The Court held that a non-publication order suppressing the identity of a defendant in dismissed CHRO Act proceedings was not necessary under s 8(1)(a) or s 8(1)(e) of the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW). On s 8(1)(a), the Court agreed with McNaughton J in Kay [2024] NSWSC 993 that interference with an applicant's rehabilitation is extrinsic to the 'administration of justice' and cannot ground an order under that provision — implicitly doubting Rothman J's contrary approach in GJO (No 2). On s 8(1)(e), while the Court accepted in principle that rehabilitation concerns could ground a non-publication order where the public interest significantly outweighs open justice, expert evidence that negative media coverage merely 'has the potential' to disrupt rehabilitation was insufficient to meet the high threshold of necessity, particularly where the applicant had been successful in the substantive proceedings and persistent negative coverage was speculative.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.