HAMZY v R [2013] NSWCCA 156

HAMZY v R [2013] NSWCCA 156

The majority of the Court allowed the appeal and continued the interim suppression and non-publication orders, finding that there was sufficient material to conclude that such orders were necessary to protect the safety of the applicant, even if the perceived risk was based on an irrational response to the applicant’s perceived cooperation with authorities. The public interest in open justice does not outweigh the applicant’s safety given the material before the court. Only specific portions of the sentencing judgment and proceedings are suppressed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; suppression and non-publication orders continued as per orders.
Legal Topics
['suppression Orders' 'non Publication Orders' 'procedural Fairness' 'sentencing' 'safety of Persons']
['criminal Law' 'media Law'] ['suppression Orders' 'non Publication Orders' 'procedural Fairness' 'sentencing' 'safety of Persons']

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

Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether suppression and non-publication orders are necessary to protect the safety of any person under s8(1)(c) of the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010' 'Procedural fairness in consideration of suppression orders' 'Adequacy of reasons for the refusal to extend suppression/non-publication orders']

Ratio Decidendi

The majority of the Court allowed the appeal and continued the interim suppression and non-publication orders, finding that there was sufficient material to conclude that such orders were necessary to protect the safety of the applicant, even if the perceived risk was based on an irrational response to the applicant’s perceived cooperation with authorities. The public interest in open justice does not outweigh the applicant’s safety given the material before the court. Only specific portions of the sentencing judgment and proceedings are suppressed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; suppression and non-publication orders continued as per orders.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal.' 'Allow the appeal.' 'Continue the interim suppression and non-publication orders made by this Court on 14 May 2013 in respect of the transcript and evidence in the sentence proceedings involving the applicant Zahra DCJ delivered on 10 May 2013, pursuant to s 8(1)(c) of the Act, throughout...