Top of the south hotspot for cyber-bullying cases
Less than a quarter of all New Zealanders live in the South Island, yet almost half of all cyberbullying court cases in this country come from the mainland.
Police have taken 176 cases under the Harmful Digital Communications Act since it came into effect in 2015, according to figures released under the Official Information Act.
Those 176 are the worst-of-theworst. Lower level cases are dealt with in mediation and do not register on police figures.
Ministry of Justice data shows that if police take a case to court they usually get a guilty plea.
The police data reveals that just under than half of the prosecutions were in the South Island. Tasman, at the top of the South Island, was the worst offender.
Within the Tasman police district, which includes courts in Nelson, Blenheim and Greymouth, there have been 34 prosecutions since 2015, resulting in 12 convictions.
In Nelson in early 2016, Aaron Stephen Tamihana was convicted after sending his partner’s mother – who did not approve of their relationship – a video of him and his partner performing a sex act with the comment: ‘‘what your daughter’s really up to’’.
Judge David Ruth sentenced him to 11 months’ jail on the charge, saying it had been a ‘‘cowardly’’ and ‘‘sinister’’ attack.
According to defence lawyers in Nelson, there are also examples of more minor offending charged under the Harmful Digital Communications Act.
Lawyer Emma Riddell said the ‘‘relatively new’’ charge could cover offending that included ‘‘trolling’’ behaviour towards people on Facebook, and private messages of a threatening nature.
‘‘I had a case involving abusive messages being posted to the victims’ Facebook timelines where their Facebook friends could also see them, and a case where the offender sent abusive messages to his ex-partner via iMessage,’’ she said.
While in some cases a charge under the Harmful Digital Communications Act was appropriate, as in the first example, Riddell said it was not always the right fit for the offending.
‘‘My concern is that police are using the charge when a charge of intimidation under the Summary Offences Act or misuse of a telephone under the Telecommunications Act is more appropriate.’’
Detective Senior Sergeant Greg Dalziel, of the police cybercrime unit, said incidents did not always occur in a uniform pattern across the country.
‘‘Likewise, there may be alternate charges that are more appropriate depending on the facts.
‘‘An example would be blackmail, which is a more serious offence than causing harm by posting digital communications.’’
Technological changes meant police had to constantly change how they investigated.
‘‘Electronic evidence is fragile, and the internet is perceived as an easy place to hide online,’’ Dalziel said.
‘‘That being said, in a lot of [Harmful Digital Communication] cases the offender is often known to the victim, or is the sole person known to have access to the material.’’
Police only deal with extreme cases. Lower-level ones are sent to Netsafe for mediation.
‘‘This cooperative approach allows police to focus on the most serious cases whilst retaining an overview of what is happening with victims,’’ Dalziel said.
Wellington Barrister Douglas Ewen said the ‘‘elastic’’ wording of the Harmful Digital Communications Act meant courts were often left in the grey area between deciding what was reprehensible behaviour and what met the bar for being a criminal act.
‘‘This is an area of law people are phenomenally precious [about] and not a little prudish.’’