The alleged Bondi attacker has been refused a suppression order on the names and home and work addresses of his family members after a group of media organizations won a challenge against the bid.
Judge Hugh Donnelly delivered the verdict at Downing Center Local Court on Thursday. Request for 40-year suppression order rejected, ending interim suppression order granted to Naved Akram’s mother, brother and sister in early March, which banned publication of their names and addresses.
He said the order did not meet the exceptional circumstances threshold and would be ineffective for several reasons, including that it would not remove information that had already been widely circulated on social media shortly after the attack. Earlier information circulated included an image of Akram’s license.
The brief of evidence for the case has not yet been presented, but Donnelly said it was not anticipated that Akram’s brother or sister would be called as a witness. This means that he will not be named in any fair and accurate reporting of any court proceedings because he has “little relevance to the case”.
“The current state of evidence is that his mother, sister and brother had nothing to do with what happened,” he said.
Donnelly began his decision by saying: “‘There is unprecedented public interest, outrage, anger and sadness in this case.’
Akram, 24, appeared in court for a suppression order decision via video link from the Goulburn Supermax, where he has been remanded in custody.
He and his father Sajid Akram, 50, allegedly killed 15 people when they opened fire at Hanukkah celebrations on Bondi Beach on December 14.
Navid Akram, who survived the shootout with police, has been charged with 59 crimes, including 15 counts of murder and one count of committing a terrorist act, which investigators allege may have been “ISIS-inspired”. Sajid Akram was shot dead by the police on the spot.
Akram’s lawyers argued during a hearing on 17 March that his family members’ names should be suppressed out of fear that “one or more of them may be murdered” after receiving death threats. His public defender, Richard Wilson SC, told the court that a suppression order should be made for his mental and physical safety.
Wilson said during the hearing that there was no public interest in publishing their names and addresses.
He said, “There is no suggestion that the defendant’s mother, brother or sister had anything to do with this. There is no suggestion of concealment of the defendant’s name or suppression of any evidence in the case.”
Matthew Lewis SC, who acted on behalf of news organizations including Nine, News Corp Australia, the ABC and Guardian Australia, argued there was no evidence there was any imminent risk, and the order was not necessary due to fear.
He said at the Akram family’s home address that “the cat is well and truly out” after a photo showing Akram’s driver’s license was leaked online hours after the 14 December attack. Lewis said that news organizations generally published the suburb, not the street name or house number.
