Edwards v R (No 1) [2022] NSWSC 1343

Edwards v R (No 1) [2022] NSWSC 1343

The Court was not satisfied that it was necessary to make any of the non-publication orders sought. The application was supported only by assertions from the Bar table about possible publicity, harassment, distress, privacy intrusion and mental health effects, which did not satisfy the statutory test in light of the primary objective of open justice. Access and privacy concerns about bail materials could be addressed through the separate process of granting or refusing media access and by redactions, rather than by broad non-publication orders that could affect publication of the Court's reasons.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Application for a Non Publication Order Arising in a Bail Application / Ex Tempore Judgment on Application for Non Publication Order
Outcome
Application for a non-publication order dismissed
Legal Topics
['materials Produced on Bail Application' 'access to Materials Provided to the Court' 'privacy Concerns' 'media Reporting' 'necessity for Non Publication Order']
['criminal Procedure' 'court Suppression and Non Publication Orders' 'bail' 'open Justice'] ['materials Produced on Bail Application' 'access to Materials Provided to the Court' 'privacy Concerns' 'media Reporting' 'necessity for Non Publication Order']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for a Non Publication Order Arising in a Bail Application / Ex Tempore Judgment on Application for Non Publication Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether it was necessary under the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) to make non-publication orders concerning identifying and address information of affidavit deponents and the applicant, and the contents of a psychologist report.' 'Whether assertions from the Bar table about potential harassment, distress, privacy intrusion, or mental health effects satisfied the statutory test for a non-publication order.' "How open justice differs from the Court's facilitation of media access to materials produced on a bail application."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was not satisfied that it was necessary to make any of the non-publication orders sought. The application was supported only by assertions from the Bar table about possible publicity, harassment, distress, privacy intrusion and mental health effects, which did not satisfy the statutory test in light of the primary objective of open justice. Access and privacy concerns about bail materials could be addressed through the separate process of granting or refusing media access and by redactions, rather than by broad non-publication orders that could affect publication of the Court's reasons.

Court Disposition

Application for a non-publication order dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application for a non-publication order is dismissed.']