A peripheral witness in a criminal trial who is not alleged to have any involvement in the offending is not entitled to a non-publication order merely because of potential financial harm to their business or personal embarrassment from being publicly associated with the proceedings. Mere discomfort or simple embarrassment is insufficient to satisfy the 'undue distress or embarrassment' ground in s 8(1)(d). Accurate reporting of trial proceedings is the best protection for the reputation of an innocent witness, and suppression orders may inadvertently produce worse outcomes by enabling inaccurate and speculative reporting.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 3 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.