The Law Commission wants the Government to act over "enormous inconsistency" in the granting of name suppression.
The acting president of the commission, Dr Warren Young, said it had recommended changes to the Government which would mean everybody appearing in court was granted name suppression pre-trial.
"Because that is not
the case there is an enormous amount of inconsistency. There are enormous differences between judges and courts," he said.
The Criminal Justice Act is not specific about grounds for suppression and, while the Appeal Court has said the presumption must be for openness, it is left to the discretion of judges.
Chief District Court Judge Russell Johnson said judges worked on the basis of principle and granting of suppression was not open slather.
"It seems that members of the media and the public think it is granted too readily," he said. "Judges are human and humans can be fallible; that's why we have rights of appeal."
Dr Young said if the law was to change the public perception that people were treated differently would disappear.
But senior law lecturers say courts are already giving out name suppression too readily.
The director of the Institute of Criminology at Victoria University, Professor Philip Stenning, believed New Zealand had the most stringent name suppression law in the common law world. He believed it reflected a "pre-occupation" with privacy.
Early this year, Auckland University senior lecturer in criminal law Scott Optican told the Herald granting suppression should be rare. Mr Optican said judges had too much discretion.
