What did Sean Plunket do? Charges against broadcaster explained

Here we will give updates regarding the charges against Sean Plunket as the public is searching about it over the internet. The public is going through the internet to know more about him and not only that they also like to know more about the charges against him. So for our readers, we have brought the information about him in this article. Not only that we are also going to give the details about his chargers in this article. So keep reading through the article to know more.

What did Sean Plunket do?

The charges against broadcaster Sean Plunket for disseminating court documents have been dropped. The journalist David Farrier was mentioned in documents posted on social media by Plunket last year in relation to a temporary protection order and Family Court proceedings. Later, the order was revoked, and the case was dismissed. Farrier claimed that during this time, he was subjected to a “torrent” of harassment and false accusations of serious crimes. As he stated on his website, Webworm, “My hands were tied by the suppression… of the Family Court,” he was unable to set the record straight. Plunket was charged by police with two counts of publishing a report of Family Court proceedings without the court’s permission or leave to do so, containing identifying information about a person.

Plunket, the man behind The Platform’s online radio program, filed a not-guilty plea. According to a statement sent to Stuff, the police requested that the charges be dropped since they did not meet the criteria set forth in the Family Court Act of 1980. Farrier expressed surprise at Plunket’s conduct in a letter from March, citing the “notoriously confidential” nature of Family Court hearings. Following the dismissal of the charges on Wednesday, Farrier stated in his newsletter that publishing the specifics of any Family Court matter is acceptable as long as the parties involved are deemed “not vulnerable.”

Farrier received a temporary protection order from the Family Court last year when he was in Aotearoa New Zealand promoting his film, Mister Organ. Plunket released information about the case and identified Farrier on social media. The case was dismissed and the order was revoked many months later. Later, Farrier said that he believed con artist Michael Organ, the subject of his documentary, “was pulling the strings of this entire case” in an effort to thwart the film’s distribution. He continued by paraphrasing the judge’s decision, which stated: “There is considerable substance to the suggestions that the application was designed to impede the release of Farrier’s documentary.”