Pretrial — name suppression — indecent assault — perverting the course of justice — recorded conversation — R v W, X and Y [2019] NZDC 5018 — Parker v R and Stuff Ltd [2020] NZCA 502 — X v R and Stuff Ltd [2020] NZHC 1345 — Adams on Criminal Law, Westlaw NZ CPA 205.01. Two media outlets wanted the respondent's name suppression to be revoked. The respondent's name suppression came from orders that the Court had made two years earlier. The name suppression had been granted on the basis that the respondent had not been involved in attempts to persuade a person (the complainant) to drop indecent assault charges against a prominent businessman. After the Court had granted the respondent name suppression, it became aware of a recorded conversation which was new evidence in the case. In the recording, one of the respondent's business associates made a series of comments that suggested that the respondent actually was involved in trying to get the complainant to drop the charges. As a result of the new evidence emerging, the trial was aborted and the matter was transferred to the High Court. To decide whether to revoke the respondent's name suppression, the Court had to put itself in the position it would have been in when making the orders, had it known about the recorded conversation evidence. The Court found that it would not have granted the respondent name suppression. Her identity was a material aspect of highly relevant evidence, and the allegations that she was involved in the plot came from a person who she knew well. Also, the principle of open justice was of high importance, and the Court was entitled to assume that the media would report proceedings in a balanced way. The Court revoked the respondent's name suppression. NOTE: this judgment was confirmed on appeal to the High Court in B v R [2022] NZHC 353. The High Court decision was then upheld by the Court of Appeal in B v R [2022] NZCA 277 and the Supreme Court in Boag v R [2022] NZSC 125. Judgment Date: 20 September 2021.