Qiangdong Liu v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd & Ors [2018] NSWCCA 159

Qiangdong Liu v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd & Ors [2018] NSWCCA 159

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to establish any error in the trial judge’s refusal to make a non-publication order, with the court holding that the public interest in open justice outweighed any suggestion of financial or reputational harm, and the applicant’s peripheral connection to the...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Suppression Order (crime) Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From District Court Decision Refusing Non Publication Order
Outcome
leave to appeal refused; interim suppression order revoked
Legal Topics
['suppression Orders' 'non Publication Orders' 'open Justice' 'appeals']
['criminal Law' 'procedure'] ['suppression Orders' 'non Publication Orders' 'open Justice' 'appeals']

Source-derived case record

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 Suppression Order (crime) Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From District Court Decision Refusing Non Publication Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to make a non-publication order under the Courts (Suppression and Non Publication Orders) Act 2010' 'Whether public interest in open justice outweighs the public interest in suppressing the applicant’s identity' 'Whether order was necessary to avoid undue distress or embarrassment to the applicant']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to establish any error in the trial judge’s refusal to make a non-publication order, with the court holding that the public interest in open justice outweighed any suggestion of financial or reputational harm, and the applicant’s peripheral connection to the case did not justify suppression of his identity. Accurate reporting provided the best protection for his reputation and there was no real risk of undue distress or embarrassment warranting a suppression order.

Court Disposition

leave to appeal refused; interim suppression order revoked

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is refused.' 'The order made by Noman SC DCJ extending the suppression order until 4pm on 23 July 2018 is revoked.']