A company that employed a man later convicted of fraud is fighting to have his named permanently suppressed to avoid commercial and reputational damage. Photo / NZME
A company that employed a man later convicted of fraud is fighting to have his named permanently suppressed to avoid commercial and reputational damage. Photo / NZME
A property development firm that employed a man later convicted of stealing up to $1.4 million from an Auckland rest home is going to the country's highest court in a bid to have his name permanently suppressed.
The company knew about the man's background when it hired him and stood by him after he was charged by police, but now says it could suffer significant reputational damage if linked to his fraud convictions.
The company has just lost its latest bid to stop the man's name being publicly released, so it is seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court to prevent any "unjustified" commercial harm to the company or its customers.
The man is currently employed in a senior role for the company overseeing multi-million dollar land developments and dealing with rich financiers.
He was found guilty in August of 45 dishonesty charges linked to offending spanning seven years. He is likely to face jail time when he is sentenced in the High Court at Auckland next month.
The Herald has been following his case since 2017 but has been unable to name him due to court suppression orders.
Following the guilty verdicts, Justice Timothy Brewer ruled the man could finally be named in the interests of open justice and public protection.
However, his current employer appealed against the decision, arguing it would suffer significant financial and reputational harm if associated with the fraud.
The company's lawyer, Bob Hollyman KC, suggested people might think the firm was involved in a conspiracy to conceal fraud through its ongoing support of the offender, and alleged a vendetta by the man's former business partner to smear his name and anyone who subsequently hired him.
On Thursday, the Court of Appeal handed down its decision. It ruled the company would experience undue hardship if its name was linked to the man's offending, and agreed to suppress the firm's name.
Justice Timothy Brewer declined to grant the man suppression saying the public had a right to know about the offender's extensive dishonesty. Photo / NZME
However, it rejected the company's pleas to permanently suppress the man's identity, saying open justice principles effectively trumped the firm's private financial interests.
"The principle of open justice is of constitutional importance, and is fundamental to the common law system of civil and criminal justice," the decision said.
"The starting point, as this Court has repeatedly emphasised, must always be the importance in a democracy of freedom of speech, open judicial proceedings and the right of the media to report such proceedings fairly and accurately as 'surrogates of the public'."
During the two-week trial in August, the court heard the man had siphoned money from the rest home accounts for use on personal expenses such as school fees, Sky TV subscriptions and gym memberships, and to pay contractors working on his and his wife's dream lifestyle home.
Justice Brewer later said he was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the man had used an accounting system that he set up to systematically defraud the rest home.
People who had future business dealings with the man were entitled to know about his offending and should not have his criminal history concealed from them, the judge said.
During its appeal, the company that now employs the man argued he had been "transparent" about his background, and his employer had been willing to "give him a chance" in terms of his rehabilitation.
"This was not merely a matter of the employers' economic interests," Hollyman had argued.
"Rather, the public interest in supporting opportunities for people to redeem themselves is engaged."
It was also argued that linking the company to the man's wrongdoing, "or suggesting that they condoned that wrongdoing, would be inaccurate and unfair", with unjustified commercial ramifications.
But the Appeal Court ruled the company's economic interest in not being linked to the man's offending did not outweigh the principle of open justice. Prospective employers had a right to know about the man's dishonesty.
"The public interest in reporting [the man's] trial must prevail."
Within minutes of the decision being handed down on Thursday morning, the company's lawyers requested an interim suppression order relating to the man's identity pending an appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Court of Appeal granted the application, meaning the man's identify remains secret.
