The former political figure arrives at court. Photo: RNZ/Calvin Samuel
A former political figure found guilty of historical sexual abuse is taking his fight for further name suppression to the High Court.
The man, who is not a sitting MP, abused two teenage boys he mentored at a sports club in the 1990s and has been found guilty on eight charges of sexual assault.
He is due to be sentenced in November, but on Tuesday asked the court to give him further name suppression until then - his fifth such request.
The Crown, both survivors, RNZ, Stuff and TVNZ all opposed the application, arguing fair trial rights were no longer an issue.
The judge declined the application though the man's lawyer indicated he would appeal this decision, meaning name suppression rolls over until then.
The man will be sentenced on 22 November.
The arguments for and against suppression
The man's lawyer told the court the grounds of extreme hardship had been met, due to online vitriol and the mental toll the case continued to take on him.
His client had also invested in a small town business and had other business interests that would suffer if he were to be named, Ian Brookie said.
The case remained a "political football" and his client would be collateral damage if name suppression did not continue, the lawyer added.
Crown prosecutor Rebekah Thompson submitted the high threshold of extreme hardship required for continued name suppression had not been met.
She said both survivors opposed ongoing suppression and argued open justice must prevail.
"[The man] is someone who is now convicted of sexual assaults against two young males. There is no presumption of innocence. There are no fair trial rights. There is a genuine public interest in knowing the identity of someone convicted."
Thompson noted the suppression order was effectively a gagging order for one of the survivors, preventing him from speaking about what had happened to him.
She acknowledged there had been a lot of media interest in the case, but argued continued name suppression had fuelled that.
The publication of the man's name would result in a flurry of stories before coverage naturally died down, she said.
The prosecutor also added that members of the public who may be considering doing business with the man ought to be aware of his background.
Speaking on behalf of RNZ, media lawyer Robert Stewart KC opposed continued name suppression.
He said while it was possible the man's employment might qualify him for extreme hardship grounds, the former political figure had purchased equipment for a business in 2023.
Stewart said the man had made business choices at that time knowing he had been charged with criminal offending and it was these businesses he was now using to argue for further name suppression.
Stewart said there was simply no grounds for the application for ongoing name suppression and even if there were, public interest demands secrecy was not maintained.
"Fallout is the natural consequence of being convicted of criminal offending."
Judge David Sharp declined the application, saying fair trial rights were no longer an important consideration and there was public interest in the case.
Brookie immediately indicated his client would challenge the decision, meaning the man now has 20 working days to file an appeal in the High Court.