Questions raised over World Cup streaker's name suppression

A teen streaker ran towards the field during the second half of the Russia v Ireland match at the Rugby World Cup. Photo / Alan Gibson.

A media law expert is questioning why a teenager who streaked in front of thousands of spectators at a Rugby World Cup match has been granted name suppression.

The 17-year-old was escorted from behind the try line at the Rotorua International Stadium after he ran towards the field during the second half of the Russia v Ireland match on September 25.

He pleaded guilty in Rotorua District Court yesterday to a charge of going on to a playing surface at a major sporting event without authority.

Judge James Weir granted the teenager interim name suppression because of his age and suppressed the name of his school at the request of his defence lawyer.

Judge Weir told the teenager he would be given the chance to clear his record and remanded him to appear for sentencing on December 14.

Media law expert Steven Price today questioned the point of the interim suppression order.

"The thing that's interesting about this is that it was such a public thing, in that presumably a whole bunch of people saw this guy streaking and therefore he's basically identified, and what's the point of the name suppression?"

Mr Price said he could not recall another case of name suppression for such a public offence.

"I'm not saying there never has been one, but I've never seen a name suppression granted where the offence has been conducted in such a public way."

Mr Price said interim suppressions lasted until a certain date and no longer, and it was fairly unlikely suppression would continue in this case.

"It's very common for some judges to grant interim suppressions like that for a short period of time to enable people to talk to their family. I have questions about the legality of that but it's done so often that I think many people would say that it's pretty much standard."

Mr Price said there was not a consistent pattern of suppression orders from the courts.

"It's quite a large amount of discretion that judges have in using the name suppression laws."

The law had recently been tightened to raise the threshold needed to grant suppressions, but the new rules had not yet come into effect.

"It's probably the case I would say that he wouldn't have got suppression under the new rules, had they come in force at the moment, but they're not yet."