Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

To be raging Grace Millane’s Murderer’s name is suppressed

225 replies

MabelMoo23 · 22/11/2019 10:12

I know his name - it’s not hard to find - but it’s been legally suppressed until at least 2021

Grace has had her private life dragged through the mud, her parents had to hear accounts of her sex life - which let’s face it came from his account and his defence team.

And he gets his identity protected and the reason for it????

I’m not going to name him as I don’t want this post deleted, but apparently there are times in NZ law that identity can be protected because revealing it can affect other outcomes

Beautiful Grace, rest in peace

OP posts:
MoggyP · 22/11/2019 19:49

Posters on thread might be interested in the (1930s) novel 'Thrones Dominations' by Dorothy L Sayers (finished posthumously by Jill Paton Walsh) which includes description of a 'rough sex' defence.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrones,_Dominations

It has always been the case that you are not in English law allowed not to intend the obvious consequences of your actions. So you cannot shoot someone point blank and claim you did not intend their death, as death is the obvious outcome. But if you were at a shoot, and fired where you believed was safe but killed an out-of-position beater, you may well succeed with a defence of 'no intent'. You've still shot someone dead though.

TomPinch · 22/11/2019 20:05

I'm sure it's possible that there was a leak from the police, or even maybe just talk. But I don't believe for a second that the UK media got the name from those sources. They got it from the courtroom - in defiance of the judge's direction - and the UK media decided to publish without educating themselves on NZ's laws or perhaps without thinking that was important.

coconuttelegraph · 22/11/2019 20:21

They got it from the courtroom

They really didnt , as I said above, I followed this case closely and I can tell you for a fact his name was published in the UK press last December, it wasn't entirely clear at that time if the name suppression applied outside NZ and his name was widely available

I don't suppose any of the pages still exist online but that doesn't alter the fact that the killers name was made public on day 1

TomPinch · 22/11/2019 20:22

Sure you did.

Passthecherrycoke · 22/11/2019 20:24

I can back up coconut, The independent article naming him is from 2018.

Also google didn’t abide by the judges direction and allowed articles naming him to be searched in NZ for some time after the judges decision

coconuttelegraph · 22/11/2019 20:27

Are you calling me a liar @tompinch ?

You're joking, right? Do you seriously think I'm making it up?

coconuttelegraph · 22/11/2019 20:30

Cross posts with you @passthecherrycoke, just because you don't know something doesn't mean someone else made it up

Passthecherrycoke · 22/11/2019 20:32

Bizarre aggression against you coconut Confused

Grimbles · 22/11/2019 20:44

It has always been the case that you are not in English law allowed not to intend the obvious consequences of your actions

My a level law is s bit rustly, but that's known as 'mens rea' (guilty mind) where you might not specifically intend something but if it's a likely or not a 'surprising' outcome from your actions then you are still guilty.

With strangulation I cant see how the death of the person you are strangling isnt something that couldn't have been foreseen or come as a 'surprise'. Benefit of the doubt to whether you meant it, but it's hardly an unforeseen outcome.

I hate that it can be accepted as a defence because sex was involved. It's like with rape, there seems to be an idea that sexual arousal renders men incapable of controlling their actions.

IAmNotAWitch · 22/11/2019 20:46

Indeed MitziK, still the DM got their headline and the rubberneckers are satisfied so that is the main thing.

Fuck any other victims.

Grimbles · 22/11/2019 20:48

IMO the killers name being released is neither here nor there, it's the fact that people 'are raging' because it hasnt been released that's a bit Hmm!

coconuttelegraph · 22/11/2019 20:48

Actually I'm wrong, there are 100s of search results naming the killer in December 18 still available. If tompinch is in NZ she/he might not be able to see them but the rest of the world certainly can.

lljkk · 22/11/2019 20:49

I can't think of any good reason for me to know his name. Confused
RIP Grace. Flowers

poorstudent1010 · 22/11/2019 21:00

And he gets his identity protected and the reason for it????

