In a judgment released yesterday, the Court of Appeal said it was “both unfortunate and ironic that the authors of such postings do not appear to appreciate that, in voicing their “concerns” and expressing their (generally infantile and ill-informed) views, they do little more than arm defendants with better grounds for seeking suppression”.
Despite this, they did not find the extreme hardship threshold had been met.
While the social media postings were “repugnant”, the Court of Appeal did not find that continued suppression would help.
“... It is only if suppression is lifted that accurate and properly informed reportage (by the accredited media) will be able to occur. Lifting suppression may well be an antidote to social media harm,” the judgment said.
They also said that even if extreme hardship had been established, it was not a case where the public interest favours permanent suppression orders being made.
“Open justice must prevail here,” they found.
The judges also took into account the victim’s views, which called for suppression to be lifted.
The man, along with two witnesses who also sought name suppression on hardship grounds, have had their appeals dismissed.
They all have 20 days to decide if they wish to appeal further.
The man has had interim name suppression since he first appeared in court in 2022 on 23 charges of sexual assault and drug-related offending.
He defended the charges and was found guilty by a Rotorua jury on two of the 23 charges, following a three-month long jury trial.
The jury took just over two days to reach their verdicts.
He was found guilty of indecently assaulting and sexually violating a woman hired as a babysitter.
He entered the babysitter’s room about 3am, picked her up out of bed and held her against a wall as he touched her body under her clothing and tried to sexually violate her. He stopped when someone entered the room.
Justice Layne Harvey sentenced the man to 12 months’ home detention on November 10, 2023, calling his actions “unjustified” and “unacceptable”.
Justice Harvey declined his bid for permanent name suppression, but the man appealed.
Mansfield said at the appeal hearing that suppression would protect the man from an anticipated “campaign” involving misinformation from a particular group online unhappy with the court’s outcome.
Mansfield said it was unlike mainstream media, which had a governing body to hear complaints. Outlets could be subject to defamation proceedings if they got something wrong.
“There’s nothing in the social media space at all and there’s nothing an individual can do if they are targeted in this way, as he will be.”
Crown solicitor Anna Pollett told the hearing other actions could be, and had been, taken against online commenters.
She said one man was charged with breaching suppression orders relating to this case and was fined $1500 and ordered to do 100 hours of community work.
Pollett outlined other actions available to people abused online. These included making a complaint under the Harmful Digital Communications Act so “takedown orders” relating to the damaging content could be made.
She said the process was publicly available on the Ministry of Justice’s website and did not require a lawyer. People could also seek action and support through Netsafe.
Additional reporting by Hannah Bartlett.
Sexual harm
Where to get help:
If it’s an emergency and you feel that you or someone else is at risk, call 111.
If you’ve ever experienced sexual assault or abuse and need to talk to someone, contact Safe to Talk confidentially, any time 24/7:
Alternatively, contact police.
If you have been sexually assaulted, remember it’s not your fault.
Kelly Makiha is a senior journalist who has reported for the Rotorua Daily Post for more than 25 years, covering mainly police, court, human interest and social issues.
