A serial sex offender who has lost name suppression bids at every level of the court system – including at the Supreme Court – still can’t be named for around another two months.
He was a teenager when he raped, sexually violated and indecently assaulted teenage girls, some of whom he went to school with.
The offending occurred between 2017 and 2020, when he was aged 14 to 17. He pleaded guilty to all 10 charges and was sentenced in April 2022.
He is now 21 and is almost at the end of a two-year sentence, made up of a year’s home detention and a year of post-detention conditions including counselling and therapy.
Three young victims who waived their own rights to automatic name suppression, have previously called suppression an ongoing insult and today said the decision was “bittersweet”.
New Zealand’s highest court had provided an embargoed decision that would have allowed media to publish his name at 4pm today. However, new orders issued by the court this afternoon mean naming him has again been delayed.
The court says reasons for the further delay will be provided at a later date.
The man’s lawyers have argued throughout his bid for name suppression that he will face extreme hardship and/or his safety will be endangered if he is identified.
Concerns had also been raised about further deterioration of his mental health, particularly given his autism, should he be identified.
Additionally, a person connected to the man (but unconnected to his offending) also sought name suppression for themselves on the basis that publication would cause them undue hardship (a lower threshold than extreme hardship for the offender). If that suppression was granted the offender argued that their name should also be suppressed to prevent identification of the connected person.
The Court of Appeal accepted the connected person’s bid for name suppression but did not consider suppression of the offender’s name necessary to protect the connected person from undue hardship.
Both the connected person and offender appealed to the Supreme Court.
In a media release, the Supreme Court said it’s the first time it has specifically addressed the importance of youth justice principles and how they interact with the principle of open justice.
The charges were laid in the Youth Court, where the offender’s name was automatically suppressed. However, some of the charges were transferred to the District Court because he was 17 at the time of the offending relating to those charges and they included charges of sexual violation.
Once at the District Court, name suppression is dealt with under the Criminal Procedure Act. The man’s lawyers argued that there should be a presumption in favour of suppression for young people.
The Supreme Court noted that youth principles are to be given “powerful weight” when deciding on name suppression. However, the Act doesn’t provide for a presumption in favour of young people and that it would be for Parliament to enact changes to name suppression laws.
The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court’s finding that the threshold of extreme hardship had not been met. It said the High Court was “clearly right that there is a public interest in the public identification of [the offender]”. It agreed with both the District Court and High Court is saying it was “serious offending” over an extended period of time and involved a number of victims.
The Supreme Court also dismissed the connected person’s appeal for the offender’s name to be suppressed.
Interim name suppression of the offender will remain until June 14 2024 or earlier by order of a court.