Wealthy child abuse offender granted permanent name suppression in high-profile appeal

An appeal against his permanent suppression was then filed by the Crown and heard in the High Court in June this year.

The Crown argued that the family’s wealth was greater than most offenders were able to draw on after release from prison.

“The family wealth means he will have somewhere pleasant to live where he doesn’t have to engage with anyone he doesn’t want to engage with,” prosecutor Matthew Davie said.

“Money often does make a big difference.”

Davie raised concerns about the man’s stated desire to start dating again once he was out of prison.

“His future romantic partners have a right to know about his offending.”

Davie also referenced two wealthy Kiwis who had been wrongly labelled as the defendant on social media or by artificial intelligence, saying that innocent people shouldn’t have to pay the price for the man’s offending.

The man’s lawyer, Emma Priest, said publication could result in “cancelling” of the man and his family’s company.

While her client had good family support, this did not negate the impacts he could face if he were named.

Publication would be a “complete barrier” to his rehabilitation and reintegration.

She said neither a future partner nor that person’s children would be at risk physically from her client.

In a decision released today, Justice Michael Arthur dismissed the Crown’s appeal and permanently suppressed the man’s name and that of the family’s company.

The decision said the experience of being arrested and the fear of going to prison was “stressful” for the man and had precipitated a decline in his mental health.

Justice Arthur said Judge Pecotic granted the man suppression after placing weight on the risk to his mental health and low risk of reoffending.

She also suppressed the company’s name after ruling that publication could cause the firm undue hardship and reputational damage “because it might be unfairly linked with the offending”.

Justice Arthur said information put before the court showed the man had a long history of mental health difficulties, pre-dating the discovery of his crimes.

The reports expressed serious concerns for the man’s mental state should he be publicly identified, and the guilt he would carry about his offending negatively affecting his family and their business.

“The charges themselves and the criminal proceeding were and are a cause of stress. Their nature is likely to lead to hostile publicity and comment.”

Justice Arthur ruled that Judge Pecotic had considered the principle of open justice and the seriousness of the offending when using her discretion to grant suppression.

Avoiding suspicion falling on innocent people, for instance those wrongly identified by AI, was not in itself a reason for refusing to grant suppression.

At sentencing, the man was granted a 3% sentence reduction for $50,400 he gave to two charities in the days before his scheduled sentencing.

The donations were made on June 9, 2025, and he had been due for sentencing on June 13 last year. However, that hearing was adjourned that day until the following month.

Judge Pecotic said the charities he donated to would benefit, and the payment could be regarded as supporting his expressions of remorse.

“On the other hand, the timing of the payment of the donations being so close to the day of your last sentencing date could be seen as an attempt to receive a reduction to an otherwise appropriate sentence.”

Priest had emphasised that this was not her client’s intention.

“She submits that the suggestion of a donation was something that came from her and, in her submission, it is linked to show [the man’s] expression of remorse,” Judge Pecotic said.

“I am prepared to consider it from that point of view, and therefore I will allow a further discount to reflect the donations.”

This was on top of the 5% discount he had already been granted for remorse, 25% for guilty plea, 10% for rehabilitation, 5% for previous good character, and 8% for mental health factors.

He was then sentenced to two years and five months’ imprisonment and was automatically placed on the child sex offenders register.

According to court documents, a Customs officer detected in September 2023 that a person in New Zealand was distributing child sexual exploitation material (CSEM).

The IP of that computer was obtained, and Customs made inquiries with Spark, which identified the defendant.

At several later dates in early 2024, a Customs investigator detected a person who had been distributing material using a different IP address but the same software.

On June 6 that year, a search warrant was executed at the man’s address.

Three laptops, three hard drives and one iPhone were seized, the summary of facts said.

The files found included images of pubescent girls performing a variety of sexual acts on men.

Some of what was captured could be described as involving sadistic sexual activity.

More than 11,000 unique objectionable publications were found depicting the sexual exploitation of children.

The children ranged in age from toddlers to prepubescent girls. One of the files contained bestiality.

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.

Lane Nichols is Auckland Desk Editor and a senior journalist for the Herald with more than 20 years’ experience in the industry.

Sign up to The Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.