SUPPRESSION ORDER: parties seek suppression order in respect of location of Powerful Owl nests in a reserve — applicable legal principles — grounds — evidence supports making of suppression order.
Quick Take
1Where court proceedings concern a threatened species and evidence before the court identifies sensitive nesting or breeding locations, a suppression order under s 8(1)(a) and/or s 8(1)(e) of the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 may be necessary where disclosure would risk harm to the very species the litigation seeks to protect, as permitting such harm would subvert the subject-matter of the litigation and prejudice the proper administration of justice.
2The public interest in protecting threatened species location data — particularly where that data is already subject to expert-endorsed sensitive data management policies such as the Birdlife Australia Sensitive Bird Data Policy — can significantly outweigh the public interest in open justice under s 8(1)(e), on evidence of real risk of harm from over-visitation, disturbance and reactive animal behaviour.
3Even on an unopposed application, the court must independently scrutinise the evidence and consider whether a less restrictive mechanism could achieve the protective purpose before making a suppression order, consistent with Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force v EA [2026] NSWCA 131.
