You are not permitted to download, save or email this image. Visit image gallery to purchase the image.
A high-profile Central Otago man is heading to the High Court at Dunedin to argue for permanent name suppression - to the disgust of his victim.
The man, who has interim name suppression, pleaded guilty in the Dunedin District Court in August last year to a charge of performing an indecent act intended to insult or offend a woman.
He was convicted and ordered to pay $5000 emotional harm reparation and $1500 counselling costs.
He yesterday appeared in the Court of Appeal to appeal against the indecency conviction and to seek permanent name suppression.
His Central Otago-based victim told the Otago Daily Times last night, ''I just want to get on with my life knowing that justice has been done.''
''To allow him to walk away a free person would be so very wrong.''
Despite it being almost two years since the incident, she was pleased the case was being heard.
''But my feelings of disappointment far outweigh this small ray of hope.''
The Otago Daily Times and the New Zealand Herald were represented yesterday by Richard Fowler QC to oppose the making of a final suppression order.
News media organisations have a right to be heard on issues such as name suppression.
The man's lawyer, Jonathan Eaton QC, said his client, in a bid to avoid a public trial, pleaded guilty on the understanding he would be offered diversion or a discharge without conviction.
The advice, from his previous lawyer, that the Crown would not oppose the sentence options, however, was incorrect.
Yesterday, Crown lawyer Madeleine Laracy said it would have been ''irresponsible'' of the Crown not to ask the court to look at the aggravating features of the crime, which included a breach of trust and the fact the offence happened in the victim's home.
The man took a chance in pleading guilty and assuming he would escape conviction, she said.
''There was a risk associated with this. There was no guaranteed outcome.''
She said the man was now arguing his behaviour was not criminal, despite saying in an affidavit that he pleaded guilty because he deeply regretted his actions.
In the agreed facts, the man and the victim's family were acquaintances.
When he visited her Central Otago home late last year, he and the victim went into the kitchen where the victim was to make him a cup of tea.
The man approached her, attempted to kiss and touch her on the outside of her clothing, and then performed the indecent act. The woman rejected his advances, and her husband and a family member arrived soon after.
The victim made the men tea before leaving with the family member to go shopping.
Yesterday, the Court of Appeal judges said they did not have the jurisdiction to make a ruling on the permanent name suppression arguments, and sent the matter back to the High Court at Dunedin.
They reserved their judgement on the appeal against conviction.