An Auckland investment fund manager accused of assault and burglary after allegedly blinding his neighbour in a backyard scrap is battling to keep his name under wraps until the end of his trial next year.
Judge Anna Skellern reserved her decision on continuing suppression after a colourful hearing in the Auckland District Court on Friday morning, so his name will remain secret for now.
The man earlier pleaded not guilty to the charges of wounding with intent to injure and burglary and will fight his case at a trial set for the week starting March 11 next year.
He faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison if convicted and has been on bail since he was charged after his arrest on Good Friday this year.
The man did not appear at Friday’s hearing, where his lawyer John Munro fought for suppression until a verdict is reached at the end of the trial.
Munro argued the man would suffer extreme hardship via damage to his reputation if his name was published before he could defend the allegations.
He also argued publication of his name would affect his right to a fair trial.
Munro said the strong media interest in the case was because the man was “white and rich”.
He produced affidavits from people who had worked with the man. Munro said they supported his argument that his “very specialised job” and strong reputation would be jeopardised by being named.
“Will he lose his job? Of course he will,” Munro said.
“He will not get another job. Not with this sort of allegation.”
Robert Stewart, a lawyer acting for media organisations including the New Zealand Herald, argued against continuing suppression.
He said the Court of Appeal had made clear that the ordinary consequences of having a defendant’s name published after they were charged do not constitute the level of extreme hardship required for ongoing suppression.
That was the same for everyone, whether they were rich and white or poor, brown and a labourer, Stewart said.
In reply, Munro described Stewart’s labourer analogy as facile.
“A labourer wouldn’t lose his job, and if he did, he would be able to find another job,” Munro said.
He said the consequences of being named in connection with serious charges were not ordinary for a man of his client’s role and standing.
“It’d be incredibly unfair for this man to be cast across the papers,” Munro said.
Crown prosecutor Sam Teppett also opposed continuing name suppression.
Teppett said a defendant needed to prove more than just a loss of livelihood to meet the threshold for extreme hardship.
“Violent offending carries more of a public interest because the interests are to safeguard the public,” he said.
Judge Skellern’s reserved decision will be released in writing in the coming days or weeks.
The Judge indicated it would be released sooner rather than later.
The Herald is unable to publish the name of the man’s employer or those of the people who wrote supporting affidavits without risking a breach of the ongoing interim name suppression order.
The victim of the incident, captured on CCTV, is a 65-year-old who had just sold his business after a successful career and was looking forward to a motorcycling trip around Europe with his wife.
But he now requires ongoing hospital treatment and it was unclear whether he would regain sight in the damaged eye in the weeks after the attack.
The name of the couple cannot yet be revealed for legal reasons.
The alleged assailant, who holds a senior management role at a firm specialising in managed funds and KiwiSaver, was arrested shortly after 7pm following the Good Friday fracas near his $3 million property in a leafy inner-city suburb.
Detective Senior Sergeant Chris Allan, of Auckland City CIB, confirmed a man in his 40s was arrested at the scene after the altercation.
He was charged with wounding with intent to injure and burglary. The wounding charge has a maximum possible penalty of seven years in prison while burglary carries 10 years.
His employer declined to comment.
Police charge that he was unlawfully on the victim’s section when he committed the alleged attack, which is the source of the burglary charge rather than any allegation anything was stolen.
