The 21-year-old was sentenced within the Nelson District Court docket final December on prices of illegal intercourse with a minor and posting his exploits to a Snapchat group titled “Lads Evening”.
Quigley, who was 19 on the time of the offending, was sentenced to 11 months’ house detention.
At sentencing, Decide Jo Rielly mentioned the best way the sufferer had been degraded was important and had not solely been offensive, however hurtful and dangerous.
Quigley plied the 15-year-old woman with vodka and obtained her so drunk she barely understood what was occurring.
With out her consent, he then took his cell phone and began to report a video of himself having intercourse along with her.
He then posted the video to the “Lads Evening” Snapchat group the place a number of of his male buddies, together with these he had been ingesting with that evening, may see it or obtain it.
Quigley additionally by chance posted the video to his Snapchat story feed, broadcasting it to all his followers.
Realising the gravity of his actions, he rapidly deleted the intercourse video from his story feed however not earlier than a minimum of 10 of his followers had already seen it.
Decide Rielly denied his utility for everlasting identify suppression. She mentioned he failed to satisfy both of the edge standards wanted, together with the acute hardship or discretionary exams.
Quigley’s argument was closely centered on the probably humiliation and embarrassment his father would possibly undergo if his identify was revealed.
Decide Rielly mentioned Quigley’s father shaped the second prong of the applying, and, regardless of his issues about any doable reputational injury, the grounds of utmost hardship weren’t met.
“It’s necessary for me to notice that the issues he has expressed are real and actually held by him,” Decide Rielly mentioned.
The Excessive Court docket dismissed the enchantment after a listening to in March this yr.
Justice Peter Churchman mentioned it was “considerably ironic” that Quigley had subjected the sufferer to the publication of fabric that should have been terribly embarrassing, but felt that suppression of his identify was justified as a result of he was involved about publicity.
Defence lawyer Alec Sacheun made arguments round Quigley’s younger age, saying whereas he may need been boastful, it was clear he hadn’t thought by way of the results of his actions.
He mentioned “publication would observe him round, particularly on social media”, and that Quigley’s father, who had the identical, uncommon surname, was harmless in all that had occurred.
Sacheun argued this was related to the hardship check as a result of Quigley’s actions went towards his father’s personal “inflexible honour code” and publicity would possibly imply he can be pressured to resign from skilled and group positions he held.
“The worst factor concerning the web is that everyone is aware of,” Sacheun mentioned.
He added simply because Quigley had breached the sufferer’s privateness, it didn’t imply he had deserted his personal proper to privateness.
Justice Churchman mentioned the District Court docket choose didn’t err in her discovering that the edge for suppression of Quigley’s identify was not met, subsequently consideration of the discretionary stage was pointless and the enchantment was dismissed.
The Court docket of Attraction disagreed with Quigley’s lawyer who contended that the proposed enchantment concerned a matter of basic or public significance, specifically the proper interpretation of the phrases “hardship” and “excessive hardship”.
It additionally disagreed that Quigley would possibly undergo a miscarriage of justice except the proposed enchantment was heard as a result of the “apprehended hurt is speculative”.
The Court docket of Attraction mentioned identify suppression was not out there except the recognized threshold was met, and nothing within the report met that threshold.
Tracy Neal is a Nelson-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She was beforehand RNZ’s regional reporter in Nelson-Marlborough and has coated basic information, together with court docket and native authorities for the Nelson Mail.
