John* #1 is a drug dealer who was sentenced to 10 months’ home detention for selling up to $20,000 of cannabis.
John #2 has no criminal history and is reportedly heading for a bright career in a profession which cannot be named.
But the distant relatives share the same "uncommon name", the same age and a similar appearance.
In a High Court decision released to the Otago Daily Times yesterday, Justice Cheryl Gwyn suppressed the name of the drug dealer to protect the identity of his namesake.
"Publication of [John #1’s] name would be likely to cast suspicion on [John #2], which would in turn likely cause him undue hardship," she said.
The unusual legal fiasco began in June last year when John #1 was charged with selling a class C drug and possession for supply.
At that point, the Dunedin District Court granted interim name suppression at the request of John #2.
The following month, John #1 pleaded guilty to the charges and Judge Michael Turner ruled against continued secrecy.
He ordered the defendant’s full name (including a middle name that was different from John #2) and his occupation were to be reported to avoid any confusion.
However, it was not enough for John #2 and his counsel Savanna Gaskell appealed the ruling.
In November, John #1 was sentenced to home detention after the court heard he had sold up to $20,000 of cannabis between July 2023 and March 2024.
Police raided his home and found 480g of the illicit substance, as well as snap-lock deal bags and $19,971 cash in his dresser drawer.
Counsel Anne Stevens, KC, said the bulk of the money had come from gambling winnings and so only $3971 was forfeited to the Crown.
The following month, John #2’s case came before the High Court at Dunedin in the courtroom next door to where his namesake had been sentenced just days earlier.
Ms Gaskell said the two 21-year-olds were regularly mistaken for one another on social media and her client had also been stopped on the street by strangers thinking he was John #1.
The publication of the name would have the effect of "tarnishing [John #2’s] professional reputation" and could cause him stress and anxiety that may detract from his endeavours, she said.
Crown prosecutor James Collins said if John #2 were ever to be admitted to his chosen profession, a fit-and-proper-person test would easily distinguish between the two men.
While Justice Gwyn accepted that was the case, she nevertheless granted suppression because of the "strong" similarities between the duo.
"I consider that the risk of tarnishing [John #2’s] reputation is too high to allow publication of [John #1’s] name," she said.
"While acknowledging this is a windfall benefit for [John #1], I consider that these circumstances do displace the presumption of open justice."
*Name changed to comply with suppression.
