A 22-year-old man has lost his bid for permanent name suppression after admitting assault charges at a Young Labour summer camp in 2018. (FILE PHOTO)

A 22-year-old man who admitted assaulting two young men at a Young Labour summer camp has lost his bid for permanent name suppression.

Justice Christian Whata dismissed the young man's application after a High Court hearing but gave him until May 1 to appeal the decision at the Court of Appeal.

During a trial last year, the man originally faced five counts of indecent assault against four complainants at the 2018 summer camp, which he denied.

The man later pleaded guilty to two amended charges of assault under the Summary Offences Act 1981 halfway through the trial.

DAVID WHITE/STUFF Judge Russell Collins presided over the case at the Auckland District Court.

In November, Judge Russell Collins discharged the man without conviction and refused to grant him permanent name suppression.

However, the man's lawyer Emma Priest appealed the decision at the High Court saying her client had suffered through an "intense and highly publicised trial" and would suffer extreme hardship emotionally, socially and in his career if his name was to be published.

She said an intense and negatively-toned media frenzy around the case had "vilified" her client and his character was tainted beyond repair.

After the young man pleaded guilty to the assault charges and despite the acquittal of his sexual charges, members of the public had labelled him as a "sexual predator" and "the Labour Youth Camp pervert" on social media, Priest said.

Priest said her client was a young man, aged 20 at the time of the offending, and "one night of poor judgement" would affect him for the rest of his life if his name was made public.

Crown prosecutor Erin Wooley disagreed with Priest and said the media coverage was no more than was to be expected in a high-profile case.

DAVID WHITE/STUFF Defence counsel Emma Priest said her client's character has been tainted beyond repair.

​Wooley also said Preist had overstated concerns about the impact of the man's future employment prospects.

While Justice Whata agreed the reputational impact on the man would likely be severe if his name was published, he declined permanent name suppression.

"I am unable to find that the publication harm to [the man] amounts to extreme hardship. In short, much of the identified harm is a natural consequence of media coverage of high profile criminal proceedings."

"I also wish to record my view that [the man's] offending was plainly an aberration and that he is a fine young man fully deserving of a career in his chosen profession. The discharge without conviction is testament to that."

Justice Whata gave the man until May 1 to appeal his decision to the Court of Appeal.

As well as the court case, the allegations led to a review of the party's internal processes and policies.