Pretrial — name suppression — undue hardship — undue hardship to business interests — indecent assault — Criminal Procedure Act 2011, ss 200 & 202 — Evidence Act 2006, s 69 — NZ Police v James Hay Wallace, CRI-2017-004-001926, 27 April 2017 — R v JHW, CRI-2017-004-001926, 29 June 2017 — MS v R [2016] NZCA 544. The defendant was facing charges of indecent assault, and had previously been granted interim name suppression. In the current application he sought continued suppression of his name and the names of entities associated with him. He submitted that publication of his name would cause undue hardship to him and his associated entities, and would also endanger his right to a fair trial. The Court found no evidence of undue hardship to the defendant personally. Potential damage to his reputation did not amount to "undue hardship". Likewise, there was insufficient evidence to show that the entities associated with the defendant would suffer undue hardship. The Court added that in any case, it would use its discretion to refuse name suppression. The entities in question should have been able to manage in the event of the defendant having to step down from his governance and management roles. The application for continued name suppression was refused. NOTE: this judgment was confirmed on appeal to the High Court in W v R [2019] NZHC 1350. Judgment Date: 25 March 2019.