Crown bars naming of sex case star

Photo / Herald on Sunday

The Solicitor-General has blocked an attempt by a Crown lawyer to appeal against an order granting permanent name suppression to an entertainer who committed an indecent act on a 16-year-old girl.

The entertainer, in his 30s, admitted forcing the teenager's face into his genitals but escaped a conviction when he was sentenced by Judge Eddie Paul in the Auckland District Court two weeks ago.

He was granted permanent name suppression because publicity would have a negative effect on his career, consequences Judge Paul said would be out of proportion to the gravity of the "medium-to-low-level offence".

The Weekend Herald has learned that a senior Crown prosecutor looked into appealing against Judge Paul's order, but Solicitor-General David Collins, QC, blocked the move.

A spokeswoman for Crown Law confirmed an appeal had been discussed but declined further comment.

Meanwhile, the suppression order has been flouted by internet websites, blogs and an anonymous chain email.

"We just named him ... Sort it out John Key, even you wanted to know. It is a basic right. A criminal should own up to the crime he is found guilty of," the email says.

"Either he faces his fans and the general public of New Zealand, and admits what he did and takes responsibility for his actions, or we will."

Breaching a suppression order is contempt of court but also an offence under the Criminal Justice Act.

A spokesman for Police National Headquarters said no complaint had been laid.

The entertainer's defence lawyer Ron Mansfield declined to comment.

The man's name is already widely known with even Prime Minister John Key admitting he knew his identity.

Justice Minister Simon Power has since indicated he will change the law to stop cases of "celebrity justice" like that of the entertainer, or an All Black who in 2005 was granted name suppression after pleading guilty to assaulting his pregnant partner.

The Law Commission this month proposed changes to name suppression rules, but said well-known people should still be able to argue for secrecy if publication of their name would cause "extreme hardship".

It also wants internet service providers or content hosts to be subject to a "notice and take down" order, requiring them to immediately remove or block access to material that breaches a court suppression order.

It is not known how widely the orders would apply. If providers were expected to block customers' access to sites, it could require new technology.