R v BB (No 6) [2021] NSWSC 1518

R v BB (No 6) [2021] NSWSC 1518

Although open justice was the primary consideration, the material before the Court showed a sufficiently real threat to the safety of the offenders' families and associates in Iran. A limited order suppressing publication of the identities of the offender and his partner, their connection with the identified company, and information about seized or used documents was reasonably necessary under s 8(1)(c) to protect safety and would not interfere with public scrutiny of the Court or the administration of justice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Suppression or Non Publication Order in Criminal Proceedings / Ex Tempore Judgment on Application by Motion; Interim Suppression Order Had Been Made on 22 November 2021
Outcome
Suppression and non-publication orders made in limited terms.
Legal Topics
['suppression Orders' 'non Publication Orders' 'open Justice' 'safety of Persons' 'risk of Reprisals Against Family Overseas']
['courts and Judges' 'criminal Procedure'] ['suppression Orders' 'non Publication Orders' 'open Justice' 'safety of Persons' 'risk of Reprisals Against Family Overseas']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Suppression or Non Publication Order in Criminal Proceedings / Ex Tempore Judgment on Application by Motion; Interim Suppression Order Had Been Made on 22 November 2021

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should make a suppression order or non-publication order under s 7 of the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW).' 'Whether an order was necessary under s 8(1)(c) of the Act to protect the safety of any person, having regard to the primary objective of open justice under s 6.' 'Whether the scope of the order sought should be narrowed in light of open justice and prior public conduct of the proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although open justice was the primary consideration, the material before the Court showed a sufficiently real threat to the safety of the offenders' families and associates in Iran. A limited order suppressing publication of the identities of the offender and his partner, their connection with the identified company, and information about seized or used documents was reasonably necessary under s 8(1)(c) to protect safety and would not interfere with public scrutiny of the Court or the administration of justice.

Court Disposition

Suppression and non-publication orders made in limited terms.

Orders

  • ['Under s 7(1) of the Court Suppression and NPO Act 2010, the names of either the offender in these proceedings or his partner not be published nor anything that would identify either of them.' 'Further that there not be published one or other of the connections of either of the foregoing with or the identity of the...