The Court set aside suppression orders protecting the identity of a convicted co-offender (BLJ) who had given an undertaking to assist law enforcement and testify at the trial of another accused. The Court held that where the original rationale for suppression (witness safety) was no longer relied upon by the State or the protected person, and the protected person affirmatively sought to have the orders lifted, the open justice principle prevailed. The Court rejected the convicted accused Pye's argument that suppression should continue pending a potential appeal and retrial, holding that publication of BLJ's true name would not affect the fairness of any future trial.
The full text is available to signed-in members.