Tom Phillips - any Kiwis (or others who know the story) want to discuss?

[Iwishiknewwhatiwasdoing]

Posting for traffic…

Such a nightmare of a situation. So insane how he managed to evade police for 4 years. The youngest may not even remember his previous life?

And if it doesn’t come out, it will be easily found on the internet thanks to ghouls like you.

@mnhqwtf are you doing allowing these comments?

You know you need to report comments you want deleted don’t you?

There are lots of people who live off grid in the uk and all over the world. It’s unusual but hardly international news. It just seems weird that it’s so high profile

I don’t understand what you think here is covered by the injunction? The injunction covers information not previously published.

A rumour concerning a real living child. Reported.

The injunction covers sensitive information about vulnerable children. It is aiming to protect those children. The disgusting rumours and speculation on this thread is doing the opposite of that. And if any of it is true, it is breaking the injunction.

Re reporting, I have reported comments but MN has done nothing.

The injunction prevents media, police and oranga tamariki preventing certain details relating to the case.

It does not prevent the public questioning or guessing what the "certain details" are including the timelines of events leading up to the injunction and drawing conclusions.

This thread is not breaching the injunction. It's the public questioning why the injunction may have been put in place by Tom Phillips family and what are they hiding.

This is the danger of placing an injunction, without details the public can and will speculate. Tom's mother would have been warned about this by her legal counsel yet decided to proceed. They did not offer their expensive lawyers services to suppress Cats drink driving charge which was published a few days later.

No doubt the media argued against the injunction in a closed court with one
of their arguments being the public will now speculate and perhaps draw the wrong conclusions or the public have a right to know. We will never know as the hearing is closed to the public.

Note the temporary injunction was put in place and paid for via expensive lawyers at the request of Tom's mother not oranga tamariki (child protection agency in nz), the police or the children's mother.

see link for RNZ explaining the injunction meaing https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/572791/high-court-injunction-over-tom-phillips-case-extended

I watched this morning 2 separate interviews given by the children's older step sister and mother made more than a year ago pleading for the children to be returned.

It was so heartbreaking and sad. They were made at different times during the almost 4 years when the children were missing showing a desperate sister and mother so worried, scared and frustrated by the lack of support and resources going into finding the children as well as the systems that should have been in place during this period to find the children faster.

Anyone following this case, these interviews are a must watch and include very telling details now the children have been rescued.

My heart goes out to the mother Cat, the children's older sisters and the wider whanau. It's been very disturbing watching these interviews how unsupported the whanau/family and the children were treated and their daily extreme anxiety given what we now know to be fully justified.

Cat mentions the final time Tom took the kids and went missing for 4 years, Toms parents had the care of the children and they did not report them missing, Cat had to do that herself when she tried to call and speak to them at the grandparents home.

Cat also mentions when Tom was sighted at bunnings (a hardware shop) in a ute vehicle, she was actually the one that saw him and he was driving one of his friends utes, this friend of Tom's did not report the vehicle missing until after the police investigated.

Mums interview

Older sisters interview

I wish Cat and her all her children much aroha (love) and healing as well as the wider family.
Unfortunately they were let down for the protection and support that should have been in place

If Cat writes a book some day, I will read the hell out of it.

Imagine being at your lowest ebb, facing a drink driving charge in court that day and the four year anniversary of your littlies' abduction by your psycho gun-toting ex looming, and you suddenly get the news that your children have been found, alive and physically ok.

Wishing all the aroha to her and her family.

Tom did not show up to his January 2022 Court date and 3 months later went missing with the kids again.

So what happened when he didn't show up for a court date?

Nothing?

This is back in court on Thursday.

It covers sensitive information WE DON’T KNOW YET - as it hasn’t been reported.

This thread is not breaking an injunction and furthermore you know nothing about the terms or content of the injunction.

I feel like you’ve mixed up “injunction” with a “reporting restriction” which prevents reporting of the case. There is no reporting restriction, and indeed, there is no longer any case.

Also, It goes without saying, the injunction applies to the news organisations who were intending to publish this information, not the general public.

and obviously, neither does it apply in any form in the UK

Presumably they put a warrant out and then the investigation into the missing children superseded any action related to it.

it feels there is quite a lot of “crime whataboutery” in relation to this case. Cats drink driving, him not showing at court- crimes yes, but they pale in insignificance compared to the seriousness of Toms eventual crimes.

I can’t really believe anyone is talking about a drink driving charge, it’s completely unimportant and turning to drink or drugs at times of trauma is so common it should basically be expected.

Obviously there are reporting restrictions, as per the injunction. If there weren't the facts of this case would be reported in the media.

"Also, It goes without saying, the injunction applies to the news organisations who were intending to publish this information, not the general public."

That is absolutely not true. It applies to social media as well, even a quick google will tell you that. If you're a Kiwi you'll remember what happened to Leo Molloy in Grace Millaine's case. And overseas sites that breach injunctions are still breaking NZ law, it's obviously hard for the Crown to pursue a charge but it doesn't mean that media and social media sites (and this includes this one) have carte blanche to report whatever they like.

It “goes without saying”? Not quite. The judge made it clear that details weren’t to be repeated on social media.

also what do you mean by “there is no case?” There is a case going through the Family Court. There are heavy restrictions on FC reporting.

This is absolutely brutal;
‘Cat also mentions when Tom was sighted at bunnings (a hardware shop) in a ute vehicle, she was actually the one that saw him and he was driving one of his friends utes’
Imagine knowing you’re so close, yet so far away from your babies, and knowing his shithead friends were helping him. My heart goes out to her.

It was at this stage that his second disappearance became a criminal issue as a warrant was issued for his arrest and a search for him began.

The word search is quite loose as it appears the police didn’t do that much to look for him, quite possibly because they thought he would return before long but also (as time went on) because he was armed and they feared for the safety of the children.

For those commenting about the injunction and its validity, the ruling by the NZ courts is not valid in the UK. However, as it often the case in high profile circumstances, many media outlets choose to comply with foreign suppression orders. This is as a matter of courtesy as they are not legally obligated to do so.

it’s actually quite concerning that someone thinks an injunction being granted means no one is allowed to discuss the previously/ currently reported information or rumour about this case.

What a terrible state of freedom of press and journalism to think that you are now no longer allowed to discuss this case at all 😱

There is no criminal case against Tom Phillips.

again, you do not know the content of the injunction.

There is no criminal case against Tom Phillips.

Not now he is dead, anyway.

All we know is that the injunction covers the publication of certain matters relating to the case. Publication includes posting things to the Internet. So we should be careful what we say.

Common decency should stop people from speculating about certain matters anyway when the child victims in this case are alive and so identifiable. Since when is it a Kiwi thing to gossip about children like this? We have to protect the tamariki.

There is no criminal case any longer against Phillips of course, but hopefully some of his accomplices will be brought to justice. The police are limited in what they can say but they have said it is clear he had help. Those people should (eventually) be named and shamed, even where no legal case can be made out against them.

are injunctions not used very often in NZ? I’m finding these comments really odd.