What we know about the charges against broadcaster Sean Plunket and why they were dropped

Charges Against Broadcaster Sean Plunket Related to Publication of Court Proceedings have been withdrawn.

Last year, Plunket shared documents on social media and named journalist David Farrier in connection with a temporary protection order and Family Court proceedings. The order was later vacated and the case dismissed.

Meanwhile, Farrier said he received a "torrent" of abuse and was charged with felonies. He was not able to clear the air because as he wrote on your site, web worm: “My hands were tied by the suppression… of the Family Court”.

Police charged Plunket with two counts of publishing a report of Family Court proceedings, including a person's identifying information, without permission or authorization from the court.

READ MORE:
* Broadcaster Sean Plunket Cleared Of Charges For Publishing Family Court Proceedings
* Broadcaster Sean Plunket accused of publishing restricted court proceedings report

Plunket, who founded the online radio station The platformhe pleaded not guilty.

In a statement, a spokesperson said Stuff the police applied to drop the charges as the matter fell short of the required threshold under the Family Court Act 1980.

In March, Farrier wrote that he was surprised by Plunket's actions because Family Court proceedings are "notoriously confidential."

On Wednesday, in response to the drop of charges, Farrier wrote in his newsletter: "Indeed, it is perfectly fine publish the details of any Family Court case, as long as the people you name are considered 'non-vulnerable'”.

(This is a tongue-in-cheek comment, but it's worth noting that suppressions apply in other circumstances during Family Court proceedings, including for people under 18.)

He continued: “To be fair, this is a bit of an ego boost: I'm officially not vulnerable. I take this to mean that I am very, very brave, much like the beloved character in the children's book Mr Brave."

So what is going on? Let's back up a bit.

Last year when he was in Aotearoa New Zealand promoting his documentary, mr organFarrier received a temporary protective order from the Family Court.

Plunket on social media named Farrier and shared other details about the case. (In some cases, even before Farrier claimed to have been notified).

And on his radio show, the host saying: “The judge who listened [the alleged victim’s] presentations was so troubled by what they heard, and found the body of evidence they presented so disturbing, so disturbing, that the judge immediately ordered [...] a temporary protection order against him, and also an order for Mr. Farrier to attend a court-specified non-violence program.”

Months laterthe warrant was discharged and the case dismissed.

Farrier later wrote he suspected that the subject of his documentary, con man Michael Organ, "was pulling the strings on this whole case" in the hope that he would prevent the film's release.

He went on to cite the judge's ruling: "There is considerable substance to suggestions that the app was designed to prevent the publication of the Farrier documentary."

Fast forward to April 2023: Plunket is facing the aforementioned charges. They carry a maximum penalty of three months in prison or a $2,000 fine.

However, the police requested that the charge be dropped. who was treated by a judge in the papers without being called to court.

This is unusual, said a media law expert Stuff. There could be any number of reasons, including a key witness no longer wanting to testify.

In this case, the police decided that the case did not meet the threshold for prosecution.

farrier said Stuff Plunket revealed not only Farrier's identity, but also the names of other people associated with the Family Court proceedings.

According to the Family Court Law a person may not, without the court's permission, publish a report of the proceedings that includes identifying information when a “vulnerable person” is the subject, party, or petitioner in the proceedings.

(As an aside, media organizations often take a cautious or compliant approach to reporting on proceedings.)

However, University of Auckland family law professor Mark Henaghan said the definition of vulnerable people is very specific.

The restrictions on what may be published also apply to any person the Court has found likely to be particularly susceptible to the adverse consequences associated with identification in publication.

farrier said Stuff: "I find it amazing and alarming that you can be dragged into a Family Court case...

“[some would have assumed] I've been involved in a horrible family court case. That is why I received a torrent of abuse on my phone, my social networks and my email.

Plunkett said Stuff the information he shared was in the public interest: “There is no general suppression on the publication of Family Court information. I did not post the name of anyone who was vulnerable.

“I said those documents were true and objective and they were. I thought they were in the public interest."

He acknowledged that Farrier's name has been cleared: “I would stress that it has now been cleared. There is no shadow on him."