A prominent entertainment figure, recently convicted of serious sexual assault charges, is taking his name suppression case to New Zealand’s Supreme Court after the Court of Appeal rejected his bid for permanent anonymity.
The Court of Appeal upheld High Court sentencing judge Justice Layne Harvey’s decision to lift the name suppression. The suppression was set to expire at 5 p.m. on Monday, but the Supreme Court has confirmed that the man’s legal team filed an appeal yesterday, seeking to maintain anonymity at the highest judicial level.
The victim in the case described the news of the further appeal as “frustrating,” though not unexpected, given the extensive efforts the accused has made to keep his identity confidential, the Rotorua Daily Post reported.
In addition to the appeal concerning the entertainment figure himself, a separate Supreme Court appeal has been lodged regarding the lifting of name suppression for an entity connected to the accused.
At the Court of Appeal hearing in September last year, the accused’s lawyer, Ron Mansfield KC, argued that lifting the suppression would expose his client to a severe social media backlash, which he described as “Trump on steroids.” Mansfield highlighted that the defendant had already faced extensive online harassment and misinformation campaigns.
However, in an April judgment, the Court of Appeal acknowledged the regrettable nature of the social media attacks but noted the irony that such public outcry inadvertently strengthens grounds for seeking suppression. Despite this, the court concluded that the threshold for permanent suppression, defined by extreme hardship, had not been met.
The judges emphasized that while the social media commentary was “repugnant,” continued name suppression was unlikely to mitigate the harm. They argued that lifting suppression would allow accredited media to provide accurate and informed coverage, which could serve as an “antidote” to social media misinformation.
The judgment underscored the principle of open justice, stating, “It is only if suppression is lifted that accurate and properly informed reportage will be able to occur.” The court further ruled that even if extreme hardship were proven, public interest did not support permanent suppression in this case.
The victim’s expressed desire for the suppression to be lifted was also a significant factor in the court’s decision.
Meanwhile, two witnesses who sought name suppression on hardship grounds had their appeals dismissed and have yet to file Supreme Court appeals. Their suppression orders are also set to expire at 5 p.m. on Monday.
The accused has held interim name suppression since his first court appearance in 2022, facing 25 charges related to sexual assault and drug offenses.
