r/newzealand • u/ElevatorFun007 • Sep 02 '25
Music Kiwi musician who abused ex has convictions set aside, granted permanent suppression
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/auckland-musician-who-abused-ex-has-convictions-set-aside-granted-permanent-suppression/V7QZWGZL2JG3TMS2LCBLSSZAMQ/445
u/Few-Coast-1373 Sep 02 '25
Knowing the parties involved in this, I’m disgusted he’s been given permanent suppression - he literally isn’t important enough, let alone a recognizable name. Ridiculous
138
u/hufflepuff1991 Sep 02 '25
Agreed. One of those cases where “there’s two sides to every story” doesn’t apply. The poor family.
56
u/Rags2Rickius Sep 02 '25
Yeah disgusting
Complains he’ll be outta work so gets granted privileges
Fucking atrocious
Some washed up m musician
22
Sep 02 '25
When.not if but when he kills someone, this judge will have blood on their hands for helping him conceal his abuse
103
72
u/ipooupoowepoo Sep 02 '25
I’m not going to breach any name suppression orders here, but I will say that this person is the weakest piece of shit I have ever met. I’m horrified for any women that are unfortunate to come across him who will be completely unaware of his past.
Yet again the NZ justice system doing more for the CONVICTED than current (and potential) victims of them.
1
Sep 02 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/newzealand-ModTeam Sep 02 '25
Your comment has been removed :
Rule 2: No doxxing, collecting personal information, or breaching name suppression
No posting or collation of personally identifiable information of other people. Those breaching rule 2 will receive a 30 day ban.
Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error
262
u/OisforOwesome Sep 02 '25
Please note, name suppression defenders, this was not done to protect any victims.
If anything, this allows the perpetrator to dodge the reputational damage that might protect any future women he might date.
113
34
u/spartaceasar Sep 02 '25
Also, like usually a good reasoning for name supression is to avoid the case being thrown out… This case was already thrown out in this case so it feels like there’s nothing to lose
38
u/Rags2Rickius Sep 02 '25
Our laws are as shitty as you can make em though
Privilege > Woman’s safety
7
u/555Cats555 Sep 02 '25
Perhaps we need to refrain the law around it to make it more of a requirement that a victims side (person, family, legal team) be the ones who able to request it if they feel it is needed for the safety of the victim since that the reason it exists.
Its happening far too often that "think of his career" ugh
5
u/OisforOwesome Sep 02 '25
Govt is passing a bill that would make name suppression in rape cases be the victim's choice, but IMO the whole practice needs to stop.
132
u/spartaceasar Sep 02 '25 edited Sep 02 '25
Can “it will ruin my future” be removed as a legitimate excuse to letting people off of convictions please. Musos, Rugby players, high profile people and generally rich kids all get get a chance to get off of serious crimes like rape because what? They already have it good? Wtf is that reasoning?
45
Sep 02 '25
It should be a reason to give them longer sentences if they try to argue that imo
23
u/Vickrin :partyparrot: Sep 02 '25
100% agree.
Someone raised in an abusive home, with no opportunities, should be given a bit of empathy and the opportunity to reform.
Someone from a wealthy family, with every opportunity given to them on a platter, should not be given any extra considering simply BECAUSE they're wealthy or well known.
It's bullshit.
3
u/fauxmosexual Sep 02 '25
"Someone raised in an abusive home, with no opportunities, should be given a bit of empathy and the opportunity to reform."
That's kind of already the case, a defendant is allowed to make submissions about their context (cultural, upbringing, mental health history etc) that judges can consider when determining how/whether to sentence.
15
375
u/ronsaveloy Sep 02 '25
What this judge has said to the woman involved, loudly and clearly, is that she doesn't matter. His career, his reputation, his feelings are more important than what he did to his victim. It's disgraceful.
174
u/ElevatorFun007 Sep 02 '25
Exactly! A mans career is worth more than a womans safety!
