While the offending occurred in Auckland, lawyers for the defendant and NZME are based in Auckland, and the defendant is now in another city, the case is being heard in Wellington.
On instructions from Mansfield, defence lawyer Harrison Smith told the court via video link that while his client accepted the assault occurred, there was some dispute about the details.
Defence lawyer Harrison Smith. Photo / Jason Oxenham
Summarising an affidavit from the defendant’s employer, Smith said the firm took staff misconduct, particularly criminal allegations, very seriously.
It was satisfied his client did not present a health or safety risk.
“It’s for that reason, pending the results of the prosecution, that his employment has continued.”
If the lawyer lost name suppression, the firm would have to “seriously reconsider” and “very likely” terminate his employment because of the reputational harm it would suffer.
Smith said his client was reported to be a positive and contributing member of the law firm.
As well as the firm’s submission that it would face hardship if the man was identified, the accused lawyer said he would face extreme hardship if he lost his employment and could not meet living and rehabilitation expenses.
Smith said there would not be public interest at this stage of the prosecution because the facts of the charge he pleaded guilty to were still disputed.
Police were neutral to the man’s suppression application, but said the prosecution was not swayed by the defendant’s employment consequences.
“Lawyers are expected to behave.”
NZME legal counsel Isabella Ieremia, also appearing by video link, said the accused lawyer’s application did not meet the extreme hardship threshold, nor did his employer’s undue hardship claim.
She submitted that because he had pleaded guilty to assaulting the woman, there was a higher public interest in this case than if he had denied the charge and proceeded to trial.
Ieremia said the employment consequences of being named cited by the defence were speculative.
“In any event, it’s important that we recognise, sir, that law does not offer greater protection in this context to professionals.
“It is not that [the defendant] might be unemployable in the general sense. The concern as I understand it is he might not be able to continue his employment with [the firm].”
She also submitted that, as a lawyer representing clients in criminal matters, he would be dealing with victims and vulnerable people.
“I do think there is a public interest in knowing that the person you are choosing to represent you is themselves facing criminal proceedings.”
Judge David Laurenson, KC, said the principles of open justice needed to be balanced against factors in favour of suppression.
“Police take a neutral position in respect of the application, essentially because of the stage the charges are at at the moment in that the facts underlying the charge are still disputed.”
He said police made it clear this wouldn’t necessarily be their position on permanent suppression.
The victim had expressed ”strong opposition”.
Based on the evidence before him, Judge Laurenson said he was satisfied that without suppression orders, there was a “real and appreciable” possibility that the more serious details of the assault would be reported and cause reputational harm to the firm.
“And the consequential termination of [the man’s] employment.”
If the serious allegations were reported, even if they were not accepted, they could adversely affect the defendant and his future employment prospects, the judge said, constituting extreme hardship.
He continued suppression until the charge was disposed of.
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.