An Auckland man who raped and assaulted six girls when they were teenagers – and then offended a 13 -year -old while he had a name suppression – could finally be identified.
In a written decision released today, the Supreme Court rejected an additional offer by Luca Fairgray, 22, to continue his suppression of name, awaiting an appeal about his latest convictions.
“In our opinion, the possibility of a judgment and associated injustice of the publication does not exceed the principles of open justice, where this potential client is speculative and other safeguards are available. In addition, there is a considerable public interest in knowing about the previous history of the applicant,” the judges wrote.
Fairgray offended her first victim in 2017, when both were 14. He was sentenced to 12 months of detention in 2022, after being guilty of a total of 10 accusations, including rape, sexual violation, indecent aggression and sexual conduct with a person under 16.
While some of Fairgray’s accusations were presented at the Youth Court, where he applies automatic name suppression, the case was transferred to the District Court because of his age at the time of later offenses and due to his serious nature.
He asked for a permanent name suppression based on that the publication of his name would probably cause extreme difficulties and threaten his safety.
His request was refused, as well as an appeal after the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeal then refused -to appeal for the second time.
He took to the Supreme Court, but this court ruled that the public interest exceeded Fairgray’s right to privacy.
However, before he could be identified, the court was informed that Fairgray was facing new accusations against a 13 -year -old girl and the suppression of extended names to protect her right to fair trial.
He was considered guilty in February of this year of three accusations of sexual conduct with a young man and is due to be sentenced later this month.
In the written trial released today, the Supreme Court declined Fairgray’s additional request for continuous suppression of names.
The offender
The first attack happened in 2017, when Fairgray kept another 14 -year -old boy and violated her, just stopping when another boy walked him away. He then chased and threatened the other boy.
The following year, he climbed on a second victim while she was drunk on a bed and felt it. Both were 15 years old.
He offended against another 15-year-old boy in the same year, twice-time assaulting her in a park and then raping her while she was unconscious after drinking.
In 2019, Fairgray had sex with a girl who was only 13 at the time. In 2020, when he was 17, Fairgray had consensual sex with a girl of the same age in a “end of the block party” – but when she asked him to stop, he ignored her and started performing acts that caused considerable pain.
That same night, he laid a bed with another 17-year-old while she was intoxicated before climbing on her and restricting her when she tried to move. He was interrupted by the previous victim entering the room.
Fairgray has been treated with a psychotherapist for more than eight months to approach her sexual offenses and completed a safe network program. His lawyers argued that his youth and the late diagnosis of autism provided context for the difficulties he would face.
They said that he would name it would represent a risk to his mental health, employment and social perspectives and would put him into threat of vigilantism.
His family called the police after “condoms full of dog droppings were thrown at the family home, and another occasion when a stone was thrown against the house, landing on the deck of the back.”
While Judge Ellen France agreed that he fulfilled the threshold of difficulties, she found the director of open justice to overthrow balance. Fairgray would have difficulty reintegrating in society unless he changed his name, she said, but would need to disclose his convictions to potential employers because of how serious they were.
She rejected the notion that Fairgray had “an honest but irrational belief in consent.”
“As the Supreme Court said, ‘Any of his victims said to stop. One in particular was screaming in pain before stopping.’ This was not a case of losing some social clues. “
The offense occurred for a long time and involved several victims – therefore, it could not be a case of “a teenager who made some terrible errors.”
The victims speak
Three of the six victims – Mia Edmonds, Rosie Veldkamp and Ellie Oram – had previously resigned their own right to automatic name suppression.
Edmonds said, “All we really can do is expect that eventually your name will be released, and anyone who can see that you will feel more empowered to speak if you have gone through something like this.”
According to Veldkamp: “It was an injustice to allow women to cross their way without knowing who he is and the disgusting crimes he committed without remorse repeatedly.”
His lawyers argued that, by Fairgray, keeping his identity secret, the recovery of his victims was incomplete, because they wanted him to be responsible for the offense when experiencing criminal and social consequences.
“There may be other victims who can present themselves if [he] He is appointed, “said the trial.
“Victims are also concerned with the potential that there will be other complaints in the future, any ability to alert young women [his] previous offenses. “
Implications for future cases
The historical case gives judges more guidance on whether young offenders should keep their identities a secret when the case is heard outside the Youth Court.
Judge France noted that New Zealand pledged to international conventions on the rehabilitation and reintegration of young offenders.
However, she said that the law of criminal procedure, which describes the rules for suppression of names, highlighted the importance of open justice, and would need to be a specific provision in the law if the principles of youth justice had more weight.