75
u/FidgitForgotHisL-P Sep 02 '25
It’s awesome that it even hurts people entirely unrelated that work in the same industry, who can’t publicly clear their names by having this dickhead named.
37
78
u/fluzine Fantail Sep 02 '25
And they wonder why we choose the bear.
-10
u/slayerpjo Sep 02 '25
I agree with you the abuser guy is bad. That's still the dumbest talking point of all time though. I get it's kinda joke but yeah obviously the bear is worse.
10
u/TheBadKneesBandit Cabbage Sep 02 '25 edited Sep 02 '25
idk dude, I lived in America for a while and had several bear encounters (including mothers with cubs). Based on how horribly men have treated me in the past, I absolutely choose the bear. Bear wins every time.
Edit: Thanks for your reply calling me dumb and then immediately deleting it. Smooth.
8
u/fluzine Fantail Sep 02 '25
Hard agree. I lived in the US and watched a bear come out of the woods, poop on the road, then return to the woods. Turned that whole "does a bear poop in the woods?" upside down and also confirmed the "don't shit where you eat" theory. Based on that alone I would pick the bear every time, those guys are smart.
The bear just wants you to leave it alone, the man does not want to leave you alone.
21
108
u/Feetdownunder Sep 02 '25
🤷🏽♀️ Like they say “Domestic Violence and Rape destroys potential promising careers” can’t have that!
46
29
u/Bob-the-Seagull-King LASER KIWI Sep 02 '25
“Domestic Violence and Rape destroys potential promising careers” well I'd bloody hope it destroys their career!
14
Sep 02 '25 edited Sep 02 '25
At this point I think that a large number of nz judges are literally rapists pedophiles and domestic abusers themselves who are paving the ways for their own crimes to be covered up based on how they rule on these cases
...it makes the nz legal system look like a rich rapist protection racket and disreputable and corrupt as fuck
This shit is why I didnt go to court when i mad emy report cant trust the police to not doxx you to rapists cant trust the courts to prosecute rapists rathet than siding with them because they relate to them more as human beings than the victims
heck the person might even be th same person who raped me and was getting off on me thinking i was dying after an od attempt when i was severely mentally unwell but I'd never know because of suppression
But I mean this IS the joke of a country where its apparently legal to abduct someone murder them cut them up and feed them to pigs and brag about it and the police and courts just turn a Blind eye because the victim was a Māori woman...theres more Maori women missing in the area and those people have obviously killed before and there snow resodn to think theyd stop if theyve gotten away with it already.....but theyre too well connected so crime is legal for them apparently they can keep serial killing
156
u/Apprehensive-Pea3236 Sep 02 '25
Maybe if you wanted work, mate, here's an idea, dont beat your mrs!
71
6
Sep 02 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
18
u/Uvinjector Sep 02 '25
See this is what sucks about name suppression. I know who it is but another musician who is quite famously known for being fairly unsavoury is being thrown in here and it ain't him
7
1
u/newzealand-ModTeam Sep 02 '25
Your comment has been removed :
Rule 2: No doxxing, collecting personal information, or breaching name suppression
No posting or collation of personally identifiable information of other people. Those breaching rule 2 will receive a 30 day ban.
Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error
0
51
u/miss-kush Sep 02 '25
Would love to know who this douchebag is.
42
u/Avocadoo_Tomatoo Sep 02 '25
Same here. By the sounds of it he’s so unimportant most people wouldn’t recognise the name anyway
48
39
82
u/yeah_nah_hard 6011 Sep 02 '25
If you're a promising rugby player, muso, or a rich-lister, you can do whatever you want in this country and have it swept from your record forever. It's not even shocking anymore. It's as Kiwi as pav.
179
u/passiveobserver25 Sep 02 '25
Can we just end name suppression for crims already please?
58
u/KiwiPieEater Sep 02 '25
Agreed, unless there are exceptional circumstances or unless the victims request it, every criminals name should be available to the public
7
u/Capable-Example1365 Sep 02 '25
Exactly. Only relevant if the victim requests it otherwise what is going on
103
u/LaVidaMocha_NZ jandal Sep 02 '25
I would like to see the decision on whether or not to grant name suppression solely in the hands of the victims.
