AA v State Of NSW [2013] NSWSC 1038

AA v State Of NSW [2013] NSWSC 1038

An interim order under s 10 was necessary because publication or disclosure of the plaintiff's name, current address and current physical appearance or image would not advance open justice in the judicial review proceedings, but created a real risk of misleading and unbalanced reporting and of deterring the plaintiff from pursuing the proceedings, thereby prejudicing the proper administration of justice and affecting the plaintiff's safety. Suppression of the plaintiff's offending history was not justified because it was already a matter of longstanding public record.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Proceedings With Interlocutory Application for Suppression and Non Publication Orders / Interlocutory Application for Interim Order Under S 10 of the Court Suppression and Non Publication Orders Act 2010
Outcome
Interim suppression and non-publication orders made in part; suppression of the plaintiff's offending history refused.
Legal Topics
['suppression Orders' 'non Publication Orders' 'open Justice' 'proper Administration of Justice' 'judicial Review']
['procedure' 'administrative Law'] ['suppression Orders' 'non Publication Orders' 'open Justice' 'proper Administration of Justice' 'judicial Review']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Proceedings With Interlocutory Application for Suppression and Non Publication Orders / Interlocutory Application for Interim Order Under S 10 of the Court Suppression and Non Publication Orders Act 2010

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether an interim suppression and non-publication order should be made to prevent publication or disclosure of the plaintiff's name, address and physical appearance or image in connection with the litigation." "Whether the plaintiff's offending history should also be suppressed." "Whether the public interest in open justice was outweighed by the need to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice and protect the plaintiff's safety."]

Ratio Decidendi

An interim order under s 10 was necessary because publication or disclosure of the plaintiff's name, current address and current physical appearance or image would not advance open justice in the judicial review proceedings, but created a real risk of misleading and unbalanced reporting and of deterring the plaintiff from pursuing the proceedings, thereby prejudicing the proper administration of justice and affecting the plaintiff's safety. Suppression of the plaintiff's offending history was not justified because it was already a matter of longstanding public record.

Court Disposition

Interim suppression and non-publication orders made in part; suppression of the plaintiff's offending history refused.

Orders

  • ['Order, pursuant to s 10 of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010, that until further order, the name, address and physical appearance or image of the plaintiff not be published or otherwise disclosed directly, or indirectly by any information which tends to reveal those matters in connection...