At last, his name is out there

‘We conclude that this behaviour is indicative of a degree of wholly selfregarding wickedness throughout the incident and its aftermath . . .’’ Those comments from Justice Stephen Kos, on the behaviour of Jesse Shane Kempson after he murdered Grace Millane in Auckland in December 2018, are a brutally telling analysis of the character of a killer. They came in a Court of Appeal judgment last week, rejecting Kempson’s appeal against his murder conviction and prison sentence, including a non-parole period of 17 years.

So it’s an immense relief finally to be able to usher Kempson into the infamy he undoubtedly deserves. Especially aswe now know he has since been convicted of raping awoman in a hotel room, and the serious assault and sexual violation of a former girlfriend.

Both incidents took place before he murdered Millane.

Kempson has caused irreparable pain and suffering tomany people; most significantly, Millane’s family. The image of her courageous parents at his trial in late 2019 is burned into the memories of New Zealanders, as is the exhaustive raking over of her alleged sexual history during the trial. Most Kiwis understand that was about giving Kempson a fair trial, but it was nonetheless widely seen as disturbing and distressing.

The tears of her parents after the guilty verdict tore at our hearts, and the news amonth ago of the death of her father, David, from cancer, reopened those wounds. So it’s right that we should be able to name Jesse Kempson now, after a last-ditch bid to continue to keep his name secret through an appeal to the Supreme Court was rejected yesterday.

However, the undoubted relief that decision will bring for the average New Zealander probably won’t completely end the questions about the long wait to have Kempson’s name officially in the public domain. It’s taken a year from his conviction, and media organisations have been on the receiving end of numerous questions from the public, which we have been unable to answer without breaching the suppression order covering the case.

Some argue the New Zealand justice system could have addressed that situation for the public by announcing there were other matters before the courts, preventing his name being released. That would have headed off some more sinister conjecture, such as suggestions that Kempson was somehow receiving favourable treatment from the justice system.

While it might be suggested that would have compromised his right to a fair trial on the other charges, Kempson had not been named, so it shouldn’t have been the case.

Except, while the New Zealand media for the most part scrupulously observed the suppression, international media organisations were quick to unmask Kempson, and, of course, on social media, his name was readily discoverable.

So there was effectively one law operating for mainstream media and none for social media, which begs the question ofwhether the current regulations are fit for purpose in the digital age. It must be time our justice system conducted a study into the behaviour of jurors to see if changing the framework really would jeopardise fair trials.

Kempson’s rape victim, a young British woman, discovered he was the man charged with killing Grace Millane because work colleagues found overseas coverage of the case. What if there are other victims out there, who would have recognised his name had it been in the mainstream?

So there was effectively one law operating for mainstream media and none for social media . . .