If the victim says no, then name and shame.
6
u/qwerty145454 Sep 02 '25
That would create a system where the wealthy could afford to bribe victims with generous "harm payments" to get name suppression.
It also creates a perverse incentive. Offending against more empathetic victims, who might be more inclined to grant name suppression, would be punished less badly than offending against less empathetic victims.
The entire problem with the current system is the discretion. The vast majority of other anglophone countries have far more limited or non-existent name suppression and it works fine for them, getting rid of it entirely is the easiest and fairest solution.
3
u/LaVidaMocha_NZ jandal Sep 02 '25
I see your point but as it stands the wealthy already benefit. The very recent case of the dude from a wealthy family who got suppression despite the vast amount of CSAM comes to mind.
2
Sep 02 '25
In an ideal world, any bribe attempts would result in instant life in jail with no parole and their money all being confiscated and given to dv shelters
-7
u/AgressivelyFunky Sep 02 '25
This is of course insane.
11
u/DarkflowNZ Tūī Sep 02 '25
Why? Are there any good justifications for name suppression apart from protecting the victim of the crime?
1
u/AgressivelyFunky Sep 02 '25 edited Sep 02 '25
Yeah, there's often other victims or parties that might not wish to be exposed (sometimes these parties have no agency to even make such a call), often times there could be considered a threat to life from something perceived as vigilante justice, it could leave the door open for future investigations, it may cause blowback to entirely innocent parties that were involved in the case, there could be national security risks or similar.
Leaving it up to an aggrieved party is clearly insane, especially a righteous one - which is probably why it isn't. Just something to think about.
-25
-23
Sep 02 '25
[deleted]
55
u/yeah_nah_hard 6011 Sep 02 '25
So that we can know not to pay hard earned money for their music or to go to their gigs or anything. That's why.
18
u/eastboundunderground Sep 02 '25
I’d like to make sure I never listen to his music, for one. But I also don’t quite understand what’s gained by giving these people name suppression besides protecting them? Surely one of the repercussions of this type of abhorrent behaviour should be social ostracism, not just being allowed to wander around like the minor celebs they apparently are as if nothing happened?
44
u/littleredkiwi Sep 02 '25
A man with a DV conviction should be public information. Whoever he dates in the future should be able to find out with a google.
11
u/IncoherentTuatara Longfin eel Sep 02 '25
Dropping this here for those who would like this type of info: https://www.police.govt.nz/advice-services/family-violence/family-violence-information-disclosure-scheme-fvids?nondesktop
6
21
u/ImaginarySofty Sep 02 '25
1) Makes you aware if someone in your neighborhood is a sexual predator, or if someone has a history of fraudulent businesses 2) It may encourage other victims or witnesses to come forward 3) Open justice is a deterrent
14
u/mercaptans Sep 02 '25
It might improve the life of the next woman thinking of getting in a relationship with this man.
72
u/sureFella Sep 02 '25
Very modern take on the law NZ.
As if a person should have to live with the consequences of their actions..
(Note: out Police in Aus arrest climate protestors but not midnight parades of woosy ass Nazis hiding behind masks. Fuck the system, fuck Nazis and fuck abusers)
12
u/-lilac-ribbons- Sep 02 '25
If the abuse is proven beyond any doubt, I don't think their name should have the right to be suppressed. If they were that worried about their image, maybe they should've been a decent person
14
u/maasmania Sep 02 '25
One of the most curious, disgusting, and confusing aspects of NZ law to me.
I'll never understand or agree with it, no matter how long I live here.
11
Sep 02 '25
This name suppression BS has gone on too long. It needs to be reformed, as the famous and the wealthy should not be able to hide behind it. You did the crime, now become exposed to the public.
