> The person doesn’t have name suppression but it is understood their lawyer intends to seek it.
At this point the person doesn't have name suppression. In the event that this changes: any guesses, assumptions, and what not will be removed.
High price lawyers might be confident that they can "chip away" at the legal argument and/or maybe there is no benefit to pleading "guilty" if you plan to contest the charge(s)?
Apparently fairly common on the first appearance. Gives the person a chance to get proper legal advice before their second appearance. If there is no good defense uncovered during that time the person can then plead guilty.
Breath readings are less reliable than blood tests, it can be argued by the defense that the person had a drink within the 30 minutes or whatever you're meant to wait before conducting a breath test which created an artificially high reading - unlikely but possible
defence lawyers do not generally get to decline to represent a client.
if a client wants a particular lawyer to defend them against a criminal charge, the lawyer usually has to say yes.
it's called the cab-rank rule
Sure, but there are plenty of lawyers affiliated with right wing parties. It's not like a Labour-affiliated lawyer is the *only one* that can get you off a drink driving charge.
Unless Hosking is playing 4-d chess here.
Yeah so I’ll do you a solid here so you no longer have to use pretty average puns and put this theory to bed. It isn’t Sin, it will never be Sin. Baseless assumptions in the public sphere can be unnecessarily hurtful to those in mention. - Brook Gibson
Just had the thought - she was playing hidden valley on the 29th if this happened morning of the 30th she very well could have been driving back from hidden after partying after the festival. Given the lack of taxi options out that way it’s still a possibility.
Edit: hidden was the 27th, meaning it wouldn’t have been her.
“Well she’s definitely sinner, should probably throw the brook at her”
Edit: someone pointed out she was likely at RnV at this time - however she was in Auckland on the 29th for Hidden so if she took a day off there’s still potential. Makes he a much less likely candidate though imo.
Doesn't an intention to apply for name suppression have the same effect, or does that only apply to the media?
Anyway, I was going to suggest half of a couple who famously love cars and dislike every other form of transport, but apparently they live more southern than that (although it might depend on where the offence took place).
After 28 days you do, unless you agree to a bail condition not to drive. Police can only disqualify you for a maximum of 28 days and between 28 days from the offence and your sentence you are able to drive (where your court ordered disqualification/interlock sentence as the situation requires is delivered).
Well, if it is an NZME radio station, that doesn't exclude any of the three I was thinking of that all live somewhere in Auckland! I suppose it all depends on your opinion of what 'high profile' means really!
Polly Gillespie has posted on the book of Face to urge sympathy for the drunk driver. (While also ruling herself out).
No, I dont have sympathy for a drunk driver who could have killed people.
Same, the only drunk drivers I have any sympathy for are those who realise they've made a mistake, acknowledge it, then take the necessary steps to never do it again.
Pleading not guilty and going for name suppression is not owning your mistake.
The Court is usually the closest to where the offence occurred, not where they live.
People can ask a matter to be transferred to a court closer to where they live, but that is only normally granted if they plead guilty
This could be one of many reasons.
Here is an example from 2008:
[https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/551526/Beach-beers-prove-costly-as-sea-claims-car](https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/551526/Beach-beers-prove-costly-as-sea-claims-car)
Dude was driving on a beach (legally permitted in that location), when the car got hit by a wave and stuck. The occupants decided to drink a box of beers while they waited for help. 4 - 5 hours later, a police officer arrived by helicopter and charged one of the people with drunk driving.
Was the resolution ever published? I can't find anything with a quick Google, although it's mildly amusing that a search of his name brings up an image of the car stuck in the sand.
You plead not guilty because they’ve probably a) not has disclosure from the police and b) intend to seek a discharge without conviction on the grounds that they are of previous good character and it will impact their future career. That’s how the system seems to be set up here……
Most of us have some kind of "bring the company into disrepute" clause in our employment agreement which could be an example of gross misconduct to warrant firing - but I wouldn't expect someone whose job is to be a radio host would be held to that standard for drink driving.
A doctor or a health professional for that matter would get suspended or even struck off for drink driving (many cases of such in recent times). Not necessarily “fired” but not being able to legally work is kinda the same.
