The soldier, seen here during his court martial, can still not be named. Photo / Adele Rycroft
By Jimmy Ellingham of RNZ
The veil of secrecy surrounding a “traitor” soldier with links to far-right groups, and who thought he was spying on New Zealand, will stay in place for now.
The soldier could still fight to keep his name secret, despite two courts now ruling there are no grounds, so cannot yet be named.
A judgment from the Court Martial Appeal Court, released on Monday, also says the name of the country the soldier thought he was passing information to will remain secret, while the man’s sentence of military detention has been replaced with 15 months in a civilian prison.
This is the first military prosecution in New Zealand for espionage or attempted espionage.
At a court martial at Linton Military Camp near Palmerston North last year, the soldier was sentenced to two years of military detention after admitting a charge of attempted espionage. He was also kicked out of the military.
Authorities zeroed in on the soldier after the 2019 Christchurch mosque attacks due to his links to far-right groups, Action Zealandia and the Dominion Movement.
The then-27-year-old was twice questioned by police about his involvement in the New Zealand identitarian movement, which is concerned with preserving white European identity.
His defence lawyer told his court martial the soldier felt under so much scrutiny that he expressed a desire to defect. The soldier said this was because he feared for his safety in New Zealand.
Later that year he was caught in a sting, where he thought he was handing over information to a foreign country, whose name is suppressed.
The soldier was contacted by an undercover officer purporting to represent that country in November and the pair met the next day. The soldier had, as asked, prepared a document outlining how he was prepared to help the foreign country.
As contact developed he passed or attempted to pass on sensitive material, such as maps of defence bases, his password to the Defence Force integrated exchange system and his ID card.
The soldier was arrested in late 2019. After a short period in military detention he was under open arrest until his Court Martial in August.
The soldier also admitted charges of dishonestly accessing a computer system and possessing objectionable material. That was a video of the 2019 Christchurch mosque attack and a copy of the terrorist’s manifesto, found when he was arrested.
The Crown appealed against the sentence of military detention, arguing it was inadequate, and saying only time served in a civilian jail would suffice.
“The absence of loyalty, betrayal of oath and being a traitor to his country are characteristics of this offending,” Crown prosecutor Lieutenant Colonel Rob Goguel told the Court Martial Appeal Court during a hearing in October.
Defence lawyer Steve Winter argued the soldier’s crimes were against the military ethos, and a military solution would be best for a charge of attempted espionage.
In its ruling, the appeal court said the starting point of the court martial judge’s sentencing calculations was too low.
It found the judge was right to allow a discount in sentencing for the lengthy time it took from the soldier’s arrest until his Court Martial hearing, although overall reductions were slightly too generous.
It acknowledged the court martial judge sentenced the soldier to the maximum allowed term of military detention.
“However, in the circumstances of this case, we accept the Crown’s central submission that a sentence of imprisonment was required to prove a proportionate response to the offending,” the appeal court judgment said.
“In concluding otherwise, the court martial underweighted the purposes of denunciation and deterrence and overweighted to purposes of rehabilitation and reintegration.”
Had a civilian offended in a similar way the appeal court said only a prison sentence would be considered appropriate.
The appeal court judgment said the soldier’s ability to reintegrate into society after prison would be no better if he served time in military detention, compared with a civilian jail.
If he were considered at risk in jail, because of his offending, Corrections had ways to deal with that.
The appeal court said two years and three months’ jail would have been appropriate.
Because the soldier had already spent eight months in military detention, he would now serve 15 months in jail.
He won’t have to appear in front of the Parole Board. Instead, he goes before a Reconsideration Authority every six months. The authority can slash the sentence on grounds such as good conduct.
The appeal court agreed with the decision made at the court martial not to suppress the soldier’s name.
But because he might file a further appeal, he cannot yet be named.
At the court martial the soldier’s lawyers argued his name should be suppressed because naming him would cause extreme hardship to him, his wife and children; his wife and children would be in danger; and it would prejudice the security or defence of New Zealand.
The judge declined suppression, saying even if the thresholds for these grounds were reached, he wouldn’t have granted suppression as public interest outweighed the concerns of the soldier.
Now, the appeal court has ruled against suppression, agreeing with the court martial judge that open justice trumped the soldier’s interests.
RNZ sought permission to appeal against the decision to suppress the name of the country the soldier thought he was passing information to.
At the appeal hearing, RNZ was represented by Robert Stewart KC, who said media were initially unable to see material relating to the matter.
After undergoing security vetting it was made available, and Stewart said concerns about the suppression order were “heightened” as a result.
Stewart said the law was changed more than a decade ago to give media the right to take part in suppression discussions in civilian courts and courts martial.
But he acknowledged there was nothing allowing them to make appeals about rulings at courts martial.
The appeal court ruled because of this, RNZ would not be granted leave to appeal.
It said the gap in the law was addressed in a bill before parliament, but that was not enforceable in this case.
“Even if there were jurisdiction, we do not consider the merits of this application are strong,” the appeal court judgment said.
The soldier initially faced 17 charges under the Armed Forces Discipline Act. A years-long period of pre-trial hearing then followed.
Those 17 charges were withdrawn in March 2025 and replaced by the three charges the soldier admitted.
The soldier didn’t speak during his Court Martial, but a statement from him was read by his lawyer.
“Both of these groups are no more than groups of friends with similar points of view to my own,” the soldier said of Action Zealandia and the Dominion Movement.
“Both of these groups were a positive experience for me. We tried to support each other in a social environment.”
The soldier described himself as a proud New Zealander, saying that was why he joined the army.
He said he did not support the Christchurch mosque attacker’s ideology and the March 2019 attack had shocked and confused him.
The soldier said after his arrest he was subject to harassment, including someone trying to knock him off his bike when he was riding with a young child.
- RNZ