R v Lui (No 5)

The Court granted a 50-year Australia-wide pseudonym order for a co-offender who pleaded guilty to manslaughter and gave critical Crown evidence at the trial of his co-accused, on the grounds of safety (s 8(1)(c)) and preventing prejudice to the administration of justice (s 8(1)(a)). McNaughton J applied the calculus of risk test, finding that although the risk of harm did not rise beyond a mere possibility, the prospective harm was very severe given the applicant's vulnerability, immaturity, parole status, and the co-accused's expressed hostility toward informers. The Court did not find it necessary to rely on s 8(1)(e) (public interest). The decision distinguishes cases involving police officers (Strawhorn) and professional criminals embedded in organised crime (Brown), holding that the applicant's childlike naivety and lack of life skills created distinct vulnerabilities warranting protection even in the absence of direct threats or police evidence of risk.