14 Mar 2023
Leave to appeal dismissed because the appeal standard issue was not appropriate for determination on this leave application (Court of Appeal had not addressed the point) and the appeal standard was not determinative of the outcome; there is no appearance of miscarriage on the merits in the Court of Appeal's treatment of the suppression application and no error identified that would justify granting leave.
12 Aug 2019
Applying s 202 and the two-step approach, the Judge found that several witnesses (Ms C, Ms S, Ms R, Ms A, Mr C, Ms F and Mr H) satisfied the threshold of likely undue hardship or danger and, on balance, suppression of their names was warranted; other witnesses (Mr MacLachlan, Francis Ulutupu) did not meet the test. The Court ordered suppression of identifying particulars for those witnesses and prohibited publication of the ruling or proceedings in news media or online until final disposition, while permitting publication in law reports/law digests.
11 Apr 2016
Permanent suppression of the names and any identifying particulars of School X, School Y and Employer Z was warranted under s202 because publication would be likely to lead to identification of victims and cause undue hardship to victims, their families, other students and staff; the public interest in open reporting did not require disclosure to fairly report the proceedings.