Taumua Lui Naeata, 32, has had name suppression since he appeared before the Dunedin District Court in March last year, facing six sexual violation charges.
The allegations, which relate to a single complainant, stem from an incident in December 2024.
He has pleaded not guilty and is set to go to jury trial, but the rugby player has now abandoned his bid for anonymity after two courts ruled the suppression order should be lifted.
Naeata signed for the Highlanders last season, his first Super Rugby contract, after briefly turning out for Otago the previous year and playing professionally in Japan since 2018.
Having obtained Japanese citizenship in 2020, the defendant made a Brave Blossoms training squad the following year, but never won a cap for his adopted nation.
The Highlanders website heralded the signing of the 120kg Tongan-born loose forward, saying he would ‘‘bring his dominating physicality, along with his experience’’ to the team.
However, Naeata only made two appearances for the team and did not play again after the criminal charges were laid.
He was expected to play for Southland following his debut Super Rugby season, but did not end up in the Stags’ squad.
Naeata was initially granted name suppression, but after his rugby contracts dried up, the situation changed.
At a Dunedin District Court hearing in December, counsel John Westgate argued the order should continue because his client would be ‘‘unemployable’’ — even outside the sporting sphere — should his identity be revealed.
Naeata was the sole breadwinner for his family in Dunedin, he argued.
If the defendant was ultimately acquitted at trial, there would remain an indelible stain on his reputation, Mr Westgate said.
Judge David Robinson accepted Naeata would be adversely affected by the publicity surrounding the case, but determined it did not exceed that commonly experienced by those facing significant charges.
He stressed Naeata had to prove the publication of his name would likely cause ‘‘extreme hardship’’.
‘‘More than loss of livelihood or employment is required to meet that statutory threshold,’’ the judge said.
He determined suppression should be lifted, but Naeata immediately appealed his case to the High Court, resulting in an extension of the order until the March hearing.
Justice Melanie Harland noted the defendant’s initial work permit specified he could only be employed as a rugby player, but the scope of that had since been broadened.
She accepted that employment issues could result in suppression being granted, but said there was a lack of evidence as to the potential impact of Naeata being named.
The suggestion that no-one would employ him was ‘‘speculative’’, the judge said.
Justice Harland was similarly unconvinced by the defendant’s argument that he should receive suppression on grounds of financial hardship.
‘‘Without a full understanding of the assets, liabilities and interests [Naeata] and his family have, a proper assessment of the degree of hardship likely to be suffered by the appellant and his family cannot be made,’’ she said.
She declined to overturn the previous judge’s ruling, but the order remained in force until this week to give the defendant the opportunity to argue his case further up the jurisdictional chain.
The Court of Appeal yesterday confirmed no application had been lodged.
Naeata’s trial is scheduled to be heard in June, but the court heard it might be held as late as November.
He remains on bail.
