Creamer submitted that Johnston was dealing with mental health issues and was “very concerned” his career would be taken away if “damaging” photos were publicised of him “sitting in a dock”.
Auckland entertainer Cole Johnston is facing a number of sex charges.
Johnston has performed internationally and spent years teaching child performers.
As well as this, he noted pictures of him in court could further feed into discussions on social media sites such as Reddit, where some users had “assumed his guilt” and where he had been subjected to threats.
NZME lawyer Isabella Ieremia took issue with the submission that a photo in the dock was characterised as “damaging” and said the media were unable to control what happened on social media.
She submitted that court proceedings were open to the public and argued Johnston’s opposition to visual and audio coverage in court was “without merit”.
Media were already free to identify Johnston as he had lost his bid for suppression, Ieremia said, and in-court media coverage would help ensure fair and accurate reporting.
The Crown was neutral on the application.
Judge Pippa Sinclair reserved her decision.
Offending against the initial complainant allegedly occurred in Auckland between January 2017 and January 2021.
Charges relating to three more girls were subsequently laid by police for alleged offending between 2014 and 2018.
Cole Johnston’s lawyer Sumudu Thode previously sought name suppression for the entertainer.
Last July, Thode argued Johnston should be granted name suppression as he had already suffered significant consequences.
Thode alleged that opportunities for him had been cancelled and others he had decided not to pursue.
She said Johnston had also suffered psychological and personal consequences.
If his suppression was not continued, Thode argued there would be virtually “no prospect” of him recovering from the reputational damage.
She also said there was a risk his fair-trial rights would be prejudiced and his family would suffer extreme hardship.
Prosecutor Emma Kerr said the application for name suppression did not reach the threshold to be granted, nor was there a risk to his fair-trial rights.
Kerr said the charges were serious, the conduct alleged was not “fleeting” and naming him was in the public interest.
Judge Simon Lance ruled the threshold for extreme hardship had not been met.
“I concur with the prosecution’s submission that in this case open justice should not yield.”
He said Johnston had not provided any evidence that his existing contracts or opportunities would be terminated if he was named.
Judge Lance did not accept there was a real risk to Johnston’s fair-trial rights.
Katie Harris is an Auckland-based journalist who covers issues such as sexual assault, workplace misconduct, media, crime and justice. She joined the Herald in 2020.
Sign up to The Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.