Duo who filmed indecent assault fight to keep names secret

The case was heard in the Court of Appeal today. Photo / 123rf

A woman who tried to insert an object into an unconscious man's anus and the man who filmed it are fighting to keep their names a secret.

The duo, who were both discharged without conviction earlier this year, had their appeal against a decision to lift their name suppression heard in the Court of Appeal in Wellington today.

Lawyer Lucie Scott is representing the female appellant and she argued that the only reason the survivor wanted the pairs' name suppression dropped was so he could "name and shame" them.

"It [the incident] was a prank, it was meant in jest, yes there was a guilty plea to indecent assault but it was not sexual offending."

However, Justice Mathew Downs said attempted penetration of the anus with an object was sexual offending, regardless of the motivation.

Scott conceded, stating that by definition she had to accept that indecent assault is a sexual offence.

Scott also argued that her client had received negative messages and comments in person including that she was a "vile rapist b***h".

According to the summary of facts, as the victim lay unconscious in the back seat of a car the then 27-year-old man began filming with his phone, and called out to check if the victim was awake.

When no response came, the woman, who was 20 at the time, leaned over from the front seat and tried to put the object into the victim's anus.

She continued trying to insert the item as the pair laughed and joked, before eventually removing it.

Initially the female appellant was convicted of indecent assault and the man of inciting indecent assault, but this was overturned in the High Court earlier this year.

The victim, Mackenzie Skinner, previously waived his right to name suppression to tell his story - and to help others.

The male appellant's lawyer, Sandy Baigent today argued that her client would face "fundamental harm" if the suppression wasn't granted and that he was suffering from mental health issues.

She told the court that the victim had a "sense of injustice" and that the victim was "positioning himself as a sexual abuse survivor".

She said that the victim had been able to raise awareness about sexual violence without naming the duo and that the pair have no issue with him trying to raise awareness.

Joe Mara, who appeared for the Crown, emphasised that while there may have been unusual or strange behaviour between the former friends, the victim was unconscious during the attempted insertion.

He said this meant there was an inability for him to protest or change his mind about what was going on.

While Mara noted some of the comments directed to the duo from the public were concerning, he said they did not meet the threshold of extreme hardship.

The Herald and Stuff's representative, Robert Stewart, agreed with the Crown and said there was no evidence in the form of extreme hardship.

The decision has been reserved.