KEY POINTS:
Women's Refuge is backing a police move to expose the identity of an international sports star whose case is before the courts.
The player, who faces a criminal charge of "male assaults female", was due to appear in court yesterday but did not show up.
His name will be kept secret for at least another two weeks although police opposed this. But two weeks ago prosecutors had not opposed name suppression.
"With these sorts of charges, quite often suppression is given in the first instance and it's mainly to protect the victim," a police spokeswoman said.
"There are all sorts of issues to take into account, there are lots of legal issues that have to be canvassed."
The player was expected to appear before community magistrate Rae Brooker, but his counsel, Phil Morgan QC, argued that his client's presence was unnecessary.
Mr Morgan said the proceedings were of an administrative nature and that was why the star was not in court.
A plea is yet to be entered.
Mr Morgan told Ms Brooker the registrar had made a suppression order that was to run for 28 days from March 19.
Ms Brooker said there had been "considerable discussion with regard to this matter." The suppression order was due to expire on April 16.
It was not open to her to vary or discharge the order, she said.
That could only be done by the party which sought suppression in the first place (Mr Morgan).
The matter could be dealt with before a district court judge, she said.
Bail would continue until the next court appearance on April 12.
The police, asked to explain their differing stance toward name suppression between now and a fortnight ago, responded with a written statement.
"There were several issues taken into consideration with this," it said. "One of these was that there were sensitive matters within the facts of the case, whereby it seemed appropriate, at short notice, not to oppose suppression."
At the star's first court appearance two weeks ago the application for name suppression by the player's lawyer appeared to have taken police by surprise.
"It was only ever envisaged that the suppression would be interim," the statement said. "It was clear that the case would attract a lot of attention and there was some recognition from police that the defendant should be allowed to alert his family and extended family of the situation, before it became public."
Meanwhile, manager of the National Collective of Women's Refuges, Heather Henare, said it was time high-profile domestic violence cases in New Zealand were highlighted rather than being swept under the carpet.
She questioned why suppression should continue for the player when many ordinary citizens did not enjoy the same privilege.
It was even more important that the star's name was made public, given his standing in society, she said, as it could help to show the wider community that the issue was taken seriously.
If the man was guilty he should own up, take public responsibility for it, and show that he was getting help, Ms Henare said.
"It takes a real man to do that sort of thing."
She believed the player's bosses should show leadership on the issue by making statements that condemned violence in the home.
Ms Henare sympathised with the player's victim, who might suffer further shame should he be named but "that's the kind of society we live in."
Suppression And The Court
* Name suppression for the current sports star accused of assault includes a wide ranging reference to "other details".
* A blanket suppression order exists for a former rugby league star who is yet to go on trial on charges of rape and sexual violation.
* In February 2005 an All Black was granted permanent name suppression despite pleading guilty to assaulting his pregnant partner.
* According to Women's Refuge there were 49,000 cases of domestic violence against women and children in New Zealand last year.
* Of those, Women's Refuge helped in 29,000 cases.
