A teenager who raped and sexually assaulted fellow high school students at parties and social gatherings is asking the court to keep his name secret forever.

The 19-year-old was sentenced to 12 months of home detention and a further 12 months of supervision when he appeared at the Auckland District Court in April.

He had earlier admitted charges of rape, unlawful sexual connection with a child, indecent assault and sexual conduct with a child.

The teenager’s application for permanent name suppression was declined but his lawyer appealed. Three of the six young women who he attacked took the brave step of waiving their statutory name suppression and delivered powerful victim impact statements.

On Tuesday the teenager’s lawyer, Emma Priest, told the High Court in Auckland that while the survivors supported name suppression being lifted, it would not provide them any “peace”.

On Thursday Stuff reported the teenager had attended university for a week while serving his sentence, before Corrections did a U-turn and reversed their decision.

Priest said the coverage had portrayed her client as a “monster” who posed a threat of raping women on campus.

Defence Lawyer Emma Priest said the survivors would not be provided any “peace” by name suppression being lifted.

Justice Simon Moore said much of the public debate and coverage had concentrated on consent education, rather than the vilification of her client.

Priest said her client’s offending was the result of his autism and failure to read social cues.

“He could become a poster boy for the need for compulsory consent education in schools,” said Priest, referring to her client’s autism. “He is atypical, in my submission.”

She said her client’s youth, rehabilitative prospects and his personal circumstances including his autism all meant he should be given permanent name suppression.

She said he was undergoing a sex offender’s programme and sessions with a psychologist and was at low-risk of re-offending.

Priest said despite her client’s name suppression, he had been the subject of “vigilantism” with condoms filled with faeces being thrown at his house, and threats made online.

She also produced evidence from a mental health professional who found publishing the teenager’s name could increase his risk of self-harm.

Stuff’s lawyer, Daniel Nilsson, said the teenager’s mental health situation had not changed since Judge Ryan declined the teenager name suppression.

He conceded that the case had been the subject of a backlash on social media, but he urged the court not to let online trolls shut down legitimate public debate.

Kirstin Wilson for NZME, the publisher of the NZ Herald, said the teenager was not the victim. She said he had admitted a pattern of serious offending.

She said while much had been made of his autism and failure to read social cues, some of the attacks involved young women screaming and shouting “no”.

LAWRENCE SMITH/STUFF

Justice Simon Moore heard the appeals at the High Court in Auckland on Tuesday.

Crown prosecutor Brett Tantrum also opposed name suppression for the teenager.

He pointed out that Judge Ryan had addressed self harming risks in the District Court and that nothing had changed since her decision in April.

Both media organisations also appealed name suppression for the teenager’s school. At sentencing, the survivors indicated the school had not done everything it could have for them.

In her decision, Judge Ryan noted that a programme teaching students what healthy relationships look like and consent was only put in place after the offending came to light.

The school’s lawyer Katie Hogan said none of the offending happened at school and there would be undue hardship for the school if it was named.

The lawyers in the hearing ran out of time and Justice Moore granted leave to file further written submissions.

The judge has reserved his decision.