Posted by Blogger Name. Category:
Clare Curran
,
Diplomatic immunity
,
Malaysia
,
Mohammed Rizalman Bin Ismail
,
Name suppression
,
Sexual violence
We were sent a link this morning which identified the diplomat who invoked diplomatic immunity and fled New Zealand after an alleged sexual assault. Unlike some, including Labour Party MP Clare Curran, we did not share the link because there was a court-ordered suppression order in force.
However this afternoon, a Wellington District Court Judge has lifted the suppression order, and the diplomat's identity and nationality are now known; the Herald reports:
The diplomat at the centre of an alleged sexual assault case can now be named after media organisations challenged a judge's decision to grant permanent name suppression.
He is Mohammed Rizalman Bin Ismail and worked at the Malaysian High Commission in Wellington.
Ismail, who claimed diplomatic immunity, could not initially be identified because of a suppression order imposed by a Wellington District Court judge on May 30.
However, Malaysian media were now reporting the case, and its Foreign Affairs Ministry planned to hold a press conference about it today.
An urgent hearing to overturn the suppression ruling was held in the High Court at Wellington today, where the name suppression was overturned.
Media organisations, including the New Zealand Herald, challenged the decision to grant name suppression.
Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully earlier said the Solicitor-General had advised the Government abide by the suppression ruling while it was in place.
"I can't see any good public policy reason why you'd want to protect someone from publicity given there won't be a trial."
Ismail, in his 30s, left the country after being charged by Wellington police with burglary and assault with intent to rape.
He had followed a 21-year-old woman to her Brooklyn home on May 9 when the alleged assault occurred.
The Ministry for Foreign Affairs formally asked for Malaysia to waive diplomatic immunity, but it declined.
It is unfortunate that the Malaysian Foreign Affairs Ministry would not waive diplomatic immunity in Ishmail's case. He has been charged with serious criminal offences in New Zealand, and ought to have faced charges here. However as a signatory to the Vienna Convention, New Zealand authorities had to accept Malaysia's decision.
It is to be hoped that Ishmail will face sanctions in his home country which would be as severe as those likely to be imposed by a New Zealand court. No one, as John Banks discovered recently, is above the law. The Malaysian Government will be making a statement in the next couple of hours, and it will be interesting to hear what action they plan to take.
