Harris (pseudonym) v Secretary, Department of Communities & Justice (No 2) [2022] NSWCA 10

Harris (pseudonym) v Secretary, Department of Communities & Justice (No 2) [2022] NSWCA 10

While the published judgment did not contain detailed identifying information, as the children might be identified through their father (the applicant), and publication could lead to identification of related proceedings and the children, it is appropriate for their protection that the applicant be given a pseudonym and certain identifying footnotes and references redacted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Redaction / Suppression Order / Consequential Orders Following Appellate Judgment
Outcome
Orders made for redaction and pseudonym; consequential orders granted.
Legal Topics
['suppression and Non Publication Orders' 'redaction of Judgment' 'protection of Identity of Children']
['civil Procedure'] ['suppression and Non Publication Orders' 'redaction of Judgment' 'protection of Identity of Children']

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 Redaction / Suppression Order / Consequential Orders Following Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the published judgment should be further redacted to protect the identity of children' 'Whether the applicant should be referred to by pseudonym' 'Whether footnotes referring to other judgments should be redacted']

Ratio Decidendi

While the published judgment did not contain detailed identifying information, as the children might be identified through their father (the applicant), and publication could lead to identification of related proceedings and the children, it is appropriate for their protection that the applicant be given a pseudonym and certain identifying footnotes and references redacted.

Court Disposition

Orders made for redaction and pseudonym; consequential orders granted.

Orders

  • ['In the published version of the first judgment: (1) the name of the applicant where it appears in [3] is to be redacted; (2) the applicant is to be given the pseudonym Harris; (3) footnotes 1 and 2 be redacted.']