The former political figure during his sentencing for sexually abusing two teenagers almost 30 years ago at Auckland District Court on November 22, 2024.
Photo: RNZ / Nick Monroe

The former political figure who sexually abused two teenagers in the late 1990s has lost his bid to permanently suppress his name.

The district court rejected the man’s request on Friday after he was sentenced to two and a half years in prison for the crime.

However, his name remains secret as he has already indicated that he will challenge Judge David Sharp’s name suppression decisions and his sentence in the High Court.

The man has been name-suppressed for 667 days, and today was his sixth request for anonymity.

His lawyer, Ian Brookie, today acknowledged that the District Court had dismissed the latest application, but said there were now “new reasons” for a separate, permanent offer.

Brookie argued that the grounds of “extreme gravity” were met where the man’s poor mental health, business interests and the publicity of the case were taken into account.

Ian Brookie suggested that the media coverage of the case was politically motivated.
Photo: RNZ / Nick Monro

He questioned whether there was public interest in the case or just “media interest”, suggesting that media coverage of the case was politically motivated.

“(The media is) interested in stopping the people involved in that party in the corridor and asking them this issue.”

He said the case remained “a political football” and his client was caught in the middle of it.

“It’s a political football of a slightly different nature to what it was pre-election, but it’s even stronger as a political football than it was then.”

Brookie argued that there was a “detailed suite” of circumstances that MPs determined would justify suppressing the name.

“Section 201 says that a court may make an order prohibiting the publication of the name, address or occupation of a person who is accused or convicted or acquitted of an offence.

“And I’m not sure if people really realize that the law doesn’t, at least as far as the law is written, make a distinction between whether or not someone is convicted or not when it comes to name suppression.”

Prosecutor Rebekah Thompson said the Crown’s position remained that the grounds for continued suppression had not been met, adding that both survivors objected to secrecy.

RNZ, Stuff and TVNZ all opposed the man’s continued requests for the name to be suppressed, arguing that the offender had no reasonable case for more secrecy.

“The defendant has been found guilty, he has now been sentenced to prison and in my view this clearly outweighs his private interests in keeping his name suppressed,” RNZ solicitor Robert Stewart KC said.

“The general rule of openness and what happens in the courts weighs heavily in my statement, and for the media I submit that the other interests … do not clearly outweigh the important public interest in this case.”

Stewart acknowledged that there was vitriol online on social media, but said that only underscored the importance of the work that accredited news organizations did.

He also said members of the public were important and prospective employers were informed by virtue of publication of a person’s past sex offences.

Judge David Sharp does not believe there is extreme hardship for the defendant in this case.
Photo: RNZ / Nick Monro

Judge David Sharp refused the man’s request to permanently suppress the name, saying that overall the extreme hardship grounds had not been met.

The government has just proposed a major change in New Zealand law that would give survivors, not judges, the power to determine whether convicted sex offenders receive permanent name suppression.

One of the former political figure’s survivors told RNZ that although the law will not apply to him, it is extremely good news for victims of sexual abuse.

He was not surprised that the offender in this case chose to appeal today’s decision to permanently suppress the name.

“Again, it appears that on behalf of the offender, he’s pulling every possible lever to continue to hide without any advance and accountability or any remorse or responsibility.”

The mother of the second survivor said suppressing the perpetrator’s name made the justice process much more difficult.

“It’s in the intestines. It’s everywhere. He does not deserve name suppression in any way. We know what kind of person he is.

“How can a person who has been found guilty in a court of law in our country be allowed to do this? It’s just incredible.”