Darroch Ball
Co-leader Sensible Sentencing Trust.
There are very few people who have either the resources or the courage to take a stand against the deep-seated injustices that too often occur throughout our justice system. It doesn’t happen often, but every now and again someone takes a stand to prove a point – not for personal gain, but purely as a matter of principle.
That’s what Auckland businessman Leo Molloy is doing. And he has both the resources and the courage to do it.
If you take even the most cursory of glances at Molloy’s name suppression case – beyond the click-bait headlines from the media – you will see his case quite clearly serves as a pretty accurate indication of what is so totally rotten about our judicial system.
As most of us know, in 2018 British tourist Grace Millane was murdered by Jesse Shane Kempson. I can tell you his name now, but his name was suppressed until the end of 2020 – after his trial had finished and following his sentencing and appeals.
But whilst Kempson’s name was suppressed, the victim’s name, Grace Millane, her sexual history, her personal life details, and even her personal sexual conduct were allowed to be made public and reported on. Leo Molloy had a big problem with this.
Molloy didn’t know Grace or the offender or what was going on. The reason he decided to take a stand was a flaw in the system that allowed this type of injustice to occur.
Molloy named the murderer whilst the name suppression was still active. Ultimately, he was charged with breaching name suppression, found guilty, and sentenced to 350 hours community service and a $15,000 fine. He is actually currently appealing his sentence and conviction – and I don’t blame him.
Outside of court after his conviction, Molloy said, “This is not about me, I’m irrelevant, this is about Grace Millane and her family and the way they were treated and humiliated by the system.”
What Molloy’s case has highlighted is a couple of things. First that our name-suppression laws are simply not fit for purpose. Yes, we need laws in place to ensure a defendant’s right to a fair trial – but how that law is applied has snowballed into an unmanageable mess that differs from case to case. Some say it depends on who you are, what lawyers you can afford, and what kind of influence you have in the community. A major flaw in the law is the fact that anyone using Google can search international websites and find out an offender’s name; this is what occurred, with Kempson’s name being plastered all over international media.
This case also highlights the creeping of the law that has occurred away from the protection and benefit of the victim: now too often only ever protecting the offender. This still occurs even when the victim of the crime wants it waived.
Molloy has highlighted an issue that is permeating our justice system and seems to have gradually worsened over the last few years. Our entire system has become more and more offender-centric, where the offender’s rights and considerations are paramount. Our system was designed to deliver justice for victims, hold offenders to account and to ensure our communities are safe. When we have victims being lost within the system and offenders becoming the focal point, that’s when people like Molloy feel it’s necessary to stand up.
What makes matters worse with the Molloy case was the severe sentence of 350 hours’ community work and a $15,000 fine. I have seen far more serious and violent crimes not even receive half of that number of hours. Again, our system is failing at its most basic level. We have someone here who is voicing the frustrations of many people who are sick and tired of the way victims are treated by the system. It would be hard to find a judge who has handed down a sentence this severe for the serious crimes committed by some nasty, violent, career criminals.
I’m not surprised Molloy is appealing his case. Not only should he not even be there in the first place, but the sentence he has received is simply outrageous.
Molloy’s entire case just serves to highlight all that is going wrong with the system.
Yes, of course, we need name suppression laws. But we need to acknowledge that in their current state they are not fit for purpose. They need a major overhaul – starting with ensuring victims are put at the centre of it all.
Please share so others can discover The BFD.