Fewer New Zealanders are receiving name suppression after a law change - but the odds of offenders getting suppression may, in reality, be increasing.
And the chances of getting name suppression appeared to depend on which court handled the case.
Last month, Justice Minister Amy Adams revealed the number of people granted permanent name suppression in New Zealand courts has halved since 2011, falling from 640 to 317 in 2015.
A law change in 2011 made it harder to get name suppression, increasing the threshold of harm caused by identification from "undue hardship" to "extreme hardship".
Permanent name suppression forbade publication of any identifying details of a person accused, convicted or acquitted of a crime - usually because it would harm the person, their family, or a victim.
However, figures obtained from the Ministry of Justice revealed two outlying courts granted 42.5% of the country's total permanent name suppression orders in 2011.
New Plymouth District Court granted 204 people name suppression in 2011 - more than any other court in the five years combined. In the same year, Hawera District Court granted permanent suppression in 68 cases, more than any other court in any single year.
With data from the two courts excluded, the number of people granted permanent name suppression between 2011 and 2015 fell 16%, from 368 to 310.
However, 28% fewer adults appeared in court in 2015 than in 2011, which meant the rate of suppression per court apperance had actually increased 17 per cent since 2011.
Excluding New Plymouth and Hawera figures, 3.6 court appearances per thousand resulted in permanent name suppression in 2011.
In 2015, that rate had increased to 4.1 per thousand - a 17% increase on the unrounded figures
Labour's Justice spokesperson Jacinda Ardern said the statistical aberrance affected the total figures.
"I can only assume the [Justice] Minister didn't have the breakdown [of the statistics], or that's pretty misleading to say we've had a halving when it's so prominently based on the fact we've got this one area that had a high level of usage," she said.
A spokesman for Ms Adams said the total number of permanent name suppressions were consistently over 700 as back as far as the 2004/05 financial year.
"Since our legislative changes in 2012, these have been consistently below 400m" he said.
"The point is that while individual district courts may vary from one year to the next, the total numbers have been broadly consistent. The trend is what we are referring to, not individual courts."
Auckland University law academic Dr Bill Hodge said the low number of suppression orders nationwide allowed localised spikes to affect the total.
"This is a small country, and we are talking of hundreds of suppression orders over a year, not tens of thousands, so it is possible for a single court - say New Plymouth - or a single judge, to make a difference in the statistics. The answer would be a few appeals."
He said the effect of the law change was not black and white.
"The law change may not be working as intended, if the majority of courts - taking out the courts in Taranaki - are continuing on at the same rate or are increasing, but it looks like the behaviours in New Plymouth and Hawera have altered."
Further figures provided by the Ministry of Justice show New Plymouth District Court granted more than 125 permanent name suppression orders each year for eight straight years - including a high of 258 in one financial year - before falling to single digits after the law change.
National figures were consistently above 600 before the law change, and peaked at 944 in the 2009/10 financial year. Fifty-five per cent of those 944 suppression orders were granted by New Plymouth District Court and Palmerston North District Court. The national figures have been below 400 for the last three years.
When the figures were announced, Ms Adams said New Zealanders thought too many people were able to keep their court records private. She said the law was now "striking a better balance".
"At the same time there are legitimate circumstances where a defendant's name needs to be suppressed such as to protect the victims or ensure a fair trial."
New Zealand's most secretive courts - permanent name suppressions between 2011-2015
New Plymouth District Court 259
Christchurch District Court 153
Dunedin District Court 140
Invercargill District Court 133
Nelson District Court 115
Blenheim District Court 104
Hawera District Court 95