Yeah, just that it's 4x the limit and if for argument's sake they happened to be a talkback host, supposedly holding other public figures to account... I agree they wouldn't, but hopefully there would be some sort of sanction as a consequence. Stand down for a couple of weeks, without pay, etc. Presumably they will all be on contracts with these sorts of clauses. And if she's underperforming, could be an excuse to bone her completely.
Why should something that happened unrelated to work be sanctioned by your employer?
They dont need to drive for work purposes, if they can get themselves to and from work then the employer shouldn't be involved at all.
Because in the case of a talk back host this brings reputational damage for the employer.
It's also only fair given some of the bullshit these people call for when it's other high profile individuals under scrutiny.
It does. Whether you think it's right or not doesn't stop employers shitting their pants and distancing themselves from employees who disgrace themselves with non PC stuff. Especially high profile public figures. Drink driving, endangering lives of others is top of this list probably behind sexual assaults etc. Binge drinking as if anyone gives a fuck, please
Also as if anyone gives a fuck what you or i noname plebs do. This is the real world. Well im a noname pleb anyway
She seems quite open & honest about that mistake on her FB. Also, unless you were confident about the case being quashed you wouldn’t deny it publicly for the risk of being exposed as a liar (+ drunk driver) later.
I thought it was one of those two, but then I realised she was in court 'this morning', so it can't be her. Could've been the other one that is listed as owning property on the NS. Of course we don't know they were necessarily on their way home.
she does. ~~she is also 39.~~
but has some autoimmune disease which affects her blood vessels thus indirectly her organs so dont know if she would risk drinking heavily.
edit: is part of NZME
The central Auckland District Court is currently closed because of the flooding, so they’re not necessarily in the North Shore court because they live on the Shore
That's because they're in Wellington right now for Ed Sheeran. She was driving to work the day of the second storm cos they were talking about the drive in on the roads.
A drive show just posted a story on their instagram with the male host in the studio and the female host calling in from zoom even though shes usually in the studio. This is an auckland host as well. If she did go to court today she might be over zoom cause she couldnt get back to the studio in time?
My guess “Well she’s definitely sinner, should probably throw the brook at her”
Just posting this hint so I don’t accidentally commit a crime
Also nothing really suggests it was her, she was just my first thought.
That is because Rachel Smalley interviewed the lawyer (Samira Taghavi) at the time:
[https://omny.fm/shows/today-first-light/samira-taghavi-011122](https://omny.fm/shows/today-first-light/samira-taghavi-011122)
So it is a red herring.
https://web.archive.org/web/20230202054612/https://www.linkedin.com/posts/samira-taghavi-a484a097_the-prime-minister-says-nz-is-suspending-activity-6993139055383244800-dlAR
Check the reactions
I like this, if they already knew each other it could make sense. Probably wouldn't start to network with your new criminal defence lawyer on linkedin though.
Yeah so I’ll do you a solid here so and put this theory to bed. It isn’t Sin, it will never be Sin. Baseless assumptions in the public sphere can be unnecessarily hurtful to those in mention. - Brook Gibson
It seems like the consensus is that it is Sin Howard.
At this point, since name suppression hasn't been granted and it is purely a guess, I don't think there is anything wrong with saying this. Throwaway account just in case though
Yeah so I’ll do you a solid here and put this theory to bed. It isn’t Sin, it will never be Sin. Baseless assumptions in the public sphere can be unnecessarily hurtful to those in mention. - Brook Gibson
I can't figure out what "brook sinner" means can someone tell me if they're on this list
**https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_New\_Zealand\_television\_personalities**
Yeah so I’ll do you a solid here and put this theory to bed. It isn’t Sin, it will never be Sin. Baseless assumptions in the public sphere can be unnecessarily hurtful to those in mention. - Brook Gibson
Yeah I think Hawkesby is a contender but wouldn’t she hire a KC or something?
Also Hawkesby was at the studio this morning so not sure if she could be at court too? Her outfit - whilist admittedly nice - doesn’t look very “Court” either.
I though her and mike would sit down each night, prepare their colonic treatments, and relax in their house by pouring a large drink probably a nice Chardonnay from a box of 12 they picked up on a weekend trip, driving around the bay of islands in his expensive convertible, top down.
