Tim Jago is part of a bigger ACT Party issue
The former ACT Party President's name suppression ceased 2 years after Jago was charged, allowing ACT to bypass critical scrutiny during the 2023 election
Warning: This post contains references to sexual themes
On Saturday, I spent far too long editing a video on Tim Jago, the ACT Party President and criminal, who has given up his fight for name suppression after 2 years.
He voluntarily gave up just in time for what will be a highly covered Waitangi Day and the Parliament being in recess until 11 February.
Jago was first granted name suppression after being charged with sexual assault crimes in January 2023 -
At the time, ODT reported:
Lawyer Ian Brookie said publication of the man’s name would turn the story into a national political issue during an election year, rather than a court report focusing on the facts of the case…
Brookie argued the political dimension of the case drives the interest from media, resulting in an intense and unfair interest in the case that risks prejudicing his right to a fair trial…
… the man had argued potential employers were not contacting him, which he blamed on the allegations.
Those pockets are deep to fight that hard and for that long on such light grounds, but Jago was defended ably by Ian Brookie, a well known criminal lawyer1 who also advertises himself for “regulatory work” for governments and citizens.
Indeed, Brookie “currently prosecutes cases for WorkSafe New Zealand” - a portfolio owned by ACT’s Brooke Van Velden, as well as for the Commerce Commission.
Good work if you can get it.
But who funded the ex-surf lifesaver and ACT Party President Tim Jago’s legal bills?
Look - it’s the way the system works, but I can’t help but reflect on the different treatment by the media and justice system when it came to Golriz Ghahraman.
If Tim Jago was able to secure 24 months of name suppression based on not damaging his ‘employment prospects’ and ‘risks of politicising the case’, what did the court think was different about Ghahraman?
Are first time shoplifting offenders with a long history of public service and advocacy usually served a criminal conviction that will ruin their employment prospects for life?
Do folks not get the benefit of the doubt from media and police when they are in supermarkets where they place items in bags on a trolley - but are cast as shoplifters by Stuff and NZ Herald headlines?
The system is not fit for purpose - and that goes for much of what we experience.
I digress.
Related Reading:
Past ACT MPs have done some unthinkable things, but the truth is transgressions occur across all parties.
Still, ACT’s example here is that wealth, connections, and power appear to buy a lot more than an ordinary Green Party ex-lawyer could ever afford.
And helped to protect ACT’s image - during a critical election year and the first one after that.
This Hansard record from Parliament in August 2023 appears to be observant:
"Does the Prime Minister agree with a judgment that we've got the leader of ACT chiming in about law and order but is first to get name suppression for his president for heinous crimes?"
The Speaker intervened.
From that Hansard, we can also compute that David Seymour understands the importance of comity - the mutual respect and relationship between Parliament and the judiciary that’s essential to our consitutional democracy - because he objected immediately with:
“…Due to the long tradition of comity between this House and the courts, to make such statements is deeply disorderly, brings the House into disrepute and should face very severe consequences from you, Mr Speaker.”
Seymour doesn’t care if it’s him doing the attacking of judges and of our judiciary, though, is he?
Comity - anyone?
Regardless, it’s not the first time ACT has had its name linked to reports of sexual abuse through chance and/or circumstance.
And while I stress that Jago was not the ACT Party President when he sexually assaulted the male minors he was mentor to, Jago was in a position of power in ACT for other sexual assault cases:
“It’s almost as if David doesn’t want justice, he wants silence.”
Article continues below for paid subscribers. Thank you to all readers.