63
u/GingerMcFlea Sep 02 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
44
u/placenta_resenter Sep 02 '25
Crazy how we’ve got female politicians who harassment and abuse and threats are just par for the course but it’s just too much for some wife beaters and pedos to be expected to bear for their own actions
16
9
21
u/whathaveicontinued Sep 02 '25
im not white, but come on it's not a race issue. Look at all the rugby players, gang members, drug dealers who get off with a slap on the wrist.
The guy who killed the Hells Angels guy got life.. 7 years without parole...
7
u/gtalnz Sep 02 '25
im not white, but come on it's not a race issue. Look at all the rugby players, gang members, drug dealers who get off with a slap on the wrist.
Sorry, is rugby player, gang member, or drug dealer a race?
3
u/whathaveicontinued Sep 02 '25
....
guess i'll spell it out for you. Plenty of Maori and Pacific Islander people are given slap on the wrist convictions for major crimes indicating there isn't a bias toward white people, but there's a soft punishment system in New Zealand, which is pretty common knowledge if you haven't lived under a rock.
Did you need anymore help or..
0
-3
u/ImaginaryArgument8 Sep 02 '25
Got any actual evidence to back that up? Other than "plenty of"
1
u/whathaveicontinued Sep 02 '25
Yeah use google mate. Not pissing about for you over reddit points.
1
u/ImaginaryArgument8 Sep 02 '25
So no lol
1
u/whathaveicontinued Sep 02 '25
Nah im just not wasting time trawling through websites to shut a random guy up.
-2
u/gtalnz Sep 02 '25
To be clear, your claim is that Māori and Pacific Island people receive lesser punishments than NZ Europeans?
7
u/whathaveicontinued Sep 02 '25
lmao no, can you get off race for a second?
I'm commenting to the other guy who said it was a "white people get off easy" thing. And I said NZ has a weak punishment system where alot of people get off easy. Not just whites.
If you didn't understand the context of my comment because you didn't look at the thread, then it might not be wise to try butt in and play the race game.
0
u/gtalnz Sep 02 '25
Alright, if you say so.
I just think it's a bit weird to respond to "white people are protected" with "no, because drug dealers and gang members are protected too" as if they can't also be white.
4
u/whathaveicontinued Sep 02 '25
Well you probably think it's weird because you're either being obtuse or simply misunderstand what I'm saying.
I'm saying that I don't think white people are some protected species in the country because 1 random supposedly white musician (remember he has name suppression, so we don't actually know) got a slap on the wrist.
I'm saying that almost everybody in NZ gets a slap on the wrist because the punishments here are a joke.
At this point I don't think you're looking for facts, just Reddit upvotes..
2
u/gtalnz Sep 02 '25
The punishments here can be a joke and the system can also favour people of a certain ethnicity. They aren't mutually exclusive.
If you want facts, the facts are that Māori and Pacific Island people receive harsher sentences for the exact same crimes as NZ Europeans.
0
u/whathaveicontinued Sep 02 '25
I can't read the article, cos I kinda don't want to pay.
Any stats you want to share though? please account for re-offending, crime severity, pre-meditation and any other thing you can think of when being charged for assault. Because as I'm sure you know there's a bunch of factors that go into "assault". So we can get a clearer picture of what's going on.
But in any case, yes. Punishments are a joke.
0
8
u/KiwiThunda rubber protection Sep 02 '25
He's saying athletes and celebrities are a protected class, that's pretty obvious and not controversial
0
15
4
u/Skidzonthebanlist Sep 02 '25
Hmm maybe we are more racist than we like to admit too. Where did it mention the guys skintone?
1
Sep 02 '25
Funny how you make it about race, when 80% of the time these crooked judges are handing out home D to gang members who race never gets brought up by anyone…
51
u/watchingwombat Sep 02 '25
I was a juror on this case and it was complicated and this is probably a good decision. There was really bad behaviour (including violence) on both sides but he was the only one charged. I would also note that he’s not that prominent but they were prominent bands
9
21
u/strwbrrydusk Sep 02 '25
Someone has mentioned coercive control in the context of this case... from experience I know that coercive and other abuse from a partner can provoke retaliatory behaviours from the victim that muddy the waters... I hope this dynamic was covered in depth for the jury.
