Peter Russell can now be identified as the doctor who flashed a jogger on Maungawhau/Mt Eden in 2013. (FILE PHOTO).

Seven years after he was convicted for flashing the same jogger twice on Maungawhau/Mt Eden, an Auckland doctor can now be named.

On Monday, the Court of Appeal dismissed Peter Spencer Russell's further bid for permanent name suppression.

Russell was charged after two incidents in June and August 2013 where he exposed himself on Mt Eden and masturbated in the view of the female jogger.

In 2015, the late Judge Robert Ronayne found him guilty and sentenced him to 120 hours community work and ordered to pay $1000 emotional harm to the victim.

Judge Ronayne declined permanent name suppression and he has since been fighting to keep his identity a secret.

At his trial, the victim told the court the first time she saw the man expose himself on a jogging path on the mountain, she just averted her eyes and called him a "f...... creep".

Judge Ronayne found Russell to be an "untruthful witness".

Russell had also previously admitted masturbating in a car at Mt Eden, which was witnessed by passers by. He was granted diversion for that.

The doctor unsuccessfully appealed his convictions at the High Court in March 2016.

In May 2017, the Health and Disability Tribunal censured Russell and his registration as a doctor was suspended for two years. It also declined to grant him name suppression.

Catrin Owen/ Stuff Peter Russell exposed himself to a jogger on Maungawhau/Mt Eden.

In June 2018, Justice Matthew Palmer again refused Russell's name suppression bid.

Russell argued publication of his name would cause him extreme hardship and claimed it would end his career in medicine and in medical research, which would punish him far beyond the gravity of the offending.

He said if named, he would not be employable by any district health board, which was effectively the only option to work as a doctor.

In September 2016, Patrick Alley, senior surgeon and clinical director of surgery at Ormiston Hospital, said Russell was safe to practice and was confident as long as name suppression continued, Russell could work in delivering specialist surgical care.

However, Alley said if Russell's name was to be published, no DHB would consider him for employment, ​given the substantial reputational risk to the organisation that would follow.

In the Court of Appeal judgement, Justice Robert Dobson said the court did not agree Russell's extreme hardship claims were founded.

Justice Dobson said the consequences of publishing Russell's name would be the same for any doctor.

"Accordingly, recognising the consequences of publication as sufficient to make out extreme hardship would risk making doctors a privileged group in this context. certainly, such consequences cannot qualify as extreme hardship in the applicant's case.

At the Court of Appeal, Russell also argued the public should not have the ability to forever find his offending because his convictions were liable to come within the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act.

Justice Dobson dismissed that claim.

"These convictions were entered in September 2015 and it is only the unusually protracted sequence of other proceedings and appeals that brings the applicant within two and a half years of the clean slate legislation availing him," he said.