Accessible News

Top storiesNew ZealandPoliticsBusinessEntertainmentSportsWorld

Rapist loses two year legal fight to keep name secret

Tuesday, 23 April 2024

Rapist's two year fight fails at the Supreme Court

A man who raped and sexually assaulted fellow high school students at parties has lost his two year battle to keep his name secret.

But despite losing his bid for name suppression in the District Court, High Court, Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, the man cannot be named until June 14.

“For reasons that will be provided at a later day the Court made an interim order prohibiting publication of [the man’s] name, address, occupation or identifying particulars until 5pm on 14 June 2024 or an earlier order of the Court.”

The man’s two year battle to keep his name secret ended in the Supreme Court.
The man’s two year battle to keep his name secret ended in the Supreme Court.

The now 21 year-old was sentenced to 12 months home detention in April 2022, after admitting 10 charges, including three of rape.

He sexually assaulted six young women when he was aged between 14 and 17 years-old.

One of his attacks only stopped when another boy pulled him off the girl.

But while three of the survivors took the brave and rare step to have their automatic name suppression lifted, the man waged a protracted legal fight to keep his name secret and went all the way to the Supreme Court.

One of those survivors is Rosie Veldkamp. She and others have released statements through their victim advocate Ruth Money.

Veldkamp said lifting name suppression will be the first “sliver of justice” in the case.

“It has been an injustice to let females think they are safe talking to a ‘kind’ stranger without knowing the nauseating things he has done to women,” she said.

She said it was a “bittersweet” moment for survivors.

“I am happy to be so close to the end of this obnoxiously long case but heartbroken and frustrated that we are once again getting (what feels like) ignored by a justice system that has time and time again prioritised the mental health of our abuser over us survivors.”

Her mother, Donna Veldkamp said the continued appeals had come at a cost to her daughter and fellow survivors’ peace and healing but the decision brought relief.

Survivor Mia Edmonds said the Supreme Court’s decision was a victory for all survivors.

“Forcing sexual offenders to take accountability for their actions is essential, not just for the sake of justice, but for every single survivor in this country who will have to live with the violence inflicted upon them for the rest of their lives.”

She too emphasised the importance of women knowing about the people they choose to allow into their lives.

“Young women and girls deserve to be informed about the dangers posed by offenders such as this one; they deserve the ability to make an informed decision on whether they want to associate with someone who is capable of such great violence; they deserve to protect themselves.”

Her parents, Tracey and Scott Edmonds said the Supreme Court’s decision provided survivors with closure.

“That his name will be made public, will provide all women in the community the ability to protect themselves, and make informed decisions about the calibre of men they choose to spend time with.”

Like their daughter, they are calling for changes in the justice system to ensure perpetrators cannot continually fight to keep their names secret.

They said the survivors had shown they are stronger and wiser than the man who attacked them.

“[T]hey are so much more than the story of the sexual violence they endured and survived.”

Another survivor is Ellie Oram.

Chief Justice Dame Helen Winkelmann.
Chief Justice Dame Helen Winkelmann.

“We were told he was remorseful yet he played every card to grant him a new lifeline.”

She paid tribute to her fellow survivors who she said had shown grace and empowerment throughout.

“No sentence, no punishment, nothing could ever change what he did that night and the long term damage he left me to face.”

In a unanimous decision released on Tuesday, the Supreme Court said the case required balancing the principles of open justice - the public’s right to know and accountability - with youth justice principles that provide a young person anonymity in order to better their chances of rehabilitation and reintegration into the community.

In declining to grant name suppression, the Supreme Court said there was a public interest in the man’s name being known and naming him was a factor in him being held to account.

“That there is a public interest in knowing of [his] character is supported by the views of the victims. The offending has plainly affected their day-to-day lives and their recovery in a number of respects,” the Court said.

The young women told the court there may be other women who come forward once their attacker is named.

“The victims are also concerned about the potential there will be other complainants in the future, absent any ability to warn young women about [his] previous offending.

The Supreme Court said the case “was not simply that of ‘a teenager who has made some terrible mistakes’.”

Instead, the Judges noted the offending was serious.

The man’s lawyers had argued their client had an honest but unreasonable belief in consent but the Court rejected the argument, labelling it as “untenable”.

“As the High Court said, ‘[m]any of his victims told him to stop. One in particular was screaming out in pain before he stopped.’

“This was not a case of missing some social cues.”