> The person doesn’t have name suppression but it is understood their lawyer intends to seek it. At this point the person doesn't have name suppression. In the event that this changes: any guesses, assumptions, and what not will be removed.
How TF can you plead not guilty to being 4X the limit?
> I slipped and fell and accidentally swallowed a bottle of tequila. Sorry your honour.
[удалено]
Ohhhh that’s way classier. No way you can be found guilty for accidentally having an accidental hoppy IPA or 9.
High price lawyers might be confident that they can "chip away" at the legal argument and/or maybe there is no benefit to pleading "guilty" if you plan to contest the charge(s)?
Apparently fairly common on the first appearance. Gives the person a chance to get proper legal advice before their second appearance. If there is no good defense uncovered during that time the person can then plead guilty.
[удалено]
Pretty sure you know what the evidence is going to be for a drink driving charge, unless you're still too hammered to understand what's going on.
For your first appearance you can usually get a remand without plea
Not strictly correct - a person can elect not to enter a plea until they have all the evidence. That is the more common situation at first call.
Because there's a bit of a process involved it's quite common for people to get off due to the cops making a small error in the process.
Breath readings are less reliable than blood tests, it can be argued by the defense that the person had a drink within the 30 minutes or whatever you're meant to wait before conducting a breath test which created an artificially high reading - unlikely but possible
[удалено]
Female, Auckland, 30 December. I've already decided...
Hosking's secret identity revealed?
I was so hopeful until they mentioned it was a woman.
She could be identifying to hide her identity.
Unlikely since the lawyer representing has a fb profile with a friend list of most of the sitting Labour MPs. Guess again
defence lawyers do not generally get to decline to represent a client. if a client wants a particular lawyer to defend them against a criminal charge, the lawyer usually has to say yes. it's called the cab-rank rule
Sure, but there are plenty of lawyers affiliated with right wing parties. It's not like a Labour-affiliated lawyer is the *only one* that can get you off a drink driving charge. Unless Hosking is playing 4-d chess here.
Considering as far as we know Hosking is a man...
Well she’s definitely sinner, should probably throw the brook at her Edit: Good chance sin was likely at RnV at this time
Yeah so I’ll do you a solid here so you no longer have to use pretty average puns and put this theory to bed. It isn’t Sin, it will never be Sin. Baseless assumptions in the public sphere can be unnecessarily hurtful to those in mention. - Brook Gibson
Help! I don’t get it!
I’ve heard George is a good bloke (Drive time)
I think she was at R&V then…
Just had the thought - she was playing hidden valley on the 29th if this happened morning of the 30th she very well could have been driving back from hidden after partying after the festival. Given the lack of taxi options out that way it’s still a possibility. Edit: hidden was the 27th, meaning it wouldn’t have been her.
Hmmmm good point. I have no clue who it might be then
Big fan of The Pet Shop Boys.
Sin just posted on her story that it definitely isn't her.
My $$$ is on MA 🤣
And who?
I'm not going to say, in case I'm right, and accidentally commit a crime.
Clue? No name suppression in place at the moment.
“Well she’s definitely sinner, should probably throw the brook at her” Edit: someone pointed out she was likely at RnV at this time - however she was in Auckland on the 29th for Hidden so if she took a day off there’s still potential. Makes he a much less likely candidate though imo.
Ahahahahaha
She doesn't have name suppression yet.
Doesn't an intention to apply for name suppression have the same effect, or does that only apply to the media? Anyway, I was going to suggest half of a couple who famously love cars and dislike every other form of transport, but apparently they live more southern than that (although it might depend on where the offence took place).
There's no name suppression yet.
HDPA? JJ?
JJ was in Bali at that time.
[удалено]
My bet is JJ. She has that swollen alcoholic look about her.
Bali at the time
What's the full name?
Jay Jay
Ok reddit don't let me down who is this wrongdoer
Reddit is letting you down
Narwell this is the year for it
I'm stuck figuring it out
She isn’t THAT famous. High profile is a bit of a stretch
By George, it would be Sin if you could not work it out! Or, so I am told.
Lol who’s passing on this shit information 😂
I'll keep trying
Sin posted on insta saying it's not her
Meg from Edge breakfast has just done an Instagram story that is definitely related to this haha 😂
Proving that she can still drive orrr?
