Interim name suppression — burglary — theft of clothing — open justice — extreme hardship — public interest — Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 200. Two defendants appeared seeking continuation of interim name suppression orders: the first defendant until he was sentenced, the second until her trial began. The charges that the defendants faced arose from the theft of some 2000 items of clothing from the premises of a fashion designer. The first defendant, who had pleaded guilty, submitted that his interim suppression order should continue because if his name became public it would jeopardise his current efforts at rehabilitation. The second defendant submitted that publication of her name would damage her business interests. The Court found that the offending was serious and of high public interest. There was an unfair public perception that the staff and owner of the fashion designer, who were in fact the victims of the offending, were somehow involved in the burglary. Also neither of the defendants were able to produce any evidence to back up their claims of hardship. The Court declined the applications for name suppression, but did allow name suppression to continue for seven days to allow the defendants time to file appeals. Judgment Date: 2 July 2021.