Application for suppression — suppression of identity of defendant — Criminal Procedure Act 2011 s 200 — Re Victim X [2003] 3 NZLR 220 CA — R v W [2016] NZHC 2923 — B L v R [2013] NZHC 2878 — Robertson v New Zealand Police [2015] NZCA 7. The defendant had stopped at the scene of a crash where the complainant was acutely injured and unable to exit the vehicle. He wrapped his singlet around her injured arm and assisted her but then took the opportunity to steal the complainant's wallet and phone; using the complainant's credit card at a number of service stations over the next six or seven hours. As part of a sentencing list hearing the defendant was sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of 12 months; taking into account time already served, the defendant would be due for release shortly after the date of hearing. Counsel for the defendant had also filed an application for suppression of the defendants identity which was opposed by NZEME Publishing Ltd. The issues the court needed to determine were: 1. whether publication of the defendants identity would cause him extreme hardship; 2. whether publication of the defendants identity would cause extreme hardship to his family member and in turn their employer; 3. whether publication would endanger his safety; and 4. if any one or more of the threshold grounds are established whether on a balancing exercise the private interests of the defendant or his family member are outweighed by the public interests in open justice and the right to receive and impart information. Following the motor vehicle accident the complainant's partner had posted photographs of the defendant and a brief account of the accident, which was shared numerous times and attracted scathing comments. The Court noted that the widely shared Facebook posts were a contributing factor to the defendant’s disordered mental state found in an assessment made eight month's prior to sentencing. Publication of the defendant’s identity at this point, in the courts view, was likely to have a similar effect and may well compromise the defendant’s willingness and motivation to undertake a treatment programme that had come available to him. If the opportunity to enter and complete the programme is lost due to publication of the defendant’s identity, the court considers that would amount to extreme hardship and likely to lead to further repetition of the cycle of substance abuse, mental health issues and criminal offending. A claim relating to a risk of suicide by the defendant if his name was published was rejected rejected by the court. The second issue the court considered was whether extreme hardship would be caused to the defendant's family member and their employer. The court took into account evidence by the family member and the chairperson of the organisation, who the court stated, were in the best position to judge any impact on them by publication of the defendant's name. It was noted that over 60,000 people had read the online article and the possibility that the defendants offending being connected to the family member was not remote; in turn there was a possibility that the connection would damage her reputation and lead to a collapse of the community organisation. The court found that the defendant's future rehabilitation is a compelling reason which outweighs any remaining public interest in who the offender actually was, as opposed to the circumstances of the offending. Secondly, the defendant’s family member, in the court's assessment, was in an unique position as the figurehead of a community organisation; the impact on the organisations reputation was sufficient to displace the presumption of open justice. Judgment Date: 12 July 2018 * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *