Under s 26(2)(a) of the Inquiries Act 2014 (Vic), a risk to safety must be more than fanciful and must be a real or realistic risk to justify non-publication orders anonymising the names of alleged wrongdoers. The discretion under s 26(1) is not enlivened only once the terms of one of the paragraphs in s 26(2) are satisfied; the commissioner may make an order whenever considered appropriate. A Royal Commissioner is not bound to accept unchallenged opinion evidence and is not required to put an applicant on notice before declining to accept such evidence, particularly in non-adversarial proceedings without a contradictor. The likelihood of similar applications by others is a relevant consideration in the exercise of the discretion.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.