27 Jul 2021
The appellant failed to establish the statutory threshold under s 200(2) for extreme hardship or a real risk of prejudice to a fair trial; on balance open justice and the public interest prevail and continued interim name suppression is not justified, so the appeal is dismissed.
15 Oct 2020
The High Court denied the takedown application because the Stuff articles did not publish evidential material that would realistically prejudice a fair trial: the CCTV footage was not demonstrably identifying, published commentary was non-evidential or speculative, the accused elected judge-alone trial (reducing risk of jury prejudice), and existing trial safeguards and legal principles sufficiently protected fair trial rights.
24 Sept 2020
The Court held the jury directions and summing up were adequate and not unfairly biased, the presence of residual internet material did not demonstrate juror non‑compliance or render the retrial unfair, and Judge Kelly was entitled to impose a longer sentence because the earlier sentence was manifestly inadequate; the six year sentence (with applied discounts and uplifts) was proportionate and not manifestly excessive.
19 Dec 2019
Leave to bring a second appeal was granted because errors in the lower courts' assessment of s 200(2)(d) were identified, but fresh evidence was rightly declined as not fresh or necessary; on rehearing the Court concluded that although publication of the appellant's name would add to the body of adverse publicity, the additional prejudice could be adequately addressed by tailored judicial directions and other measures, so publication would not create a real risk of prejudice to AB's fair trial rights and the appeal is dismissed.
26 Nov 2019
Access to formal court records that record judicial decisions (judgments, minutes) and the last versions of pleadings was granted because transparency and the principle of open justice outweighed confidentiality concerns, but access to materials supporting procedural applications and their evidence was refused because those materials contained private and commercially sensitive information and there was little public interest in disclosure given the availability of the judgments.
30 Nov 2018
Although the Court accepted there is a real risk some jurors may research the internet despite directions, the identified articles would not create a real risk of prejudice sufficient to justify take down orders: the Crown case at retrial remains substantially the same, no newly inadmissible highly prejudicial material was identified, interim name suppression and tailored judicial directions mitigate pre-trial exposure, and practical/freedom of expression and public‑record concerns made orders disproportionate; accordingly the application for take down orders was refused.
23 Feb 2018
Application for leave to appeal dismissed because there was no appearance of a miscarriage of justice nor a sufficiently strong question of public or general importance to justify judicial creation of a partial defence of excessive defence of another; trial judge properly addressed publicity and summing up issues and the applicant's prospects of changing the law by appeal were negligible.
22 Apr 2015
Although online material linked the defendant to prior offending and an extended supervision order and therefore posed a real risk to fair trial rights, the publicity was not so pervasive or immediate that a fair trial was impossible; the risks could be mitigated by judicial directions, rigorous pre-trial jury screening and other trial measures, so a stay was not justified; leave to conduct an online survey was refused because it risked further tainting the jury pool and was unlikely to change the outcome.