A Queenstown businessman convicted of shoplifting cannot be named after indicating he would appeal a name suppression ruling.
The 62-year-old had interim name suppression until today, when he was expected to defend six theft charges at a judge-alone trial in the Queenstown District Court.
However, in a last-minute plea deal, he admitted two charges of shoplifting in exchange for the police withdrawing four charges of stealing fuel from a petrol station in the resort town.
The police summary of facts said he went to New World Remarkables Park on eight occasions, putting meat, fish and bottles of wine in the bottom of reusable shopping bags.
He topped up the bags with other grocery items before going to a self-scan checkout, where he scanned only the items at the top of the bags before leaving the store.
He used the same ruse on nine occasions over a three-week period at Four Square Arrowtown.
In total, he stole more than $1100 worth of goods, including 20 bottles of wine, five packets of steak and five packets of fish.
Counsel Annaliese Carlaw said the man could not perform community work because of "two bad hips", but could pay a court fine and reparation in instalments.
He had already paid back the petrol station.
His most recent conviction dated to the 1990s, Ms Carlaw said.
Judge Mark Williams told the defendant shoplifting was a "scourge" on retailers.
"We all end up paying the price, in higher costs, because people like you decide to steal from shops."
He entered the convictions, imposed a $750 fine and ordered the defendant to pay the two stores total reparation of $1142.08.
Ms Carlaw sought permanent name suppression on the grounds the defendant was self-employed, and would suffer reputational damage and a loss of income if his name was published.
He would be labelled as a "criminal and dishonest man", and his children would be subjected to stigmatisation and bullying, she said.
Judge Williams said publication would cause "some discomfort", but the public had a right to know about people who committed dishonesty offences in their community.
He declined the application on the grounds the test of extreme hardship had not been met.
The man has 20 working days to apply for leave to appeal the suppression decision in the High Court.