Stop being dense. It was to protect the integrity of the trial, did you really want to give his solicitors another angle to defend him by claiming he didn’t have a fair trial as his name was plastered everywhere leading to jury bias? The trial has only just ended in a guilty verdict after all.

poorstudent1010 · 22/11/2019 21:05

I felt so sorry for her family having to listen to sordid details of her sex life

What an absolutely ridiculous statement. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I felt sorry for her family having to hear the post-mortem results of the autopsy of their dead daughter. To see how callously her killer disposed of her body in the following CCTV footage. To see the naked images he took of her corpse in evidence. To see him constantly change his story in police interviews.

But no, it’s her “sordid” sexual preferences that’s the problem for you.

TomPinch · 22/11/2019 21:08

@coconuttelegraph

I'm sorry. That was rude of me and I apologise.

Still, while I accept that the convicted murderer's name could in theory have come from a variety of sources (ie, leak from authority or more likely general chit chat), think of it from from the perspective of the press. Before the first court appearance, any name they had would have been speculative, and publishing it could have resulted in a severe libel.

What in fact happened was that the defendant was named on the charging document and appeared in court. The judge directed that his name not be released. Hours later it was all over the UK press. It's simply a matter of joining the dots. They got it from - or, which is the same, had it confirmed - from the courtroom.

cpjoli · 22/11/2019 21:11

I am related to this case and can tell you from my perspective I'm so fucking glad theyve named him. Why does he get protected while the family gets dragged across the press. It's been a horrific year for us and this is only just the beginning of trying to grieve for an amazing , vivacius, beautiful young lady who was a sunshine in any room.

Passthecherrycoke · 22/11/2019 21:12

Tom I’m sorry but I dont understand what you mean. The police originally released his name appealing for anyone with information about him to come forward. Presumably they did, and this resulted in further charges, which led to his identity being “withdrawn” by a judge, but by then it was far too late.

DianaTremaine · 22/11/2019 21:12

Exactly @MitziK and @IAmNotAWitch

I am "raging" that the selfish and irresponsible actions of these tabloids could mean other women do not get justice.

RIP Grace.

TomPinch · 22/11/2019 21:12

Actually I'm wrong, there are 100s of search results naming the killer in December 18 still available. If tompinch is in NZ she/he might not be able to see them but the rest of the world certainly can.

I can't (I'm in NZ). I had a look at the DM to see if it was freely available but they must have a redacted version for NZ. If I used a VPN I suspect I could get around this very easily.

I think the UK press is behaving pretty poorly, but there's nothing new about that.

TomPinch · 22/11/2019 21:16

Tom I’m sorry but I dont understand what you mean. The police originally released his name appealing for anyone with information about him to come forward. Presumably they did, and this resulted in further charges, which led to his identity being “withdrawn” by a judge, but by then it was far too late.

So, the police made a public appeal in respect of someone who was a potentially a suspect (but possibly a witness) but - and this is the critical point - hadn't been charged yet? So what? The point is that the UK press published his name once he had been charged and the suppression order made, thus outing him as the person charged.

This is really not hard to understand and I suspect the UK press understood it pretty well.

coconuttelegraph · 22/11/2019 21:17

Are you in NZ @Tompinch ?

I can understand that if you are you might not be able to see that the name has been in the public domain since the day he was arrested. If not why are you persisting with the plainly incorrect assertion that there was some kind of leak from the courthouse?

There is no need to join any dots, the name's been available literally since the day Grace went missing.

TomPinch · 22/11/2019 21:18

@coconuttelegraph

I think we must have cross-posted - my last one answers this point.

Passthecherrycoke · 22/11/2019 21:18

if you’re in NZ you haven’t seen the same coverage we have

cpjoli · 22/11/2019 21:19

The name was published after he was arrested. I have screenshot of it if you want proof!

Swipe left for the next trending thread