Former political figure who abused teens loses name suppression

The former political figure who sexually abused two teenage boys in the late 1990s has lost his bid for permanent name suppression.

The District Court declined the man's application on Friday after he was sentenced to two-and-a-half years' imprisonment for the offending.

However, his name remains under wraps as he has already indicated he will appeal Judge David Sharp's decisions on name suppression and his sentence in the High Court.

The man has had interim name suppression for 667 days and today was his sixth request for further secrecy.

His lawyer, Ian Brookie, today acknowledged the District Court had declined the latest application but said there were now "fresh grounds" for a separate, permanent bid.

Brookie submitted the grounds of 'extreme hardship' had been met in the case when the man's poor mental health, business interests and the media coverage of the case were considered.

He questioned if there was public interest in the case or just "media interest", suggesting the media coverage of the case was politically motivated.

"[The media is] interested in stopping the people involved in that party in the corridor and putting this issue to them."

He said the case remained "a political football" and his client was caught in the middle of it.

"It's of a slightly different nature political football than what it was pre-election but it's even stronger as a political football than it was back then."

Brookie submitted there were a "detailed suite" of situations that lawmakers had determined would warrant name suppression.

"Section 201 says a court may make an order forbidding publication of the name, address or occupation of a person who is charged with or convicted of or acquitted of an offence.

"And I'm not sure if people really realise that the law does not, at least on the law as it's written, make a distinction between whether or not someone is convicted or not when it comes to name suppression."

Prosecutor Rebekah Thompson said the Crown's position remained that the threshold grounds for ongoing suppression had not been met, adding both survivors opposed ongoing secrecy.

RNZ, Stuff and TVNZ have all opposed the man's continued bids for name suppression, arguing the offender had no reasonable arguments for more secrecy.

"The defendant has been found guilty, he's now been sentenced to imprisonment and in my submission that clearly outweighs his private interests in keeping his name suppressed," RNZ's lawyer Robert Stewart KC said.

"The general rule of openness and what goes on in the courts weighs very heavily in my submission and for the media I submit that the other interests ... do not clearly outweigh the weighty public interest in this case."

Stewart acknowledged there had been online vitriol on social media but said that only highlighted the importance of the work accredited news organisations did.

He also said it was important members of the public and future employers were made aware, by virtue of publication, of a person's past sexual offending.

Judge David Sharp declined the man's application for permanent name suppression saying that on balance, the grounds of extreme hardship had not been met.

The government has just proposed a major change to New Zealand law that would give survivors, not judges, the power to determine if convicted sex offenders get permanent name suppression.

One of the former political figure's survivors told RNZ although the law would not apply to him, it was extremely good news for victims of sexual abuse.

He was not surprised the offender in this case had chosen to appeal today's decision on permanent name suppression.

"Again, it just seems that on behalf of the offender he's pulling every lever possible to continue to hide without any advances and taking accountability or any remorse or responsibility."

The mother of the second survivor said the offender's ongoing name suppression had made the justice process a lot harder.

"It's in your gut. It's everywhere. He doesn't deserve name suppression in any way. We know what sort of a person he is.

"How can a person who's been found guilty in a court of law in our country be allowed to do this? It's just unbelievable."