The suppression order had been put in place after his lawyer argued his career would be forever ruined and there would be a high-risk of self-harm if his name was published.
Media including the NZ Herald had already challenged the suppression and at a further hearing today before Justice Jill Mallon, a lawyer for Stuff argued the suppression was not justified.
Daniel Nilsson challenged the point around protecting the man’s future employment, saying employers would find out through checks and disclosure.
He also said the man was aware that people in his “circle” were aware of the offending, so the publication of his name would not necessarily increase the risk to his mental health.
“He thinks his reputation is already destroyed.”
But the man’s lawyer Shanna Bolland argued that because potential employers were averse to risk, wider public knowledge of the man’s offending would remove his opportunity to get further work.
If suppression remained, he could disclose his offending to a potential employer and show them the offending was an aberration and that he was low risk – as Judge Black found at sentencing.
Justice Mallon raised the “salacious” nature of the offending and said it tends to attract greater public interest.
Nilsson said there would be a period of increased pressure on the man if suppression was lifted, but this could be managed.
Justice Mallon reserved her decision on the suppression appeal.
