Sisters consider appeal in bid to name sex attacker

Christchurch sisters Karen Beaumont and Anne-Marie Forsyth want to expose the man who sexually abused them when they were aged between 10 and 14 in the 1970s. Photo / Givealittle

Two sisters "disappointed" by a judge's decision not to quash name suppression for a man who sexually abused them 40 years ago are considering an appeal.

Christchurch sisters Karen Beaumont and Anne-Marie Forsyth launched landmark legal action to try and expose the identity of a man who sexually abused them when they were aged between 10 and 14 in the 1970s.

After a judicial review at the High Court in Christchurch, Justice Cameron Mander rejected their bid in a decision released this week.

It has been two decades since the man, known in court only as 'A', was convicted and the judge said publication of his name now would likely cause him "extreme hardship".

Publication of his name after such a long period would be "quite out of the ordinary", Justice Mander concluded.

Today, the sisters' lawyer Nikki Pender said they are disappointed by the decision.

"The result obviously didn't go the way they wanted," she said.

They have 20 days from Tuesday's release of Justice Mander's judgement in order to lodge an appeal.

Ms Pender said the sisters are still digesting the decision and taking advice on their options.

"They are still mulling it over. There are lots of issues to consider, not least of which, from a practical perspective, is the costs involved," she said.

"An appeal is still something they are considering as one of the options."

Two decades after the sisters were sexually abused, they lodged a complaint with police.

The man was charged and in May 1994, a district court judge made an interim name suppression order.

During the judicial review earlier this year, Ms Pender said the victims were not consulted before that suppression order was made.

After a three-day jury trial at Christchurch District Court in 1995, the man was convicted on five counts of sexual offending and jailed for 12 months.

The suppression order was never reassessed and remained in place.

The man's criminal record was later "circulated widely", Ms Pender said.

The Sensible Sentencing Trust (SST) published it on its website.

In 2010, a complaint over SST's publication was lodged with the Privacy Commissioner.

Later, the Human Rights Commission also laid proceedings against SST for breach of human rights.

SST unsuccessfully appealed the orders and removed the man's details from their website.

Meanwhile, the sisters were "largely oblivious" to the actions.

In 2013, they applied to become party to the privacy proceedings.

They also applied to Christchurch District Court for an order permitting publication of their names, which was later granted.

Ms Pender said that "at a very high level" the original suppression order was "inappropriate".

Furthermore, it should never have remained in place, she argued, and was again assessed as being inappropriate once the sisters themselves had their own name suppression lifted.

Since he was sentenced, the man has been able to live a life on a "false premise", Ms Pender said, with people not knowing is a convicted sex offender.

The man's lawyer, Jonathan Eaton QC told the court that the sisters' bid to have their attacker's name suppression revoked was "grossly inappropriate and unfair", given the "extraordinary" 20-year delay in lodging the court action.

The lawyer argued that there would be a "real unfairness" to the man if the suppression order was to be revoked.

"The passage of time and its impact on memory, the emotional response of the applicants and the media hype all conspire to remove any prospect this case could be fairly reported in 2015," his submission stated.