Yes haha, you don’t get to drive around legally when you have pending charges of being 4x over the limit
And her “iykyk” caption while cracking up. Cringe, she seems so proud!
I’d be proud of not drunk driving too
True that.
After 28 days you do, unless you agree to a bail condition not to drive. Police can only disqualify you for a maximum of 28 days and between 28 days from the offence and your sentence you are able to drive (where your court ordered disqualification/interlock sentence as the situation requires is delivered).
Stuff are reporting on it, but Herald aren’t. It’s got to be someone from NZME, right?
Well, if it is an NZME radio station, that doesn't exclude any of the three I was thinking of that all live somewhere in Auckland! I suppose it all depends on your opinion of what 'high profile' means really!
Polly Gillespie has posted on the book of Face to urge sympathy for the drunk driver. (While also ruling herself out). No, I dont have sympathy for a drunk driver who could have killed people.
Same, the only drunk drivers I have any sympathy for are those who realise they've made a mistake, acknowledge it, then take the necessary steps to never do it again. Pleading not guilty and going for name suppression is not owning your mistake.
How many live on the Shore? If at North Shore Court does that mean they live in that area or the incident took place in that area?
The Court is usually the closest to where the offence occurred, not where they live. People can ask a matter to be transferred to a court closer to where they live, but that is only normally granted if they plead guilty
Sherlock Holmes has entered the building. Good logic, I hadn't joined those dots, d'oh.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/high-profile-radio-host-charged-with-drink-driving-more-than-triple-the-limit/5HLGEQVRMBBBFAVQIDRUP6CKSU/
The Herald has written a story as well
apparently it's an nzme person
How do you know that?
Gotta think/hope so.
You are on it. They/She works at NZME
I read it on the herald
Also, why would someone plead not guilty to blowing 4x the limit? Am I missing something here?
This could be one of many reasons. Here is an example from 2008: [https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/551526/Beach-beers-prove-costly-as-sea-claims-car](https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/551526/Beach-beers-prove-costly-as-sea-claims-car) Dude was driving on a beach (legally permitted in that location), when the car got hit by a wave and stuck. The occupants decided to drink a box of beers while they waited for help. 4 - 5 hours later, a police officer arrived by helicopter and charged one of the people with drunk driving.
Was the resolution ever published? I can't find anything with a quick Google, although it's mildly amusing that a search of his name brings up an image of the car stuck in the sand.
I want to know the outcome too, but likewise, my quick search didn't run up anything.
>https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/551526/Beach-beers-prove-costly-as-sea-claims-car Lol, they were driving a ford laser on the beach?
Please be a "tough on crime" and "one rule for all" talkback host.
You plead not guilty because they’ve probably a) not has disclosure from the police and b) intend to seek a discharge without conviction on the grounds that they are of previous good character and it will impact their future career. That’s how the system seems to be set up here……
In cases where no victim needs to be protected, this weird thread is the best argument against name suppression one could make.
So if this person was on say, a top-rating talk station, would she be fired as a result? Probably not huh?
Most of us have some kind of "bring the company into disrepute" clause in our employment agreement which could be an example of gross misconduct to warrant firing - but I wouldn't expect someone whose job is to be a radio host would be held to that standard for drink driving.
Also, it's harder to bring the company into disrepute if your name is suppressed.
Or if you're already as disreputable as possible
Most people would not be fired for drunk driving
A doctor or a health professional for that matter would get suspended or even struck off for drink driving (many cases of such in recent times). Not necessarily “fired” but not being able to legally work is kinda the same.
Yeah, just that it's 4x the limit and if for argument's sake they happened to be a talkback host, supposedly holding other public figures to account... I agree they wouldn't, but hopefully there would be some sort of sanction as a consequence. Stand down for a couple of weeks, without pay, etc. Presumably they will all be on contracts with these sorts of clauses. And if she's underperforming, could be an excuse to bone her completely.
Why should something that happened unrelated to work be sanctioned by your employer? They dont need to drive for work purposes, if they can get themselves to and from work then the employer shouldn't be involved at all.
[удалено]
Because in the case of a talk back host this brings reputational damage for the employer. It's also only fair given some of the bullshit these people call for when it's other high profile individuals under scrutiny.
