- promoting a clearer understanding of men's experience -


MENZ.org.nz Logo First visit to MENZ.org.nz? Here's our introduction page.
MENZ ISSUES

MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Sat 7th December 2013

The Disappearances – Request for Explanation?

Filed under: General — MurrayBacon @ 5:44 pm

The post: menz.org.nz/2013/suicide-following-inappropriate-relationship/

seems to have disappeared. If allowable, please explain?

Thanks,
MurrayBacon.

24 Responses to “The Disappearances – Request for Explanation?”

  1. Downunder says:

    The last report of the woman charged with attempted murder for running down her partner with a car on a quiet suburban footpath in Hamilton, was that she was due to appear in court on Friday morning.

    Did we hear any more about that?

  2. JohnPotter says:

    All publicity about this case has been suppressed by the Coroner, so this post is temporarily unavailable to the public (ie: people who are not logged-in.)

  3. Bruce S says:

    @Downunder (#1) – no we haven’t heard any more. Not sure if you recall but there was in fact a similar incident in Hamilton back in January 2013 as well; woman runs over partner 4 times and nope no further details from that incident either. I won’t post links any longer; they have a habit of disappearing; here’s a cut and paste of the incident reported by TV3 on 14 January 2013. Wonder if it could be the same woman again – despite the slight difference in age???

    Hamilton woman runs over man four times

    Monday 14 Jan 2013 4:49p.m.

    Neighbours stepped in to help after a woman in Hamilton ran over her partner four times, police say.

    The couple, who had both been drinking, were arguing before the 42-year-old woman hit him with the car in the suburb of Fairfield early yesterday four times, Hamilton city Area Commander, Inspector Greg Nicholls said.

    “Fortunately the man escaped serious injury and bystanders directly intervened, pulling the woman out of the car as she tried to run the man over a fifth time.”

    The woman fled the scene, but was arrested a short time later.

    She returned a breath alcohol reading of over 980 micrograms per litre of breath. The limit is 400mcg.

    She was charged with driving with excess breath alcohol, her third or subsequent offence, assaulting a person with a blunt instrument and careless driving.

    Police praised the neighbours.

    “Here they have seen something going on, assessed the situation and intervened preventing more serious injury.”

    Police appreciated people taking assertive action to help others, but “only when they do so without putting themselves or others at risk”, Insp Nicholls said.

    The man suffered minor injuries.

    NZN

  4. Downunder says:

    I emailed the Waikato Times and asked if they planning to write an update from the that court case, but never got a reply so I am guessing this case has been surpressed too.

  5. Scott B says:

    So are we noticing a trend of female violence and attempted murder getting the hush hush?

  6. Downunder says:

    As biased as some of the news reports are, I don’t think the major news sites would apply censorship to their own work. If it was happening I would like to think it was the work of an individual. Even then they would be taking out someone else’s work.

    I can understand the suppression by the Coroner’s Court – I think in this case the media brought that one upon themselves – so when it comes to these other articles disappearing, I think it is more likely retrospective court-orders that are influencing archived media.

    I don’t think it is a good idea for us to not put up links, quite the opposite. If we can see which stories disappear, then court records of suppression might tell an interesting story as to whether this is applied only to female defendants guilty of violence against males.

    The approach I will take from now on; is to add the complete story at the bottom of the article in any female violence cases that are likely to attract censorship by retrospective court orders.

    We really need more authors keeping an eye and contributing posts, if we expect to make any headway on answering this question.

  7. Bruce S says:

    The link to the Hamilton woman runs over man four times story of January 14 2013 is:

    http://www.3news.co.nz/Hamilton-woman-runs-over-man-four-times/tabid/423/articleID/283028/Default.aspx

  8. Bruce S says:

    @Scott B (#5)
    I don’t think any female on male violence / attempted murder is being given the hush hush; the main stream media are merely trivializing the violence and highlighting the excuses. You know; poor woman what made her do that? Oh gosh; she’s bi-polar – never mind then!

  9. John where did you get information about the coroner suppressing this case from?

    I phoned the coroner a week or so ago and was put through to their media liaison person where i just left a message and they have not got back to me.

    Male suicide is frequently reported when in association with other alleged crimes.

  10. JohnPotter says:

    I was sent an email. I saw that Stuff has also removed the story from their site, so I assume it is genuine. Apparently I could be fined if I ignore the order. It may not be permanent.

    If you hear back from the media contact please let us know.

  11. Allan Harvey says:

    Thanks for the care you take of matters like this John.
    I’m sure that there will be more information on this story in the future.

  12. golfa says:

    #11 How will we know, Allen ? It might be supressed too.

  13. I agree Bruce s, has anyone ever seen an ad on tv or in the papers about women on male violence (like the current ads that are getting bashed out every where from the bus shelters to the living room on TV) , oh that’s right not only does it not get reported but its normal for guys to brush it off. I personally have lived through a violent female partner and said nothing only to have it used against me later for not speaking up. its seems like chicks get away with so much its beyond belief as they are chicks. Good to see she was charged with attempted murder as would there have been any other charge if it was a guy instantly ?

  14. Thanks John

    Suppression orders are always weird. If the information is suppressed and you were not there when the suppression was made how do you know if the information you are about to publish is what has been suppressed.

