Notorious prison escaper, sex offender wins ‘takedown’ case against media

Wednesday, 30 July 2025

Prison escaper and convicted sex offender Damon John Exley has won a case confirming media articles about him should have been removed from the internet before he stood trial in Wellington in 2023.

The Supreme Court has today confirmed that Exley’s right to a fair trial was absolute.

Any material that created a real risk of prejudicing that right had to be taken down from the internet until his trial was over.

The court decision does not change the outcome of Exley’s trial in July 2023 because interim orders had remained in place, to remove specific previously published material about him, until after the jury decided his case.

Exley was found guilty of abduction for the purpose of sexual connection, assault with a weapon, and rape.

During his trial a jury at the High Court in Wellington was told Exley, now 56, also known as John Douglas Willis, was previously convicted of offending in 2000 and 2005.

The Crown alleged those previous offences showed he had a propensity to use weapons to hold up women so he could sexually assault them.

The jury was read a statement that said real estate agents were the victims in both previous cases.

He was sentenced to preventive detention, an open-ended jail term, and was serving the term in February 2022 when he escaped from Rimutaka Prison disguised as a prison officer.

A woman in her 60s gave him a ride when he was hitch-hiking north of Wellington in the rain. He abducted and raped her.

Before his trial the High Court made a general “takedown” order at Exley’s request, for specified articles but also other online material referring to his previous convictions or character. The Court of Appeal overturned that decision.

His trial proceeded on the basis of the Supreme Court’s order relating to the particular articles Exley had specified being removed.

Media subject to so-called “takedown” orders could not argue Exley’s right should be balanced against other rights, including freedom of expression, the court said.

The court said in deciding whether to make a takedown order to ensure fair trial a judge had to consider the nature of the material, its extent and how accessible it was, and the circumstances of the trial.

The more prejudicial the material, the greater the risk to a fair trial.

The law recognised the risk that jurors might undertake internet searches, despite being told not to. A judge could take into account the likelihood of that happening in any particular case, bearing in mind factors including the length of the trial and the publicity it attracted.

Judges should tell jurors not to search online and to decide the case solely on the evidence given in court, and stress collective responsibility and the duty to make known if another juror brought to court “extraneous material”.

Jurors might be asked to confirm on oath before the verdict is delivered that the rules were followed.

In Exley’s case some of his convictions were put before the jury to show he had a propensity to commit offences in a certain way, but that did not apply to all of his “very extensive” criminal history, the Supreme Court said.

The tone of previous reporting could be relevant, whether it was sensational or inflammatory and how widespread it was, it said.

In Exley’s case the propensity evidence the jury was to hear was in contrast to the tone of other reporting about him which had been inflammatory and prejudicial, the Supreme Court said.

It was also extensive and easily accessed using an internet search, the court’s decision said.

His latest trial was high profile and that heightened the risk of a juror looking for or being sent the material which, if a juror saw it, was a real risk to his right to a fair trial.

He continued to serve the sentence of preventive detention imposed after his latest trial. He had to serve at least nine years’ jail before he could be considered for parole.