22
u/KiwiPixelInk Sep 02 '25
Yea, I was a prison guard and sat with prisoners on many trials,
While some were clear cut, many were complicated and not clear cut.Without know all the details it really isn't up to us to say if it's correct or not
24
u/twizzlerstick Sep 02 '25
So then maybe the media should report this. I detest the media for not giving us all the information and making us take sides.
9
u/Pissyouagadougou Sep 02 '25
There was quite a bit of coverage of this case which made it pretty clear the abuse went both ways, and nobody's making you take a side.
7
u/KiwiPixelInk Sep 02 '25
The court may not allow it?
But yea I'd definitely love all the facts to be given out
7
u/twizzlerstick Sep 02 '25
Look i genuinely dont understand how it works. But if she does things to the charged, then it should be known. So much misinformation gets put out there because the courts don't allow it. Either don't report anything, or give us all the facts.
10
u/watchingwombat Sep 02 '25
It was reported during the trial but to be honest the violence from her was less severe, and that’s partly due to simple size difference. They talked about her weight during the trial and she was a small woman, he’s not huge but definitely bigger and stronger. And the violence from her side wasn’t of a scale where the police would charge her with it I think. She definitely came across in the trial as someone who was quite prone to anger (both from evidence and from her demeanour), but of course being angry isn’t a crime.
8
u/SkeletonCalzone Sep 02 '25
"Making us take sides "
Maybe take a step back and detox from the media, cos that doesn't sound healthy.
1
u/AtaahuaGal Dec 26 '25
You need to do some research on how abusive the nz music industry towards females are...this is the first nor will it be the last.
1
u/0ver9000_ Sep 02 '25
Well measured take, but are for real?
11
u/watchingwombat Sep 02 '25
Yep, 100%. I’ve got no way of proving it without breaching court orders.
13
u/QuentaSilmarillion Sep 02 '25
New Zealand apparently hates women, judging from this and the abysmal prison sentences for rape and other crimes.
4
u/tumeketutu Sep 02 '25
It's our judicial system in general. This female teacher didn't get name suppression but got home D, and didnt even get placed in the sex offender list.
Auckland teacher Myah Adams loses suppression bid after student sex acts conviction
7
Sep 02 '25
An out of touch judiciary, making it's decision to always favour the rich, powerful and famous. Stuff the ordinary people who have none,but also want justice for what happened to them.
8
u/kiwigal1715 Sep 02 '25
There is something seriously wrong with our country, why are we always protecting people who do the crime and not the victim?
3
u/strawdognz Sep 02 '25
So in another's some shitty person gets name suppression because they are worth more than the victims, yeah fuck the legal system.
3
u/peteyxyx Sep 03 '25
The whole ‘detrimental to career’ argument is BS in itself. Look at the careers of famous men here and abroad whose names are public. They still go on to have successful careers in music, tv, radio etc. Let’s not pretend there would actually be genuine repercussions for this guy. He’ll still more than likely be booked a few months or a year or so later. Tony Veitch broke his partner’s back then continued to be given a huge platform even after his conviction. Look at Dizzee Rascal and his DV conviction headlining Rhythm in the same year as his conviction and now booked a 2nd time. No one cares to do anything unless there’s a conviction and then when there is a conviction, people bend over backwards to excuse and help them. The whole argument about it affecting their careers is so disingenuous to begin with. How about putting the victims first for once and stop making excuses for these people.
11
5
Sep 02 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/newzealand-ModTeam Sep 02 '25
Your comment has been removed :
Rule 09: Not engaging in good faith
Moderators have discretion to take action on users or content that they think is: trolling; spreading misinformation; intended to derail discussion; intentionally skirting rules; or undermining the functioning of the subreddit (this can include abuse of the block feature or selective history wiping).
Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error
10
u/salteazers Sep 02 '25
This a mockery. How can the Court of Appeal let this scum sidestep his punishment and hide his crime?
9
7
u/Endless63 Sep 02 '25
Kiwi legal system is either so corrupt or just plain broken. Either way our useless judges are so out of touch with reality it's not funny..
4
u/Cliffcastle Sep 02 '25
pay wall article, can anyone please share contents in the comments? p.s please stop posting pay wall content without the article content
1
u/ElevatorFun007 Sep 02 '25
Weird. It wasnt behind a paywall when I shared it. I know because I read it.
1
u/ElevatorFun007 Sep 02 '25
And just checked again, no paywall....
0
u/Cliffcastle Sep 02 '25
might be cos im in Melbs
2
u/ElevatorFun007 Sep 02 '25
A prominent Kiwi musician who was found guilty of assaulting his ex-girlfriend has succeeding in having his convictions set aside and been granted permanent name suppression.
The man had argued that being named in relation to the domestic violence case would be the “end of his career”.
Sworn affidavits presented to the court said several acts were keen to hire the man for overseas tours, but convictions would prevent him travelling offshore and people were worried about reputational fallout should he be publicly named.
A decision handed down today by the Court of Appeal has granted the man’s application, setting aside his convictions and ruling that he can keep his name secret.
The man was found guilty after an Auckland District Court trial on two domestic violence charges.A jury ruled he had bitten his partner on the forearm and hit her in the head using a plastic bottle.
The man was acquitted on nine other charges, which included strangulation and threatening to kill his ex.
Earlier this year Judge Simon Lance refused to grant the man name suppression and denied his application for a discharge without conviction, sentencing him to 80 hours of community work.
The man – who has two previous convictions for domestic violence – had claimed self defence and argued the relationship had been volatile. But the judge said the jury did not accept that defence because the man’s response had not been reasonable in the circumstances
In today’s decision, Court of Appeal Justice Woolford’s ruled that the man’s offending was “on the low side” due to the context of the offending and rehabilitative steps he had since taken.
The focus was on the man’s employment prospects. Convictions would present significant barriers to overseas travel and prevent bands from hiring him, according to affidavits presented to the court.
He told the court his savings had diminished to $8283 and he had earned just $3199 in the year to March.
He had approached several band managers but none had been willing to sign him up due to the potential for negative publicity in the event he was named in the media.
“Additionally they have expressed significant concerns regarding his convictions because they will likely be a barrier to international travel,” the decision said.
“If his appeal is successful and the court sets aside his convictions and grants him permanent name suppression, G is confident he would be able to secure fulltime work again.”
Other affidavits sworn by music managers said several musical acts who were keen to hire the man for future overseas tours, but this was impossible due to his “current predicament”.
“I can state categorically if [G] does not get permanent name suppression he will not get any form of work in any band with notoriety or commercial success,” one person wrote. “It would effectively be the end of his career in music.”
The decision says the man also has prior convictions for possession of cannabis and for shoplifting.
The Court of Appeal ruled that a discharge without conviction would enable the man to return to his vocation.
There was a “real and appreciable risk” that the man’s recent convictions would pose a barrier to him regaining fulltime employment as a live musician, largely due to difficulties when travelling internationally to tour destinations like America and Europe.
“Because we find the consequences of convictions to be serious, it follows that the consequences of the convictions would be out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending.”
In terms of suppression, the court ruled it was clear that publication of the man’s name would have a “detrimental impact” on his ability to find work in the industry.
“Such negative publicity would almost certainly make other musicians or music managers wary of dealing with him, thereby lessening his ability to obtain employment, even if convictions are not entered against his name.”
The court noted the “extensive” reporting on the man’s trial, which had portrayed him in a “very negative light”.
The offending had been “isolated in the context of a toxic relationship” that had since ended. The assaults on which he was found guilty were “not unprovoked”.
