D1 v P1 [2012] NSWCA 314

D1 v P1 [2012] NSWCA 314

On the evidence and statutory construction, the material did not support that a further, blanket suppression order prohibiting disclosure of existence, subject matter, or identities in the proceedings was necessary to protect X’s safety under s 8(1)(c) of the Act. The orders made by Fullerton J were sufficiently protective and should only be varied in respect of their duration, not expanded.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 September 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision After Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Suppression Order
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed except as to variation of duration of suppression orders
Legal Topics
['suppression Orders' 'non Publication Orders' 'court Suppression and Non Publication Orders Act 2010 (nsw) S 7, S 8, S 12, S 13, S 14' 'open Justice Principle' 'protection of Safety of Persons' 'evidence Standards']
['civil Procedure' 'media Law' 'statutory Interpretation'] ['suppression Orders' 'non Publication Orders' 'court Suppression and Non Publication Orders Act 2010 (nsw) S 7, S 8, S 12, S 13, S 14' 'open Justice Principle' 'protection of Safety of Persons' 'evidence Standards']

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

Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision After Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Suppression Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether orders suppressing publication about the proceedings, identities, and subject matter are necessary to protect safety under s 8(1)(c) of the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW)' 'Whether a blanket suppression order is justified' 'Effect of settlement on necessity for suppression orders' "Proper construction and application of 'necessity' under s 8 of the Act" 'Balancing open justice against safety of vulnerable persons']

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence and statutory construction, the material did not support that a further, blanket suppression order prohibiting disclosure of existence, subject matter, or identities in the proceedings was necessary to protect X’s safety under s 8(1)(c) of the Act. The orders made by Fullerton J were sufficiently protective and should only be varied in respect of their duration, not expanded.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed except as to variation of duration of suppression orders

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal be granted' 'Applicants to file Notice of Appeal within 7 days' 'Orders of Fullerton J to be varied: substitute 29 March 2013 for 3 August 2012 in two orders; add order granting parties and intervenor liberty to apply to a judge to vary expiry date' 'Appeal otherwise dismissed' 'Order prohibiting...