1 Dec 2022
The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to establish any threshold ground under s 200(2); the District Court's suppression of complainants' identifying particulars removed any real risk of identification, and asserted harms to the wife and grandchildren were speculative and insufficient to displace the presumption of open justice.
31 Aug 2022
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to establish the statutory threshold: publication of her name would not cause extreme hardship and publication of her son's name would not cause undue hardship; risk of identifying the complainant was low and the public interest in open justice outweighed the claimed harms.
13 Apr 2016
Permanent name suppression was necessary because the risk that publication of the defendant's name would identify the suppressed complainants and the extreme hardship and potential harm to the defendant's son outweighed the public interest in open justice, notwithstanding the acquittal.