The Supreme Court also reiterated its position that the principle of open justice is the starting point in all applications for name suppression.

The man’s charges were initially laid in the Youth Court but were transferred to the adult court because some of his offending occurred when he was 17 years-old and involved serious charges of sexual violation.

At his sentencing in April 2022, Judge Claire Ryan started with a prison sentence of seven-and-a-half years before applying various discounts for the man’s early guilty pleas, mental health, and remorse and rehabilitation.

Judge Claire Ryan.
Judge Claire Ryan.

She got down to two years in prison, which allowed her to impose a sentence of home detention.

“…You have been given a lucky break here. The Crown asked me to imprison you,” Judge Ryan told the man.

“I have not imprisoned you because I do not want to see you back here as an older offender, much more skilled in the ways of committing sexual violence.”

Justice Simon Moore at the High Court in Auckland.
Justice Simon Moore at the High Court in Auckland.

He would go on to breach his home detention conditions. He also breached his release conditions by using fake fetish urine in an effort to beat a drugs test.

The man asked the District Court to permanently suppress his name. His lawyer, Emma Priest, argued her client had mental health issues and recent diagnoses of autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

She said her client would be subjected to negative media coverage, there was a potential for vigilante attacks and naming him would affect his future employment and social opportunities.

The Court of Appeal declined to hear the case.
The Court of Appeal declined to hear the case.

Judge Ryan determined the man’s mental health would likely deteriorate if he was named and that it met the threshold of endangering his safety.

But when she balanced that with the public interest, Judge Ryan determined the man was being “well managed” in the community and had support in place.

The man appealed to the High Court where it was also argued a person connected with him would suffer undue hardship if named.

The Supreme Court of Aotearoa/ New Zealand.
The Supreme Court of Aotearoa/ New Zealand.

Justice Simon Moore suppressed the name of the connected person but dismissed the man’s appeal.

He acknowledged mental health issues but said the man had support in place and the seriousness of the offending, open justice principles and the views of the survivors who wanted him named all outweighed those concerns.

Justice Moore accepted the man’s employment could be affected if his name was published but said the man would have to disclose his convictions when applying for a job.

The man then went to the Court of Appeal who declined to hear the case.

In its decision the Court noted the case was not an “adolescent experimentation with sex and intoxicants” but, instead, “persistent or repeated offending extending to sexual violation”.

The Court of Appeal went on to say the public was entitled to make their own character assessment of the man and to do so, they must know his identity.

But the man was given leave to take his case to the highest court in the land- the Supreme Court.

In its decision, the Supreme Court reiterated the “fundamental nature” of open justice principles, referring to an earlier case.

“It is a principle of constitutional importance, and has been described as ‘an almost priceless inheritance’.

“The principle’s underlying rationale is that transparency of court proceedings maintains public confidence in the administration of justice by guarding against arbitrariness or partiality, and suspicion of arbitrariness or partiality, on the part of courts.”

The man’s lawyers argued New Zealand law must be interpreted in a way that is consistent with the country’s obligations under international agreements.

They include the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which requires the courts to act in “the best interests of the child”.

In its decision, the Supreme Court confirmed that brain development in young people meant they were more likely to be impulsive.

The Court also acknowledged young people had a better chance of being rehabilitated.

But the Court said youth is only one factor and it would be wrong in law to automatically give young offenders outside of the Youth Court name suppression when New Zealand law did not provide for that.

The Supreme Court acknowledged The man’s mental health but noted he had support and had sought treatment.

“We accept that the burden on [the man’s] family in seeking to maintain support for [him] is a considerable one. [The man’s] mother described the pressure as ‘overwhelming’ on the family, as well as on [him].”

In addressing concerns about social media, the Court found the man’s case was not as extreme as other cases.

The Court also acknowledged vigilante attacks, including a report to the police of condoms filled with dog excrement being thrown at his family home.

“However, while, as the High Court said, this is obviously unacceptable, it is the case that those who have undertaken the vigilante activities to date obviously knew [him] and of his offending, despite the existing suppression order.”

At one point the Court considered suppressing commentary on social media only.

“We record that there was no support in the submissions for this option which would, in any event, have given rise to some definitional and practical issues.”

The decision concludes with a plea to the media and social media users to be responsible, given the man’s youth and mental health.

“We express the hope that there is no repetition of the inappropriate commentary that has featured, albeit infrequently, in social media to date.”

Sexual violence: where to get help