Police investigate Grey Lynn shooting, Ngā Wai hono i te pō expected to continue her father’s legacy and hearing aid costs put older Kiwis at risk.
The public naming of a leading entertainment figure convicted of sexual offending will see a social media attack that will be like “Trump on steroids”, according to the man’s lawyer.
The leading entertainment figure, who was sentenced to 12 months’ home detention for indecentassault and attempted sexual violation, yesterday appealed in the Court of Appeal his sentence and a ruling his name suppression would lapse.
The man was found guilty by a High Court jury in Rotorua in August last year of indecent assault by touching a woman’s body under clothing and attempted sexual violation of the same woman.
The woman was hired by the man’s wife to be the family’s babysitter.
Justice Layne Harvey sentenced the man to 12 months’ home detention on November 10 and said during his sentencing the man’s actions were “unjustified” and “unacceptable”.
The jury found the man not guilty of three other charges relating to the victim and 20 other serious sexual and drug-related charges that were later laid by police relating to other women.
It was alleged at times he used hard drugs and alcohol to get women to have sex with him. Nine women gave evidence as complainants in trial.
Justice Harvey ruled that name suppression for the man, who was on trial for three months last year, would lapse on December 8. However, the man’s lawyer, Ron Mansfield KC, appealed the decision on December 7. That appeal was heard yesterday.
Mansfield told Justices Rebecca Ellis, Mathew Downs and Mary Peters the man had already been subject to online attacks. Mansfield submitted suppression would protect him from what was expected to be a “campaign” involving misinformation from a particular group online who were unhappy with the court’s outcome.
He described those who posted information on social media as being like “Trump on steroids”.
“They don’t care about the truth. It’s like Trump on steroids when we get to social media publications, they simply don’t care about the truth and that’s the damage.”
Mansfield said it was unlike mainstream media which had a governing body where complaints could be made. He said if mainstream media got something wrong, they were also subject to defamation proceedings.
“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.”
Mansfield detailed to the court some of the “bad” attacks online the man had been subjected to.
He said there would be personal and financial damage resulting from such attention on social media.
“In my submission, the only response that can be identified would be permanent suppression to at least in part provide some protection.”
The leading entertainment figure's trial lasted three months at the High Court in Rotorua. Photo / NZME
In response to that argument, Crown solicitor Anna Pollett said other actions could be, and had been, taken.
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 took the justices through all the actions available to people who were subject to online abuse. These included making a complaint under the Harmful Digital Communications Act where she said “take-down 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. She said people could also seek action and support through Netsafe.
Relating to the sentence, Mansfield submitted a sentence of 12 months’ home detention was too high and a sentence of six months to nine months was more appropriate.
Among his reasons was the man had been on bail for a long period leading up to the trial, worsened by delays caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. Mansfield said although the man’s bail conditions were not stringent, it meant he was not able to attend the funeral of a close relative overseas and he was not able to travel overseas, something he needed to do for his business interests.
He said any reduction in sentence would not have an impact in real terms, as he had now completed nine months of his 12-month sentence, but a reduction would make a difference to the conditions imposed on him once his sentence ended.
The justices also heard appeals for name suppression lapses relating to two people and their business, and two Crown witnesses who gave evidence at the trial.
The justices have reserved their decisions on all matters.
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.
