name suppression

If you know something about a case that a court has suppressed, when can you safely tell another person about it? According the the Supreme Court, it all depends.

There's a certain vicarious thrill at seeing your ultimate boss' name on a Supreme Court decision - it's like being in court yourself, but without any of the hassle or expense.

A blogger's own campaign to have name suppression laws tightened has resulted in that blogger being refused name suppression after pleading guilty to his own illegal activities. Isn't it ironic, don't you think?

By now we all know (or, rather, those of us at all interested in the often schoolyard antics of the NZ blogosphere know) that some blogger who used to be semi-famous has admitted the crime of paying an alleged fraudster to hack into the blog of some lefty enemies in orde

Rodney Hide thinks some MP should bravely do a pointless thing that he himself is not quite courageous enough to try.

In today's Herald on Sunday, Rodney Hide repeats his call for some MP to use parliamentary privilege to reveal the identity of a "prominent" New Zealander granted name sup

I wonder what would have happened to Mark Hotchin if he hadn't been quite so respectable, quite so upper class and quite so, well, rich

Phil Taylor at the Herald yesterday revealed Mark Hotchin's half million dollar losses in a 2002 get-rich-quick scam, a fact the courts chose to keep from the public.

Either Cameron Slater deserves our pity, or he deserves our contempt as the Peter Bethune of the right.

Is it wrong to break an unjust law? That's a question that has bedeviled serious moral and political thinkers for centuries - at least since Socrates chose to drink the Hemlock prescribed by the Athenian court rather than accept his friends' offer of escape.

Plato recounts his reasoning in Crito: