The Court refused pseudonym and non-publication orders for four applicants in a racial discrimination proceeding against media outlets, holding that their evidence of subjective fears of harassment was speculative and not supported by objective evidence of actual risk to safety. The Court emphasised that where applicants have already been publicly identified through their own advocacy activities without demonstrated adverse consequences, the contention that involvement in litigation will produce a qualitatively different and dangerous level of exposure is difficult to sustain. The Court also held there is no general principle that s 37AG(1)(a) is engaged merely because a party asserts it would be deterred from participating fully in proceedings without anonymity, as accepting such a proposition would fundamentally undermine open justice.
The full text is available to signed-in members.