MENZ article in breach of the Care of Children Act
A couple of days ago I recieved the following email from the Ministry of Justice.
I believe this is designed to suppress complaints made about the lawyer who was involved in the case, rather than to protect the children.
As I don’t have a spare $2,000 lying around, and have other plans for the next few months, I have complied.
I am disapointed that this information, and the discussion that followed has had to be suppressed, but the power and control in this situation is in the hands of the anti-male brigade.
I strongly encourage everyone to publish details about their cases, but please don’t break the law in the process.
Dear John Potter
Article on menz.org.nz in breach of the Care of Children Act 2004.
I write to alert you of the contents of an article and comments posted on your website menz.org.nz.
The article, titled “Dear xxx and xxx”, has been posted by Bevan Berg and can be found at http://www.menz.org.nz/2006/dear-xxx-and-xxx. The article is followed by a comment posted by Mike Paterson on 11 May 2006. The article and comment relate to an unsuccessful application for interim custody.
We consider that information contained in the article and comment is likely to lead to the identification of the children who were at the centre of the proceedings and the parties to the proceedings.
This is in breach of section 139 of the Care of Children Act 2004, which prohibits the publication of any name or particulars likely to lead to the identification of a child who is the subject of proceedings under the Act or parties to the proceedings. A person who publishes details likely to lead to such identification is liable on summary conviction to:
- in the case of an individual, either imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months, or a fine not exceeding $2,000; or
- in the case of a body corporate, a fine not exceeding $10,000.
Please note that section 139 of the Care of Children Act does allow persons to publish reports of proceedings as long as the report does not include identifying details. The prohibition on publishing identifying details is to protect the privacy of children involved in proceedings.
We request that the article and comment be removed from your website immediately. To avoid any further action being taken, please acknowledge receipt of this email and confirm by 11 July 2006 that you have actioned our request.
Acting Chief Legal Counsel