Pretrial — interim name suppression — fraudulent behaviour — cultural aspects of shame — extreme hardship — Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 200(2) — Fagan v Serious Fraud Office [2013] NZCA 367 — Beacon Media Group Ltd v Waititi [2014] NZHC 281 — Huang v Serious Fraud Office [2017] NZCA 187 — Peglar v Police [2014] NZHC 1184 — JM v R [2015] NZHC 426 — Lewis v Wilson & Horton Ltd [2000] 3 NZLR 546 — R v Liddell [1995] 1 NZLR 538, (1994) 12 CRNZ 458 — RM v Police [2012] NZHC 2080 — Ratnam v R [2020] NZCA 92 — R (CA340/2015) v R [2015] NZCA 287 — R v Burns (Travis) [2002] 1 NZLR 387 — Zheng v R [2023] NZCA 551. The defendant had been convicted on 15 charges of causing loss by deception and use of a document. She applied for interim name suppression up until her sentencing date, citing her extreme shame and embarrassment because of her Samoan culture; the danger that she would lose her job; her mental health problems and concern for her family members; and her rights to a fair trial. The Court found that the defendant's health problems did not rise to the level of extreme hardship. It was normal for people who have been convicted of criminal offending to feel stress, anxiety and shame. Although some of the defendant's family members were unwell, this was not enough to displace the public interest in open justice. If the defendant appealed her conviction in the future, judicial directions would reduce the risk of any unfair prejudice to her. The Court declined to extend name suppression until sentencing, but did extend name suppression to allow the defendant to spend time with sick family members and to consider how to tell them about her convictions. Judgment Date: 30 November 2023