The case was heard in the Wellington District Court this afternoon.
The case was heard in the Wellington District Court this afternoon.
A high-profile prisoner accused of committing fraud from jail will keep his name secret for now.
The man appeared in the Wellington District Court this afternoon to argue against allowing his name to be published, saying it would prejudice his right to a fair trial.
His alleged offending includes dishonestly using an application for a small business cashflow loan, and using GST returns and income tax return documents to obtain a pecuniary advantage.
The IRD has accused him of using applications and documents in the name of multiple companies.
He has pleaded not guilty and elected trial by jury.
The man, who is self-represented, told Judge Noel Sainsbury his name should remain suppressed until resolution of the case because of his high profile.
“Continuation of publication keeps my profile in the public eye, including prospective jurors,” he said.
The man is accused of fraud. Photo / File
“It will be very easy in light of the high public profile to associate my other previous criminal history with my name, whether or not the specific articles... refer to my previous criminal history or not.
“Although the jury will know that I’m in prison, they will not be told what I’m in prison for.”
But Kristin Wilson, the lawyer acting for the Herald’s publisher NZME, who opposed the name suppression application, said at least some of the members of the jury would “almost certainly” know who the man was, and know some of his background.
“If his name is published in advance there is simply no evidence it is going to prejudice his fair trial rights.”
She said the defendant had had his name published by the media over a “long, long time”, and there was nothing to show he had ever been prejudiced by these.
Crown prosecutor Rachel Buckman also opposed the application, saying “a sense of reality” had to be applied to the case.
“The jury’s going to be aware that he was in prison at the time of the alleged offending,” she said.
Lawyer Michael Bott, who was assisting the defendant, said with high-profile cases such as this, there was less of a degree of “pre-trial fade”, meaning reporting about the man would remain in the public’s minds for longer, possibly tainting a jury pool.
Judge Sainsbury noted the man’s past was so “well-implanted in the general public mind” that it could be difficult for a potential juror to be impartial, if they came to court having recently been made aware of it.
But if name suppression remained in place, the jury pool would have “no recent pre-knowledge of the person they’ll be dealing with”.
If they were to recognise him, “at that point, they are subject to specific direction from the judge, and there is a better chance to control what they do”.
