Johnston denies the allegations and earlier told the Herald he would take every step necessary, through the proper legal process, to clear his name.
“I understand the public may be interested in this matter, but as it is now part of a legal process, I cannot make any further comment,” he said at the time.
According to court documents, it’s alleged the offending occurred in Auckland between January 2017 and January 2021.
The alleged offending included multiple counts of male rapes female, unlawful sexual connection, doing an indecent act and meeting after sexual grooming.
Cole Johnston's trial is set to start on August 24 next year. Photo / Supplied
Court documents show police laid eight sexual violation charges, all of which are representative and carry a maximum imprisonment term of 20 years.
Johnston is also facing three charges of allegedly committing an indecent act on a young person aged 12 to 15.
All three are representative and carry a seven-year maximum sentence.
The final representative charge carries the same penalty but relates to alleged grooming.
Today, Judge Kathryn Maxwell addressed multiple issues, including media applications to photograph and film Johnston in court.
She set a hearing date for media applications to be argued on October 17 this year, and a trial date of August 24 next year.
Name suppression battle
In Auckland District Court last month, his lawyer, Sumudu Thode, argued Johnston should be granted name suppression as he had already suffered significant consequences.
Thode alleged that opportunities for him had been cancelled and others he had decided not to pursue.
Thode said Johnston had also suffered psychological and personal consequences. For example, a friend had now refused to have him in her wedding party, she said.
If his suppression was not continued, Thode argued there would be virtually “no prospect” of him recovering from the reputational damage.
She also said there was a risk his fair trial rights would be prejudiced and his family would suffer extreme hardship.
Prosecutor Emma Kerr said the application for name suppression did not reach the threshold to be granted, nor was there a risk to his fair trial rights.
Kerr told the court the charges were serious, the conduct alleged was not “fleeting” and naming him was in the public interest.
Judge Lance ruled the threshold for extreme hardship had not been met.
“I concur with the prosecution’s submission that in this case open justice should not yield.”
He said Johnston had not provided any evidence that his existing contracts or opportunities would be terminated if he was named.
Judge Lance did not accept there was a real risk to Johnston’s fair trial rights.
Katie Harris is an Auckland-based journalist who covers issues such as sexual assault, workplace misconduct, media, crime and justice. She joined the Herald in 2020.
Sign up to The Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
