Application for name suppression — immunity witness — undue hardship — Criminal Procedure Act 2011, ss 202 & 286. This hearing was to determine an application by three witnesses for name suppression pursuant to s 202 of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA). The first and second witnesses had been granted immunity from prosecution on the basis that they give evidence as witnesses in the trial. The first witness submitted that publication of his name would firstly, cause him undue hardship, and secondly, lead to the identification of the second defendant, who had interim name suppression. The Court found that the hardship that the first witness would suffer was not an excessive hardship greater than the circumstances would warrant. There was also no evidence to support the assertion that publication of his name would lead to the identification of the second defendant. As such, the first witness's application for name suppression was declined. The second witness's application was premised on the first witness's application being successful, in that publication of her name would lead to identification of the first witness. Given that the first witness's application had failed, the Court also declined the second witness's application for name suppression. An interim suppression order was made in respect of the first and second witnesses under s 286 of the CPA as counsel notified the Court of an intent to appeal the decision. The third witness was not an immunity witness and had been granted name suppression in a separate hearing. Note: suppression orders in relation to all defendants and witnesses have now lapsed. Note: this judgment was confirmed on appeal to the High Court in W v R [2019] NZHC 1350. Judgment Date: 21 March 2019.