Suppression drops for former Auckland education worker Hanna Lealiiee, accused of sexually abusing boys
Former Auckland educator Hanna Lealiiee appears in Waitākere District Court, accused of sexual offending against four boys at different times over an 11-year period. Photo / Dean Purcell
An Auckland former education worker accused of sex offences involving four boys over 11 years has lost her fight for name suppression.
Massey resident Hanna Taulalo Lealiiee has worked at two schools and held various education roles.
The 44-year-old is awaiting trial for sexual connection with a young person, two counts of meeting a young person following sexual grooming, two counts of sexual conduct with a young person under 16 and five counts of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection.
If found guilty, she could face up to 20 years’ imprisonment.
She has pleaded not guilty to all charges, which span 11 years, and is set to go to trial later this year.
Lealiiee met the first complainant through an Auckland school more than a decade ago when he was 12, police allege. The name of the school and the complainants’ identities are suppressed.
Police allege the second complainant was targeted about eight years later, when he was 12 or 13. After he tried to distance himself from her, she threatened to get him in trouble at school, authorities have said.
The third complainant was allegedly targeted at 14 and police say the fourth was targeted a year later at 12. She knew the fourth complainant through a school setting, police say.
Lealiiee was granted interim suppression at her first appearance in Waitākere District Court in August.
However, at a follow-up hearing in December, an Auckland District Court judge determined there was no longer a need for it to continue.
That decision was then appealed to the High Court, where Justice Simon Mount reviewed the matter in March.
A reserved decision declining to overturn the district court decision was released about two months later.
However, Lealiiee was allowed to keep her name secret another month while considering whether to go to the Court of Appeal. She opted not to.
Her lawyers argued that naming her could identify the complainants or the school, that it might prejudice a fair trial and that it would cause extreme hardship to people connected to her.
Both the District and the High Court judges disagreed it would risk identifying complainants, or that it would cause extreme hardship to connected persons.
And while “a relatively confined group of people” might be able to identify the school through publication of Lealiiee’s name, both judges determined that the public interest in the case outweighed that factor.
Justice Mount cited both the New Zealand and United Kingdom supreme courts in his decision.
“The general policy rationales for publication of court proceedings are that openness sustains public acceptance of processes and outcomes, and publication reinforces community norms about offending and its consequences,” the New Zealand Supreme Court noted in a relevant case.
“A secondary general rationale is that publication relies on the media, who may find cases less newsworthy, or more burdensome to report, when someone involved in the proceeding cannot be named.”
The UK decision, regarding The Guardian newspaper, touched on a similar theme.
“What’s in a name? ‘A lot,’ the press would answer,” the decision read. “This is because stories about particular individuals are simply much more attractive to readers than stories about unidentified people. It is just human nature.
“And this is why, of course, even when reporting major disasters, journalists usually look for a story about how particular individuals are affected. Writing stories which capture the attention of readers is a matter of reporting technique.
“More succinctly, Lord Hoffman observed in Campbell v MGN Ltd [that] ‘judges are not newspaper editors’. ... This is not just a matter of deference to editorial independence. The judges are recognising that editors know best how to present material in a way that will interest the readers of their particular publication and so help them to absorb the information.
“A requirement to report it in some austere, abstract form devoid of much of its human interest, could well mean that the report would not be read and the information would not be passed on. Ultimately, such an approach could threaten the viability of newspapers and magazines, which can only inform the public if they attract enough readers and make enough money to survive.”
In his own decision, Justice Mount cited the importance of the presumption of innocence and said he carefully considered the potential damage to the defendant of being linked publicly to such serious, unproven allegations.
“However, I have concluded it is outweighed by other factors in this case, particularly the potential to identify additional complainants and the heightened public interest that attaches to alleged offending by individuals in positions of responsibility such as the appellant,” he wrote.
“Overall, I am not persuaded the [district court] judge made any error in declining suppression.”
Craig Kapitan is an Auckland-based journalist covering courts and justice. He joined the Herald in 2021 and has reported on courts since 2002 in three newsrooms in the US and New Zealand.
Sign up to The Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.