Offender allegedly commits offence
Victim knows name. Victim's family knows name. Possible also that some of victim's friends are told who it is.
Numerous police officers know the name. Non sworn police staff will know as reports are typed etc. Possible that police officers wives and some friends are told of allegations.
Police charge offender
More police officers know. Possible offenders work or business associates know. Police information sheet (the charge sheet) gives name and is seen by many people in both the police system and court system.
Offender appears in court
Numerous court staff know name. Judge knows name. Registrar knows name. People in court know, including other lawyers, security staff and perhaps media know name.
Offender is bailed
Bail bond prepared - more court staff know.
Offender is remanded in custody
Prison population will eventually know. Do you trust them to keep it quiet?
Offender goes to trial
If media didn't know name, they will at the trial. Court observers, if they didn't know beforehand, will now know.
These are just the obvious strands. Then you have to realise chinese whispers occur, you have to consider the six degrees of separation principle, and then you have to realise New Zealand is a
The final, and most powerful reason, is the internet.
Let's face it, when one considers all this, name suppression simply cannot work in New Zealand. It's absurd to pretend it can.
UPDATE: In light of the comment about my first heading I have amended it. That is a fair point.
Further, my wife read this and asked why all these people who know the name and tell someone aren't liable for breaching the order. They're not because under sections 139 & 140 of the Criminal Justice Act the prohibition is against "...publishing, in any report or account relating to any proceedings commenced in any court...". My view is that this is written for the media and telling someone the name would not be it "publishing, in any report or account...".