A teacher jailed for sexually grooming and assaulting a female student - sending her links to porn and driving across the North Island to secretly visit her and have sex in a car while she was holidaying with family - has been granted permanent name suppression.
Last month the man was jailed for two years and four months after pleading guilty to a raft of sex charges.
He was initially refused permanent suppression but has been allowed to keep his name secret on appeal - despite the victim's opposition.
They included two charges of sexual connection with a young person, two representative charges of sexual connection and a representative charge of doing an indecent act on a young person.
A representative charge means police believe the man committed multiple offences of the same type in similar circumstances.
At sentencing in the Auckland District Court full details of the offending were outlined.
At the time of the offending the man was employed to teach English to international students. He has since been struck off the teaching register.
He was in his late 30s when he met the 15-year-old victim.
Just before Christmas in 2014 he sent her a friend request on Facebook and when she accepted, the pair regularly conversed.
The grooming began when the teacher asked if the girl had a boyfriend.
He then started to video call her, telling her she was "cute" and "pretty" and "smart".
At Christmas in 2014 the man told the schoolgirl he loved her and wanted her to be his girlfriend.
She reminded him she was only 15, but he formed a sexual relationship with her regardless.
The offending carried on even when the girl changed schools.
The teacher would ask the girl to meet him at a beach before school, where he would hug and kiss her on the cheek and lips.
Eventually the meetings were happening every morning.
The offending escalated when he convinced the girl to meet at his home and violated her in a variety of ways.
"A routine was then established where the [teacher] would drive the victim to remote locations where he would [perform sex acts on] her and ask her to do the same to him.
"On one occasion, the offending occurred at the victim's homestay.
"The victim wished to end things with the [teacher] but he bombarded her with messages, blamed her for his sexual offending and told her he would hurt himself if she left him.
"When she was in the Bay of Islands for a holiday, the [teacher] drove from Auckland to see her.
"On another occasion the [teacher] drove to the victim's address and asked her to meet him in his vehicle.
"The [teacher] had sex with the victim. Following this, the [teacher] sent the victim video links to pornography websites."
At sentencing the sex offender made an application to keep his name secret on the basis of mental health - that having his name published was likely to endanger his safety due to his "increased thoughts of suicidal intention".
The court also heard that the man's daughter was at risk of self harm or suicide if he was to be named, and his wife may lose her job.
Judge Nevin Dawson declined that application, saying the man had not sufficiently proven he would endure extreme hardship if he were to be identified.
Further, he considered the principle of open justice to be "paramount".
"The offending was very serious and was the kind of offending which the public have a legitimate interest to know about," court documents stated.
"There remained the possibility of further victims given the [man's] employment as a teacher."
While the man's application was rejected, Judge Dawson did suppress the names of the man's wife and children - referring to their "extreme embarrassment".
The convicted sex offender then appealed the decision in the High Court.
The man's lawyer Anoushka Bloem said Judge Dawson was wrong in saying the threshold for extreme hardship had not been met.
She argued publication of his name would "likely cause increased, stress, anxiety and suicidal ideation" - none of which could be managed sufficiently by the Department of Corrections while the man was in prison.
She told the court the man had a history of attempting suicide - some in prison while on remand and after being sentenced.
Bloem submitted that his name becoming public would "exacerbate his mental health and endanger his safety".
"The risk of suicide outweighs any public interest in his name being published," the court heard.
Bloem added that the man's daughter had a "fragile mental state" and would also suffer "extreme hardship" if he was identified and his wife - now the sole income earner for the family - could lose her job and also be unduly affected.
The Crown opposed the appeal.
Crown prosecutor Emma Smith told the court that the victim did not want the offender to have suppression.
She argued there was a legitimate public interest in the media being able to name the man.
She described his offending as "grooming behaviour" and believed there may be other victims.
Further, she said embarrassment for an offender's family was "ordinary" in such cases and part of the process of natural justice.
She said any risk to the man's safety could be managed by Corrections - and his wellbeing could be monitored "at all times" while in prison.
Smith said open justice and the publication of the man's name "heavily" outweighed permanent name suppression.
A psychologist told the court that the man had been sexually abused as a child and had "frequent thoughts" about ending his life, and experience panic attacks.
He had been diagnosed with depression, PTSD and anxiety.
The expert said suicide was a "real risk" and would be exacerbated if he was named publicly.
In his decision released to the Herald last week Justice Thomas Gault said the man "clearly" had a history of mental health.
He did not consider the man's wife would suffer undue hardship if his name was published, but would impact the daughter significantly.
"The [man] shares the same surname as his wife and two children," said Justice Gault.
"It is not a common name … I am satisfied it is likely that publication of the (man's) name would lead to the identification of his wife and children.
"I acknowledge the importance of the principle of open justice. (Judge Dawson) emphasised the serious nature of the [man's] offending and that it was of the kind which the public has a legitimate interest to know about.
"I agree … I take into consideration the fact that the victim opposes name suppression … the [man's] mental health and suicide rise is a factor which weighs in favour of suppressing his identity.
"However on its own, this residual risk may not outweigh the public interested in knowing his name, particular given the nature of his offending and a possibility of further victims coming forward."
Justice Gault said his decision hinged heavily on the man's daughter.
"I consider the interests of the daughter do weigh in favour of suppression," he said.
"I consider that in these very particular circumstances the balance clearly favours suppression.
"I am satisfied [Judge Dawson] erred in declining [the offender] name suppression."
Justice Gault allowed the man's appeal and granted permanent suppression.
The order also means the school the man was working at cannot be named.