Grace Millane's killer continues to have name suppression despite being found guilty of her murder.
After the 27-year-old man was found guilty and convicted on Friday evening, Justice Simon Moore said the man's name would remain suppressed "until further order of the court".
The reasons for the order and the legal arguments made by both the Crown and defence are also suppressed.
So, while the Herald cannot report why it cannot name Millane's killer yet, it can explain the powers a judge has under New Zealand law to suppress a defendant's name.
New Zealand judges use a particular section of the Criminal Procedure Act to stop the publication of the identifying details for people charged with, convicted or acquitted of, an offence.
A judge has to be satisfied publication would be likely to result in at least one of the following outcomes:
• Cause extreme hardship to the person charged with, or convicted of, or acquitted of the offence, or any person connected with that person.
• Cast suspicion on another person that may cause undue hardship to that person.
• Cause undue hardship to any victim of the offence.
• Create a real risk of prejudice to a fair trial.
• Endanger the safety of any person.
• Lead to the identification of another person whose name is suppressed by order or by law.
• Prejudice the maintenance of the law, including the prevention, investigation, and detection of offences.
• Prejudice the security or defence of New Zealand.
During the Grace Millane case, Justice Moore had in March, however, allowed media to report that continued name suppression was "because I am satisfied that publication of the defendant's name would create a real risk of prejudice to the defendant's fair trial rights".
"The suppression orders I have made are not permanent. They will remain in place for as long as the court is satisfied it is necessary to do so. They will be the subject of review," he said.
Despite the suppression order, overseas media and individuals on social media - including in New Zealand - published the killer's name after the verdict.
Because flouting a suppression order is not an extraditable offence, those who do so overseas are beyond the reach of New Zealand law.
However, those individuals in New Zealand who do breach a suppression order face up to six months' imprisonment or a $25,000 fine.
In the case of a body corporate breaching, a fine of up to $100,000 can be imposed.
Detective Inspector Scott Beard, the police officer in charge of the Millane case, warned Kiwis on Saturday afternoon about breaching the order.
"Although the homicide trial concluded [on Friday], a suppression order which prevents naming the defendant remains in place and will do so until lifted by the court," he said.
"While we appreciate the public feeling around this case, we do want to remind the public that it is an offence to breach a court order such as a name suppression - this includes naming someone on social media."
The recent breaches over the weekend, largely by those in New Zealand and the United Kingdom, come after a year of debate about the effectiveness of our suppression orders in the internet age.
After Millane's killer first appeared in court last December, British media named him in its papers, online and on-air.
The Herald later reported two UK newspapers' explanations for naming the accused, after objections were raised by a close friend of the Millane family.
"Whilst [the publication] takes into consideration the laws of other countries when it comes to naming suspects/those charged with a crime and the names of victims of crimes we should stress that the law in New Zealand does not apply to our reporting," one broadsheet replied.
Internet behemoth Google also breached the order when it named the accused in its "what's trending in New Zealand" mass email to New Zealand subscribers.
The email said there had been more than 100,000 searches on its search engine of the man's name.
The Google breach was met with condemnation by Justice Minister Andrew Little, who held a meeting with Attorney-General David Parker and executives from the Silicon Valley-based company.
In July, Google suspended its trending emails in New Zealand and apologised to Little.
Following that, Little began work with the those in the UK, Australia and Canada to see what more could be done to ensure suppression orders were obeyed.
On Saturday, Little said the breaches were "really disappointing" but was optimistic changes to the way court suppression orders were enforced were on the way.
He added Commonwealth countries were working together to make court suppressions international, but "it'll take a couple of years".
"There's an acceptance now that the way media works ... is that we've got to have the right to enforce suppression orders offshore."
Little said suppression orders needed to be respected by all countries and geoblocking media coverage publishing the name of Millane's killer is not the "ultimate answer".
"We need to get co-operation with other countries if we're really going to safeguard the integrity of our court system."