Naming accused ‘may hurt theatre production sales’

A man accused of sexual offending against a minor has asked for name suppression because it may affect ticket sales of an amateur dramatic production he is involved in.

The middle-aged man is accused of doing an indecent act with a girl aged under 15 and sexual connection with a young person late last year.

He appeared in a district court yesterday.

Stuff cannot reveal the location of the court or name the judge or counsel as it may lead to the identity of the production and the man.

The man’s lawyer applied for continued interim name suppression and filed supporting documents. He said the man, who was supported in court by his mother, sought the continuation of name suppression until the production came to an end.

The lawyer said the accused had ceased his involvement in the production, but there was a concern about the ‘‘flow-on effect’’ that publication of the man’s name could have on ticket sales.

The judge declined the application, saying ‘‘the overwhelming starting point or presumption in matters of this kind’’ was that courts operated ‘‘openly and publicly’’. ‘‘Orders for suppression of name are the exception, and certainly not the rule,’’ the judge said.

He said there were circumstances in which suppression orders were routinely made ‘‘but with respect, this hearing and these purposes are not included in those’’.

‘‘Embarrassment to family members is not an uncommon coincident of alleged offending. ‘It is important that the matter be publicly dealt with,’’ the judge said.

The man’s lawyer sought continued name suppression for 72 hours ‘‘pending an appeal’’.

The judge granted the application and gave the man until 4pm tomorrow to file an appeal.

University of Canterbury’s dean of law, Professor Ursula Cheer, said the man’s argument for name suppression was not a strong one.

‘‘We haven’t had one like this before,’’ she said.

‘‘It’s quite hard to argue that [naming a defendant] would affect your business, especially if you’re arguing for a third party.

‘‘Here they’re arguing for the theatre company rather than the individual. I’d say this would be a difficult one to be successful in,’’ she said.

‘‘There might be another concern as well, and I don’t know if that’s been addressed. Theatre companies often involve young people and there may be a greater public interest in that theatre company knowing about this person,’’ Cheer said.

‘‘If I was the judge I would certainly be asking what the actual evidence was that ticket sales would be affected . . . I’d be inclined to think it’s not going to have much of an effect,’’ she said.

‘‘If I was the judge I would certainly be asking what the actual evidence was that ticket sales would be affected . . . I’d be inclined to think it’s not going to have much of an effect.’’

University of Canterbury’s dean of law, Professor Ursula Cheer