Nelson man loses bid to keep name secret over social media post of sex with underage girl

A young man who filmed himself and an underage girl having sex and then posted it on Snapchat has lost his bid to keep his name secret, following a last-ditch effort to the Court of Appeal.

Today, the senior court declined Lachlan Quigley’s application for leave to bring a second appeal after the district court declined his initial application for permanent name suppression.

Quigley’s appeal to the Wellington High Court also failed when it concluded the statutory threshold of a likelihood of extreme hardship to himself and his father was not met.

The 21-year-old was sentenced in the Nelson District Court last December on charges of unlawful sex with a minor and posting his exploits to a Snapchat group titled “Lads Night”.

Quigley, who was 19 at the time of the offending, was sentenced to 11 months’ home detention.

At sentencing, Judge Jo Rielly said the way the victim had been degraded was significant and had not only been offensive, but hurtful and harmful.

Quigley plied the 15-year-old girl with vodka and got her so drunk she barely understood what was happening.

Without her consent, he then took his mobile phone and started to record a video of himself having sex with her.

He then posted the video to the “Lads Night” Snapchat group where several of his male friends, including those he had been drinking with that night, could see it or download it.

Quigley also accidentally posted the video to his Snapchat story feed, broadcasting it to all of his followers.

Realising the gravity of his actions, he quickly deleted the sex video from his story feed but not before at least 10 of his followers had already seen it.

Judge Rielly denied his application for permanent name suppression. She said he failed to meet either of the threshold criteria needed, including the extreme hardship or discretionary tests.

Quigley’s argument was heavily focused on the likely humiliation and embarrassment his father might suffer if his name was published.

Judge Rielly said Quigley’s father formed the second prong of the application, and, despite his concerns about any possible reputational damage, the grounds of extreme hardship were not met.

“It’s important for me to note that the concerns he has expressed are genuine and honestly held by him,” Judge Rielly said.

The High Court dismissed the appeal after a hearing in March this year.

Justice Peter Churchman said it was “somewhat ironic” that Quigley had subjected the victim to the publication of material that must have been extraordinarily embarrassing, yet felt that suppression of his name was justified because he was concerned about publicity.

Defence lawyer Alec Sacheun made arguments around Quigley’s young age, saying that while he may have been boastful, it was clear he hadn’t thought through the consequences of his actions.

He said “publication would follow him around, especially on social media”, and that the defendant’s father, who had the same, unusual surname, was innocent in all that had occurred.

Sacheun argued this was relevant to the hardship test because the defendant’s actions went against his father’s own “rigid honour code” and publicity might mean he would be forced to resign from professional and community positions he held.

“The worst thing about the internet is that everybody knows,” Sacheun said.

He added that just because the defendant had breached the victim’s privacy did not mean he had abandoned his own right to privacy.

Justice Churchman said the district court judge did not err in her finding that the threshold for suppression of the appellant’s name was not met, therefore consideration of the discretionary stage was unnecessary and the appeal was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal disagreed with Quigley’s lawyer, Steven Zindel, who contended that the proposed appeal involved a matter of general or public importance, namely the correct interpretation of the terms “hardship” and “extreme hardship”.

It also disagreed that Quigley may suffer a miscarriage of justice unless the proposed appeal was heard because the “apprehended harm is speculative”.

The Court of Appeal said that name suppression was not available unless the identified threshold was met, and nothing in the record met that threshold.

SEXUAL HARM

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.