An ex All Black has decided that he wants to lift the name suppression he argued to hard so get quite a few years ago now. Back then, it was inconvenient for people to know he had stolen $152.50 in taxi chits from his employer. Now, it seems that he wants to sell his warts and all autobiography, so it would be much more convenient for the name suppression to be lifted. So he will just rely on his contacts, on his standing in the community, on the sense that he is after all a good bloke, “one of us, you know, old chap,” to get what he wants.
Funny how the well-positioned, well-paid and well-educated can arrange to keep their names out of the press when they want to, but discard the protection they once fought so hard to get once it becomes a nuisance. I doubt that that a junior clerk who helped herself to her employer’s resources would be able to keep her name hidden from the public. It’s much the same as the narratives around shoplifting. When a well-positioned, well-paid and well-educated person shoplifts, it’s kleptomania, but when a poor person shoplifts, it’s theft.
I suppose that his mates in the judiciary will help him out again, and lift that pesky name suppression. I doubt that it will make a difference: his identity was widely known years ago in any case.