R v AB (A Pseudonym) (No. 4) [2022] NSWDC 17

R v AB (A Pseudonym) (No. 4) [2022] NSWDC 17

The Court refused the publisher's application because the combination of AB's pre-existing mental disorders, expert evidence about the effect of those disorders on AB's functioning, evidence that earlier media reporting and social media commentary identifying AB affected AB's mental health, AB's improvement while the orders were in place, and the risk of further unbalanced reporting and social media reaction meant there was a real and substantial risk of significant and imminent aggravation of AB's mental health if AB were identified. The continuation of the orders remained necessary for AB's safety under s 8(1)(c), and the encroachment on open justice was minimal because the offending...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Procedure Pseudonym and Non Publication Orders / Application for Review of Pseudonym and Non Publication Orders
Outcome
The publisher's application for review was refused.
Legal Topics
['pseudonym Orders' 'non Publication Orders' 'open Justice' 'protection of Safety' 'mental Health']
['criminal Procedure'] ['pseudonym Orders' 'non Publication Orders' 'open Justice' 'protection of Safety' 'mental Health']

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 Procedure Pseudonym and Non Publication Orders / Application for Review of Pseudonym and Non Publication Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the pseudonym and non-publication orders made on 11 May 2021, as varied on 10 September 2021, should be revoked, varied or confirmed on review under s 13 of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW).' "Whether continuation of the orders remained necessary to protect AB's safety under s 8(1)(c) of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW), having regard to open justice and the risk of harm to AB's mental health."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused the publisher's application because the combination of AB's pre-existing mental disorders, expert evidence about the effect of those disorders on AB's functioning, evidence that earlier media reporting and social media commentary identifying AB affected AB's mental health, AB's improvement while the orders were in place, and the risk of further unbalanced reporting and social media reaction meant there was a real and substantial risk of significant and imminent aggravation of AB's mental health if AB were identified. The continuation of the orders remained necessary for AB's safety under s 8(1)(c), and the encroachment on open justice was minimal because the offending...

Court Disposition

The publisher's application for review was refused.

Orders

  • ['The orders made by the Court on 11 May 2021, as varied on 10 September 2021, are confirmed.']