A member of a wealthy New Zealand family who was convicted of having “extreme” child abuse material should be publicly identified as he wants to date again once he leaves prison, and his future partner has a “right to know”, the Crown says.

However, the man’s lawyer argued there was “no identified risk” of potential harm to a romantic partner or their children.

“It simply doesn’t arise in terms of something that a future partner needs to have any concerns about in terms of [the partner’s] own physical safety.”

The man was jailed in August by Auckland District Court Judge Maria Pecotic for knowingly possessing thousands of objectionable material files and knowingly importing the content.

His name, his family’s name and their high-profile company were permanently suppressed.

An appeal against his permanent suppression was then filed by the Crown.

Today in the High Court at Auckland, Crown prosecutor Matthew Davie submitted that Judge Pecotic erred in not identifying and placing weight on the “family resources” which were “somewhat different” to what ordinary offenders had access to.

“The family wealth means he will have somewhere pleasant to live [when he was released from prison] where he doesn’t have to engage with anyone he doesn’t want to engage with.”

Davie said other offenders may have to engage with the rental market and strangers who know about their offending.

While the Crown was not suggesting the man become a hermit, Davies said the defendant’s life would be made easier due to the family’s wealth.

“Money often does make a big difference.”

Davie raised concerns about the man’s stated desire to start dating again once he is out of prison.

“His future romantic partners have a right to know about his offending.”

Davie also referenced two wealthy Kiwis who had been wrongly labelled as the defendant on social media or by AI, saying innocent people shouldn’t have to pay the price for the man’s offending.

Much of the Crown submission related to its assertion that the District Court judge had made a mistake when granting the man name suppression following mental health issues.

By now, Davie said the shock of the charges, fall from grace and concern for how the man’s family would react would have long worn off.

The man now knew his family “stands by him” and would “continue to do so” after he was released from prison.

“If it’s the fear of prison that’s the stressor, then once you’re [in prison] the fear of going there and the uncertainty is dissipated.”

The man’s lawyer, Emma Priest, said publication could result in “cancelling” of the man, and his family’s company.

In her submission, while her client did have good family support, this did not negate the impacts he could face if he were named.

Emma Priest. Photo / Supplied

She said publication of his name would be a “complete barrier” to his rehabilitation and reintegration.

She said neither a future partner nor that person’s children would be at risk physically by her client.

Priest submitted that the earlier decision was “effectively faultless” and comprehensive.

Julie-Anne Kincade, KC, who is representing the family company, also said the earlier suppression ruling was correct.

She said not only did her client seek its own suppression, but in order to give rise to that, the defendant’s name also needed to be suppressed.

She claimed that reporting, particularly by National Business Review (NBR), included “strong bias”.

Kincade alleged that NBR had “set out deliberately” to repeatedly undermine the District Court name suppression decision.

Julie-Anne Kincade KC.

While Customs brought the appeal, she alleged it was driven by the views expressed in the NBR articles.

She also alleged there had been a breach of suppression, after a lawyer allegedly said on an NBR podcast they knew who the defendant was.

NBR senior journalist Simon Shepherd told the court the news company took exception to the criticisms of NBR reporting and some of the respondents’ submissions.

Shepherd sought to file written submissions after taking advice from the publisher.

He told the court NBR was not given the opportunity to see the submissions prior to today’s hearing.

“This is the first time I’ve heard of them.”

In court today, Kincade opposed Shepherd’s application to file written submissions.

Justice Arthur replied that he would have some difficulty making a decision about whether there was a suppression breach without hearing a submission from the person accused of the breach.

Kincade said she was not seeking a ruling that there had been a breach.

Justice Arthur said he had some idea of the issues that would be raised by NBR, citing some “pointed criticisms” of the publication’s reporting by Kincade, but he said he could not make a finding as NBR was not a party to the proceeding.

He told the court he would note NBR’s request to be heard, but declined the application because he was not being asked to make a finding against the publication.

Other issues raised by Kincade included that other family members could be mistaken for the defendant if he were named and a claim that there was no public interest in naming the company.

Justice Arthur reserved his decision.

Sentencing

At sentencing, the man was granted a 3% sentence reduction for $50,400 he gave to two charities in the days before his scheduled sentencing.

The donations were made on June 9, 2025, and he had been due for sentencing on June 13 last year. However, that hearing was adjourned that day until the following month.

Judge Pecotic wrote in sentencing notes provided to the Herald that the charities he donated to would benefit, and the payment could be regarded as supporting his expressions of remorse.

“On the other hand, the timing of the payment of the donations being so close to the day of your last sentencing date could be seen as an attempt to receive a reduction to an otherwise appropriate sentence,” she said.

Priest had emphasised this was not her client’s intention in making the donation.

“She submits that the suggestion of a donation was something that came from her and, in her submission, it is linked to show [the man’s] expression of remorse.

“I am prepared to consider it from that point of view and therefore I will allow a further discount to reflect the donations.”

This was on top of the 5% he had already been granted for remorse, 25% for guilty plea, 10% for rehabilitation, 5% for previous good character, and 8% for mental health factors.

He was then sentenced to two years and five months’ imprisonment and was automatically placed on the child sex offenders register.

The offending

According to court documents, in September 2023, a Customs officer detected a person in New Zealand was distributing objectionable publications, namely, child sexual exploitation material (CSEM).

The IP of that computer was obtained and Customs made inquiries with Spark, which identified the defendant.

At several later dates in early 2024, a Customs investigator detected a person who had been distributing material using a different IP address but the same software.

On June 6 that year, a search warrant was executed at the man’s address.

Three laptops, three hard drives and one iPhone were seized, the court summary of facts said.

The files located included images of pubescent girls performing a variety of sexual acts on men.

Some of what was captured could be described as involving sadistic sexual activity.

More than 11,000 unique objectionable publications were found depicting the sexual exploitation of children.

The children ranged in age from toddlers through to prepubescent girls. One of the files contained bestiality.

Where to get help:
If it's an emergency and you feel that you or someone else is at risk, call 111.
If you've ever experienced sexual assault or abuse and need to talk to someone, contact Safe to Talk confidentially, any time 24/7:
• Call 0800 044 334
• Text 4334
• Email support@safetotalk.nz
• For more info or to web chat visit safetotalk.nz
Alternatively contact your local police station - click here for a list.
If you have been sexually assaulted, remember it's not your fault.

Katie Harris is an Auckland-based journalist who covers issues such as sexual assault, workplace misconduct, media, crime and justice. She joined the Herald in 2020.