Name Suppression Practices of New Zealand’s Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal 2004-2014

Permanent name suppression decisions related to health practitioner disciplinary proceedings can result in debate across various interest groups, including practitioners, the public, the media and complainants themselves. However, there has been no analysis of name suppression patterns, principles and practices in New Zealand since the 2004 legislative reforms under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 (NZ) provided for the combined regulation of 21 health professions and established the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal (HPDT) to hear and determine charges relating to those professions. This article reviews health practitioner name suppression debates within New Zealand in light of an exploratory descriptive analysis that was undertaken of 288 published decisions of the HPDT from 2004 to 2014. The study revealed that just under one-half of all cases involved a permanent name suppression application; amongst these, just over one-third were approved. Grounds cited for approving or declining name suppression varied and generally reflected established case law regarding naming principles and the Act’s intent. While the public interest dominated as the most frequently cited reason to decline name suppression, the most frequent justification for granting name suppression was the health and wellbeing of various individuals. The findings have relevance for understanding current trends in name suppression, and whether there are changing practices or differences adopted between health practitioner groups.