AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Local Court 2 April 2026

R v AKRAM

[2026] NSWLC 1

HomicidePublic order & justice offences
APPLICATION FOR FINAL NON PUBLICATION ORDERS ACT

Citation: [2026] NSWLC 1
Court: Local Court of New South Wales
Date: 2 April 2026
Judge(s): Donnelly LCJ

Background

The applicant faces charges including committing a terrorist act, 15 counts of murder, 40 counts of causing wounding or grievous bodily harm with intent to murder, and several other serious offences allegedly committed on 14 December 2025 at Bondi. During the incident, the applicant's father was shot and killed by police. Committal proceedings have commenced in the Local Court but remain at an early stage, with the brief of evidence yet to be served.

The applicant sought final non-publication and suppression orders under section 7 of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act NSW (the Act) to protect the identities, addresses, and images of his mother, brother, and sister. The application was grounded in section 8(1)(c) of the Act — that the orders were "necessary to protect the safety" of those family members.

The case attracted what the court described as "unprecedented" public interest, outrage, anger, and grief, with extensive reporting both in Australia and internationally. The applicant's driver's licence had been posted on social media shortly after the incident, disclosing the family's home address. Several news media organisations — Nationwide News, Nine Network, GNM Australia, and the ABC — opposed the orders. The Commonwealth DPP took a neutral position.

  • Whether final non-publication and suppression orders were necessary to protect the safety of the applicant's mother, brother, and sister under section 8(1)(c) of the Act.
  • Whether, given the unprecedented scale of publicity across social media and international news media, the proposed orders would have practical utility and effectiveness — that is, whether they could meaningfully achieve their protective purpose.
  • How the principle of open justice should be weighed against the safety concerns raised by the applicant's family.
  • Whether the orders, if made, could be enforced against online hosting service providers, including in light of the Fairfax Digital Australia and New Zealand v Ibrahim decision on the practical limits of suppression in the digital age.
  • The appropriate scope and duration of any orders, including the applicant's request for Commonwealth-wide orders lasting 40 years.

Decision

The court accepted, on the evidence before it, that the applicant's mother, brother, and sister had been subjected to genuine and serious threats, intimidation, and harassment following the incident. The affidavit evidence detailed incidents including threatening messages (including death threats via WhatsApp), physical intimidation at the family home (such as men banging on the door at night), property damage or interference, and a persistent media presence that made normal life effectively impossible. The court acknowledged that these family members had no involvement in the alleged offences and were being targeted by members of the public who could not direct their anger at the applicant or his deceased father.

A central question for the court was whether, given the extraordinary level of existing publicity — including the applicant's driver's licence and family address having already been widely disseminated on social media — the proposed orders could have any real practical effect. The court examined the decision in Fairfax Digital v Ibrahim, which emphasised that suppression orders must have utility and not be made where they would be futile. The applicant's counsel submitted that the orders would "at least lessen" the potential for what he characterised as vigilante conduct.

The court carefully considered the tension between the fundamental principle of open justice — recognised in cases such as John Fairfax & Sons v Police Tribunal (NSW) and Rinehart v Welker — and the statutory ground permitting orders necessary to protect safety. The court also addressed the proposed exemption for hosting service providers (reflecting the definition in the Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth)), which would only require compliance once a provider became aware of both the orders and the offending content. Order 7 expressly disclaimed any obligation on hosting providers to monitor content proactively.

Note: Because the full text of the judgment was truncated, the ultimate disposition — that is, whether the court granted or refused the final orders — cannot be confirmed from the material available. The analysis above reflects the issues and reasoning disclosed in the available portion of the judgment. Practitioners should consult the full decision for the court's conclusions on each issue.

Orders Made

  • An interim non-publication and suppression order was initially made on 9 March 2026 by Grogin LCM, subsequently revoked on 17 March 2026 and replaced with a narrower interim order.
  • The court considered the applicant's amended short minutes of order dated 18 March 2026 seeking seven final orders, including suppression of names, addresses, school/workplace details, and images of the applicant's mother, brother, and sister, with a 40-year duration across the Commonwealth.
  • The full terms of any final orders made (or the refusal of orders) are not available from the truncated text provided.

Key Takeaways

  • Under s 8(1)(c) of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act, a demanding "necessity" threshold applies, requiring an applicant to demonstrate that a suppression order is necessary to protect safety, not merely that publication creates a risk or that the order would be convenient or desirable.

  • The Local Court scrutinised the practical utility of suppression orders in the digital age, finding that where information had already been widely disseminated on social media and international news platforms, it was doubtful whether an order could achieve any meaningful protective effect, consistent with the approach in Fairfax Digital v Ibrahim.

  • Open justice remains the default position, and even in cases involving alleged terrorism with intense public interest and genuine sympathy for innocent family members, any proposed suppression must be weighed against the fundamental principle that justice should be administered openly.

  • Distinct enforceability issues arose in relation to orders directed at online hosting providers. The applicant's proposed orders sought to address this by limiting hosting provider obligations to situations where providers were actually aware of both the orders and the relevant content, and by expressly excluding any monitoring obligation, an approach that engaged both the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act and the Commonwealth Online Safety Act 2021.

  • In assessing proportionality, the Court recognised that a request for 40-year, Commonwealth-wide orders represented an extraordinary restriction on open justice, attracting close judicial scrutiny as to whether such scope and duration could be justified as necessary rather than merely precautionary.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act NSW, ss 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
- Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth), s 245
- Commonwealth Constitution, s 109
- Criminal Procedure Act NSW, Chapter 3 Part 2

Key Cases:
- Fairfax Digital Australia and New Zealand v Ibrahim (2012) 83 NSWLR 52
- John Fairfax & Sons v Police Tribunal (NSW) (1986) 5 NSWLR 465
- Rinehart v Welker [2011] NSWCA 403; (2011) 93 NSWLR 311
- Nationwide News Pty Limited v Quami [2016] NSWCCA 97; (2016) 93 NSWLR 384
- AB (A pseudonym) v R (No 3) (2019) 97 NSWLR 1046; [2019] NSWCCA 46
- AB (a pseudonym) v CD (a pseudonym) [2019] HCA 6; (2019) 93 ALJR 321
- A Lawyer (a pseudonym) v Director of Public Prosecutions NSW; Nationwide News Pty Limited v A Lawyer (a pseudonym) [2020] NSWSC 1713
- MA v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW); AD v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2025] NSWCCA 54
- D1 v P1 [2012] NSWCA 440
- In the matter of the application of TSK (a pseudonym) [2023] NSWSC 494