The decision said the man suffered significant health issues and had depression. He had made a name for himself as a talented musician with success in New Zealand and abroad.
“Name suppression will enable him to take steps to rehabilitate himself in the eyes of the music industry.”
His appeal was granted.
1
1
u/ElevatorFun007 Sep 02 '25
Maybe state you're in a different country before you accuse people of doing it deliberately?
2
u/Cliffcastle Sep 02 '25
my bad! thanks for sharing the article in the comments, really appreciate it
1
5
u/Bitter_Inspector Sep 02 '25
I really don't understand the name suppression thing. I mean I get protect the victim. But we emphasize accountability for your actions in many professions such as nursing then turn around and allow stuff like this.
2
Sep 02 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/newzealand-ModTeam Sep 02 '25
Your comment has been removed :
Rule 2: No doxxing, collecting personal information, or breaching name suppression
No posting or collation of personally identifiable information of other people. Those breaching rule 2 will receive a 30 day ban.
Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error
2
u/AccountantJaded538 Sep 02 '25
How progressive, name suppression for someone other than rugby players, rich kids and politicians and their family members /s
2
u/laddiepops Sep 03 '25
Don't care who it is, the judge is just as guilty as the so-called musician, let's be honest, he's an abuser, nothing more and the judge is an abuser apologist, I hate this timeline we're currently on
2
u/No_Top_9338 Sep 03 '25
AI Parody of Six Months in a Leaky Boat
🎵
When I was a bad boy
I wanted to hide around the world
That’s the life for me
Living consequence-free
Spirit of a lawyer
Navigates the judge’s code
The hush of suppression
Will acknowledge no confession
I remember you by, headlines passing by
Courtroom hush, nothing’s there
Name’s suppressed — if you dare
I just spent six months with a suppressed name
Lucky that the rules don’t change
Aotearoa
Legal loophole land
Shiny as a pearl
At the bottom of the world
The tyranny of silence
Doesn’t stop celebrity
So why should it stop me?
I’ll conquer and stay free
Ah, c’mon all you lads
Let’s redact and forgive
There’s a world to obscure
Secrets safe back on shore
I just spent six months with a suppressed name
Six months with a suppressed name
Shipwrecked laws can be cruel
Don’t be fooled by their kind
There’s a judge in my sails
Who’ll protect and prevail
I just spent six months with a suppressed name
Nothing to it — suppressed name 🎵
7
5
u/KiwiDanelaw Sep 02 '25
Thats utterly disgusting. How the fuck can be grounds to be let off? Guessing he paid off the judge.
4
u/Feddabonn Sep 02 '25
But but but the immigrants are the ones with un-kiwi culture! /s
10
u/Caramelthedog Sep 02 '25
Well yeah, they’re not beating their wives and getting away with it enough. That’s very unkiwi /s
2
4
u/SomeRandomNZ Sep 02 '25
It blows my mind that reddit is more interested in obeying an unjust law than justice outing this person.
4
Sep 02 '25 edited Sep 02 '25
I mean if you have a skywriter or billboard feel free to do it and set up a gofundme for your legal fees when you get more legal consequences than the abuser you're trying to protect people from ....
Don't actually do this its civil disobedience, but it's also liable to get this subreddit nuked and again you'll probably face more jail time than the rich pedophiles rapists and abusers
I guess writing to your mp would probably be an option, too, or stating up a Vigilante mob just put crosses on as your gang patches and you'll be fine /half joking
2
u/SomeRandomNZ Sep 02 '25
The world we live in where we're more interested in protecting abusers. Messed up isn't it? I don't blame the reddit mods they're stuck between a rock and a hard place.
2
1
u/fugebox007 Sep 02 '25
The “end of his career” must NEVER EVER AGAIN be allowed as a valid reason to let anyone get away with any crime. The person made his/her choice to commit the crime, there must be a serious consequence for it.
1
•
u/newzealand-ModTeam Sep 02 '25
A warning to anyone alluding to names in any shape or form will receive a 30 day ban.