A young man who raped and sexually assaulted fellow high school students at parties will have his bid for name suppression heard by the highest court in the land.
On Thursday, three Supreme Court Justices released their decision, agreeing to hear his case.
They found the case raises “questions of general or public importance” relating to youth justice, rehabilitation and risk, and the principles of open justice.
“Given the particular combination of circumstances, [his] case is one of those rare, and exceptional cases, where leave to appeal should be granted,” they said.
READ MORE:
* Teen rapist convicted after breaching home detention conditions
* Teen rapist will ask Supreme Court to keep his name secret
* Auckland teenager who raped and sexually assaulted fellow teens to be named
* Teen sex offender targeted young women at parties, wants to keep his name secret
The Supreme Court decision comes after the man’s bids to keep his name secret failed at the District Court, High Court and Court of Appeal.
A date for the Supreme Court hearing has not yet been set.
The young man, who is now 20, was a teenager when he admitted 10 charges including rape, unlawful sexual connection with a child, indecent assault and sexual conduct with a child.
The charges relate to offending when he was aged between 14 and 17 and carried out sexual attacks on six young women.
He was sentenced to 12 months’ home detention and a further 12 months’ supervision when he appeared at the Auckland District Court in April, 2022.
The Court of Appeal’s decision on name suppression, released in December, said the teen was concerned for his personal safety.
His lawyer, Emma Priest, pointed to “vigilante attacks” and the possibility of condemnation on social media.
Priest said her client had autism and ADHD and the district and high court judges wrongly assessed his culpability.
The Court of Appeal disagreed.
“One need only read the sentencing notes to see that this argument has no real prospect of success,” the decision said.
In sentencing the teen, Judge Claire Ryan started with a sentence of seven-and-a-half years in prison before applying various discounts for his mental health, early guilty pleas, youth, remorse and rehabilitation.
In the end she reduced his sentence by 73%, allowing her to impose home detention, while acknowledging he was getting “a lucky break”.
The Court of Appeal found publishing the teenager’s name was consistent with the principles of open justice that allowed the media and the public to scrutinise the courts.
Three of the man’s survivors have taken the unusual step of waiving their rights to automatic name suppression.
They have previously addressed the court, sharing details of ruined years following the teenager’s attacks. They support naming the offender.