of the Family Court where a vulnerable person is a party [11B(3)(b)(ii)] or the applicant [11B(3)(b)(iii)] — not simply that it must be the vulnerable person identified directly in order for the publication to be unlawful.

But, I’m not a lawyer.

I am also surprised to learn that publication in which redaction has been so poorly executed as to allow the recovery of redacted information is somehow immune.

As journalists we are often reminded that we must avoid publishing details, even ancillary, that might readily lead to the identification, by third parties, of vulnerable persons or those subject to a suppression order.

I can’t help but wonder how poorly redaction must be executed before it simply isn't actually redaction anymore? 

This experience has certainly surprised me based on my training and experience as a journalist. 

Regards,

David.

---

That’s my take on all this, which I am now hoping to put in my rear vision mirror, until Michael Organ and Sean Plunket decide to team up again. Shit attracts shit, so I would not put it past them.

And no, as I’ve said before, I am not suing anyone. Never was. Have better things to do (and can’t afford it).

And if none of this has made a lick of sense — here’s the background to this very weird and confusing chain of events!

David.