The Supreme Court of Aotearoa New Zealand is currently deliberating on the possibility of granting a serial sex offender permanent name suppression. This comes in the wake of previous failed attempts at securing the same in lower courts after the perpetrator was penalized with home detention and supervision for pleading guilty to charges of rape, indecent assault, and unlawful sexual connection last year.
Emma Priest, the offender’s legal representative, made a case for her client based on the hardships he could potentially face in light of his misdeeds. She criticized the lower courts for their disregard for juvenile justice principles and argued that the United Nations Convention on the rights of the child demands that the best interests of the child be taken into consideration.
In Priest’s view, the logical approach would be to suppress her client’s name. Her argument hinged on the principle that his age and subsequent treatment offer him a higher possibility of rehabilitation—something echoed in the reports about him. These reports suggest that completion of intervention programmes could significantly reduce his risk of reoffending.
The attorney also highlighted the potential consequences of public knowledge of his crimes, which could have detrimental effects on his future employment and academic prospects.
The precedent set by the case of convicted rapist Jayden Meyer—who received a similar sentence but retained anonymity—was referred to by Priest, indicating the hardships her client could endure if his name became known. She detailed the risks of social media-driven harassment and referenced the extrajudicial punishment that the convict’s family had endured.
Drawing attention towards the media’s hostile depiction of the man as a calculating predator, Priest argued that his youth and autism compromised his culpability and were downplayed in his representation.
Zannah Johnston, the Crown lawyer, refuted Priest’s assertions, stating that it was not within the judiciary’s purview to regulate media discourse. She acknowledged the defendant’s autism but reiterated the continuous pleas from the victim for the offender to desist, pointing out the Crown’s stance on component two of their submissions.
Johnston dismissed concerns over possible repercussions of social media disparagement, asserting these instances rarely devolved into full-blown actions. She contested the premise that all online comments would necessarily reach wide exposure, and stressed the prevailing public interest in the case due to the gravity of the offences.
Johnston, opposing the idea that public knowledge of the offender’s identity would obstruct his social assimilation, called for the court to consider the public security implications of continued anonymity for the offender.
The Supreme Court is yet to make a decision on the matter.
Earlier this year, Ellie Oram, a survivor of the attacks who chose to forgo her name suppression to publicly discuss her trauma, expressed frustration over the continued legal deliberations. Oram was especially exasperated at the offender’s engagement in the process and the stall in court proceedings, which intensified the ordeal for the victims.
She voiced concerns regarding the offender’s unrestricted interaction with unknowing individuals. The legal proceedings against the man commenced following numerous allegations of sexual assault, lodged within 2017 to 2020, when he was 14 to 17 years old. He subsequently pleaded guilty to all charges related to offences against five victims.
