Name suppression — extreme hardship test — Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 200 — Robertson v Police [2015] NZCA 7 — R v Liddell [1995] 1 NZLR 538 — Proctor v R [1997] 1 NZLR 295 — Beig v Police [2015] NZHC 40. The defendant made an application for continuation of interim name suppression under s 200(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which was opposed by the Crown. The basis for the defendant's application is that publication of his name would cause extreme hardship to the defendant, his wife and children, and have a "catastrophic effect" on him financially. The defendant had recently resigned his position in a food production company and would be seeking work and was well known in the industry. The defendant was therefore submitting that publication would make him unemployable. The defendant also submitted that publication would impact his wife professionally and would impact his primary school aged children and may force them to move schools. Finally, the defendant submitted that the case against him was weak and that the economic issues facing the defendant, should the name be published, would make out the test for extreme hardship. The Crown opposed the application and pointed to case law stating the importance in a democracy of freedom of speech and open justice. The Judge held that the impact on the defendant and the potential impact on his family were no more than might be expected in a case such as this and that the Court, at this stage, was not in a position to weigh the arguments on relative strength of the evidence. For those reasons the Judge declined to grant name suppression.