A 21-year-old man is seeking permanent name suppression after admitting to assaulting two people at a Young Labour camp (file photo).

A 21-year-old man who admitted assaulting two young men at a Young Labour summer camp is appealing a judge's ruling not to grant him permanent name suppression.

The man was originally charged with five counts of indecent assault against four complainants, which he denied, after the 2018 incident.

However, he pleaded guilty to two amended charges of assault halfway through the trial.

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

He was discharged without conviction in November, but Judge Russell Collins did not grant him permanent name suppression.

READ MORE:

* Two charges dropped against Young Labour camp accused

* Victim slams summer camp report

* Labour accepts recommendations after camp incident

DAVID WHITE/STUFF Defence counsel Emma Priest told Justice Christian Whata her client had been the subject of "extreme" media attention.

Defence lawyer Emma Priest appealed the decision against name suppression in front of Justice Christian Whata at the High Court at Auckland on Tuesday.

Priest called the man's case "unique" and "highly political", placing weight on the extreme amount of media attention the trial had received.

"The media has been improperly focused on him being a sexual offender following his acquittal from his two guilty pleas of assault."

She said it wasn't fair that a young man who was acquitted would be branded a sexual offender for the rest of his life.

Priest also argued the publication of his name would cause extreme harm, which was "outside the ordinary consequences of offending".

"Without name suppression the acquittal is meaningless, with this degree of extreme media attention," she said.

Priest said her client was a young man, 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.

In response, Justice Whata said the man had been discharged and therefore there was no conviction to affect him.

Whata added that suppressing his name would infringe of the free speech rights of the complainant, and the right of the public, to discuss something which was entirely topical.

"He was drinking, he was in a social situation, he was – by his own account – touching young men," he said.

Justice Whata has reserved his decision.