    Who sent you the email? The coroner?

  15. Scott B says:

    13 yup and now there is also a “don’t be a cool dad” commercial about not giving alcohol to minors but not a don’t be a cool mum one to go with it! Guess only dads would do that kind of thing too. Must be great to be a woman and never do anything wrong… unless one of us bad males forces them to!

  16. JohnPotter says:

    Wayne asks:

    If the information is suppressed and you were not there when the suppression was made how do you know if the information you are about to publish is what has been suppressed?

    I am wondering this myself. As the owner of this website I am anxious to avoid prosecution for publicising any suppressed information; not just in this case but on an on-going basis.

    However, it appears that the suppression orders are themselves secret. I can find no record of this case on the Coroner’s section of the Justice Dept website.

    I am guessing that the email I received was from a third party with an interest in the case. This morning I contacted the Coroner and asked for confirmation, and been sent a copy of the order; so it is clearly genuine.

    I will ask again how someone in my position is expected to comply with this particular law. I am also unclear about how someone can be notified if and when the suppression order is lifted.

    They

  17. Downunder says:

    I can find no record of this case

    That link says

    On this page you will find recent Coroners Findings and those of public interest.

    This doesn’t suggest that this is a list of current cases under consideration.

  18. Rachel says:

    This is all I found on a quick search for some rules. Still doesn’t address the fact that you’d have to know it was suppressed. Perhaps a disclaimer somewhere?

    Reporting of suicides from the Coroner’s Court is usually restricted to the name, address and occupation of the person concerned and the fact that death was self-inflicted. Evidence of any particulars relating to the manner of death in suicide cases is generally prohibited unless the Coroner decides to allow it.

    Controversially, the restriction on publishing particulars relating to the manner of death in suicide cases without the permission of the Coroner begins if there is reasonable cause to believe that a newly discovered death was self-inflicted. There have been cases where this requirement to get the permission of the Coroner in the latter circumstance seems absurd. For instance in very public jumper-suicides.

    Taken from: NZ Journalists Training Organisation

  19. OMG You're *(&^%^* says:

    Apparently discussing suicide, and being aware of suicides, will encourage us all to commit it.
    I thought talking about it and the underlying issues was a good thing, that it might help understand what drives some people to suicide; but no, apparently not.

  20. Scott B says:

    19 yes and yet all details on how people kill others are reported to us in great detail. Perhaps that’s why murder rates rise?

  21. You did better than have managed John. I have phoned the coroners office twice and l left messages. The last one talked to a person who said she would email the relevant person and get them to contact me. Still no response.

    It’s not clear to me what has been suppressed nor why? Are all details of this case suppressed? This then is different than the standard procedure quoted by Rachel where only the manner of death is suppressed.

    Is there scheduled or tentative date for the hearing? Can We find this information?

  22. JohnPotter says:

    I was sent a four page copy of the ‘Minute of the Coroner Prohibiting Publication” on Monday morning after I enquired by email to csu.wellington@justice.govt.nz on Sunday night (ie: 12 hours later).

    If I make this document public I will be breaking the law, so I won’t. They might send you a copy if you ask.

    I replied immediately (Mon 9th December) and asked where this kind of information is made available, and how I can be informed if and when when the suppression is lifted.

    I have not had a reply.

    Perhaps the coroner has staff continuously monitoring the web for suppressed information, and advising site owners on a case-by-case basis. If anyone decides to test this out, please do NOT link directly from this site.

  23. JohnPotter says:

    I received a reply to my question to the Coroner today:

    You will not find the [name removed] case listed in the Findings of Public Interest, as previously advised this case is currently still active before the Coroner, therefore no decision/finding has been completed.

    The Coroners Act 2006 is clear in relation to the publication of information for suspected or presumed suicides. If there is any suspicion of suicide the act applies regarding publication.

    I have included a copy of the section below for your information.

    Section 71 Restrictions on making public of details of self-inflicted deaths
    (1) No person may, without a coroner’s authority, make public any particular relating to the manner in which a death occurred if
    (a) the death occurred in New Zealand after the commencement of this section; and
    (b) there is reasonable cause to believe the death was self-inflicted; and
    (c ) no inquiry into the death has been completed.
    (2) If a coroner has found a death to be self-inflicted, no person may, without a coroner’s authority or permission under section 72, make public a particular of the death other than
    (a) the name, address, and occupation of the person concerned; and
    (b) the fact that the coroner has found the death to be self-inflicted.
    (3) The only grounds on which a coroner may under this section authorise the making public of particulars of the death (other than those specified in subsection (2)(a) and (b)) are that the making public of particulars of that kind is unlikely to be detrimental to public safety.
    (4) In determining whether the grounds specified in subsection (3) are made out, a coroner must have regard to
    (a) the characteristics of the person who is, or is suspected to be, the dead person concerned; and
    (b) matters specified in any relevant practice notes issued under section 132 by the chief coroner; and
    (c ) any other matters the coroner considers relevant.

    I hope this information is helpful.

  24. Scrap_The_CSA says:

    Thanks John.

Leave a Reply

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

Since May 2019 this site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

« »

Powered by WordPress

Skip to toolbar