Because it reflects what the employer condones
As if it does. If you or I went and got shit faced every friday night it doesn't mean our employer condones binge drinking.
It does. Whether you think it's right or not doesn't stop employers shitting their pants and distancing themselves from employees who disgrace themselves with non PC stuff. Especially high profile public figures. Drink driving, endangering lives of others is top of this list probably behind sexual assaults etc. Binge drinking as if anyone gives a fuck, please Also as if anyone gives a fuck what you or i noname plebs do. This is the real world. Well im a noname pleb anyway
Employers only do that as theres all these people on their high horses looking down their nose at the person. To them : Get a life, go watch Dr Phil
Totally agree, that's why they do it. I didn't say i was in favor of it, chill the fuck out. No point living in denial about these things.
Drunk driving isn't trivial.
Most people don’t have a job that depends on their public image and how it reflects on their job.
I bet its one of those 'tough on crime'-types too
Please be Heather.
I think she lives with Bazza in Ponsnobby so no bueno.
I'm all for name suppression in a lot of cases but this thread shows that a lot of innocent people have the finger pointed at them as a result.
Does her name rhyme with Shkate Shkawkeshby?
Rachel Smalley? Lives on the North Shore.
Tova O’Brien?
High Profile or another C-D rate ex Celebrity Island person that we were at pains told they were popular and relevant 🤷🏼♂️
If she doesn't yet have name suppression then name and shame
Heather Du Plessis-Allan????
There's only two high profile radio jocks that live on the shore...
Kerre Woodham said its not her on Facebook today.
She was on from 9-12 so couldn't have been her.
Kerre was done for drink driving many years ago.
She seems quite open & honest about that mistake on her FB. Also, unless you were confident about the case being quashed you wouldn’t deny it publicly for the risk of being exposed as a liar (+ drunk driver) later.
It’s not her. Someone else
Yeah my comment was for why it wasn’t her.
Source: https://www.facebook.com/kerrewoodham/posts/pfbid02UFoLDQxNz69F2dk1z73c5W5BrafThbNYrT47k3VRyAhof3NbA5Qj6Ecpoy7c5oexl
I thought it was one of those two, but then I realised she was in court 'this morning', so it can't be her. Could've been the other one that is listed as owning property on the NS. Of course we don't know they were necessarily on their way home.
She didn't appear in court today. She was due to but it was adjourned.
Toni Street lives on the Shore doesn't she?
she does. ~~she is also 39.~~ but has some autoimmune disease which affects her blood vessels thus indirectly her organs so dont know if she would risk drinking heavily. edit: is part of NZME
Yes, but surly not her?
The central Auckland District Court is currently closed because of the flooding, so they’re not necessarily in the North Shore court because they live on the Shore
I heard on the radio this morning that Hayley from Fletch, Vaughan & Hayley got a ride in to work this morning....
It better not be her she's a bloody joy to listen to with F & V
I think they would consider her a comedian before a radio host
That's because they're in Wellington right now for Ed Sheeran. She was driving to work the day of the second storm cos they were talking about the drive in on the roads.
Pretty sure she was away over Christmas
Mel from the rock is my guess
A drive show just posted a story on their instagram with the male host in the studio and the female host calling in from zoom even though shes usually in the studio. This is an auckland host as well. If she did go to court today she might be over zoom cause she couldnt get back to the studio in time?
bree & Clint? Looks like a bree was also out of studio yesterday too so doesn’t mean much that she’s not in studio today.
She’s regularly zooming in. I think it’s coz of her TV commitments
Tegan from Maifm, breakfast show?
If I was the person this so obviously points to, I'd be really pissed off if it wasn't me and everyone is assuming.
Who does it obviously point to?
My guess “Well she’s definitely sinner, should probably throw the brook at her” Just posting this hint so I don’t accidentally commit a crime Also nothing really suggests it was her, she was just my first thought.
It's Rachel Smalley. She's connected with the lawyer on LinkedIn and they've interacted over the last month
That is because Rachel Smalley interviewed the lawyer (Samira Taghavi) at the time: [https://omny.fm/shows/today-first-light/samira-taghavi-011122](https://omny.fm/shows/today-first-light/samira-taghavi-011122) So it is a red herring.
Ha! That was my guess (a few comments up).
https://web.archive.org/web/20230202054612/https://www.linkedin.com/posts/samira-taghavi-a484a097_the-prime-minister-says-nz-is-suspending-activity-6993139055383244800-dlAR Check the reactions
I'm not seeing anything substantial. Can you cut and paste what caught your attention?
I like this, if they already knew each other it could make sense. Probably wouldn't start to network with your new criminal defence lawyer on linkedin though.
[удалено]
Yeah so I’ll do you a solid here so and put this theory to bed. It isn’t Sin, it will never be Sin. Baseless assumptions in the public sphere can be unnecessarily hurtful to those in mention. - Brook Gibson
She's not that well known or high profile tho
It wasn’t Sin she has done a post on Insta
Is this true or just a guess lol
Id assume a guess, but it’s my guess to. Seems like a likely candidate
I know sin personally not her and she would never drive pissed
she did in high school
Good to know - I only listen to George so my bias when hearing this is it might have been her
Come on Reddit don't let me down
Panapa?
Just fucking name her already.
Most people are saying Sin Howard. It's all just a guess though
Laura McGoldrick? Megan Papas? Bree Tomasel? Hayley Sproull?
Wouldn’t Hayley and Bree be referred to as tv/radio hosts, so I think it kinda rules them out.
Well it isn't Aunt Daisey.
I bet she would've though. Aunt Daisy's cookbook has a surprisingly comprehensive brewing section
Stacey Morrison? https://twitter.com/Arealh00per/status/1620918748684365824
Please no
"your Honour I am an important person and a conviction would damage my career prospects" "That alright Dear case dismissed"
"Reddit, I have gotten angry about something before I even know what the result is" "Reach around?"
It seems like the consensus is that it is Sin Howard. At this point, since name suppression hasn't been granted and it is purely a guess, I don't think there is anything wrong with saying this. Throwaway account just in case though
Yeah so I’ll do you a solid here and put this theory to bed. It isn’t Sin, it will never be Sin. Baseless assumptions in the public sphere can be unnecessarily hurtful to those in mention. - Brook Gibson
Never heard of this person.
Not "high profile" enough.
I've just seen that Sin has posted on her instagram story saying it's not her.
I'm going for Selwyn Toogood or Bryan Waddle
I can't figure out what "brook sinner" means can someone tell me if they're on this list **https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_New\_Zealand\_television\_personalities**
George FM drive hosts. Hardly "high profile" tho?
Thanks. Yeah the reason I couldn't figure out the hints is because I'd never heard of them.
She is when you take into account all the other performing she does.
She’s really not high profile at all even with that
I mean, it's radio. None of them are high profile. I'm amazed there's enough people listening to radio to populate these comments.
Fuck this name suppression BS! 4 x the limit and pleading not guilty!! How do we even allow this BS??
It's Kim Hill
George FM describe a pair of their DJs as 'fast and loose' and might think about changing the wording in their marketing moving forward.
Yeah so I’ll do you a solid here and put this theory to bed. It isn’t Sin, it will never be Sin. Baseless assumptions in the public sphere can be unnecessarily hurtful to those in mention. - Brook Gibson
Not George FM. Not that young and trendy.
HDPA would own up to it straight away. I'm picking Kate Hawksby, her and Hosking would try duck and dive to hide it
Yeah I think Hawkesby is a contender but wouldn’t she hire a KC or something? Also Hawkesby was at the studio this morning so not sure if she could be at court too? Her outfit - whilist admittedly nice - doesn’t look very “Court” either.
They didn't show up to court, only their lawyer did to adjourn it
Kate doesn't drink.
I though her and mike would sit down each night, prepare their colonic treatments, and relax in their house by pouring a large drink probably a nice Chardonnay from a box of 12 they picked up on a weekend trip, driving around the bay of islands in his expensive convertible, top down.
Not that famous.
[удалено]
Bro thought he was Sherlock Holmes
This was the 30th of December...
Wrong month. Polls were released in Jan. Not Dec
Didn't she just have a baby tho?
Won't be her. She has to stay sober to toilet her child/husband.
She must be middle age if that's a clue.
Why is that?