AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Supreme Court 16 July 2026

R v Peckham

[2026] NSWSC 840

HomicidePublic order & justice offences
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE SUPPRESSION AND NON PUBLICATION ORDERS APPLICANT FAILED TO ESTABLISH NECESSITY NOTICE OF MOTION DISMISSED

Citation: R v Peckham [2026] NSWSC 840
Court: Supreme Court of NSW
Date: 16 July 2026
Judge(s): Chen J

Background

In the early hours of 16 August 2023, George Kirk was fatally stabbed in a Dubbo home. Two people became relevant to these proceedings: Mark Peckham, who was charged with Mr Kirk's murder, and a co-offender (referred to here as the applicant), who was charged with three offences of hindering the apprehension and investigation of Peckham.

The applicant ultimately pleaded guilty to two of the three hindering charges and was convicted and sentenced separately. Peckham stood trial before a jury, was found guilty of murder on 23 March 2026, and his sentence hearing was listed for 13 July 2026.

It was in the context of that sentence hearing that the applicant filed an amended notice of motion seeking suppression and non-publication orders under the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW). He sought to prevent or remove publication of his name in connection with Peckham's proceedings, arguing that ongoing media coverage prejudiced the administration of justice and threatened his rehabilitation and reintegration into the community.

  • Whether a non-publication order, pseudonym order, or "take-down" orders were "necessary" under the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) to prevent prejudice to the administration of justice or in the public interest.
  • Whether the applicant's rehabilitation and reintegration into the community would be compromised by continued publication of his name in connection with Peckham's proceedings.
  • Whether any public interest considerations advanced by the applicant outweighed the established public interest in open justice.

Decision

Issue 1: Necessity under the Act

Chen J held that the applicant failed to establish that any of the orders sought were "necessary" within the meaning of the Act. The threshold of necessity is a high one, and the court found nothing in the evidence or submissions that came close to meeting it. The applicant's arguments, including broad claims about fundamental legal principles being undermined by publication, were not accepted.

Issue 2: Rehabilitation and reintegration

The applicant's own affidavit stated that media articles about the case stressed him out and did not "feel fair." Chen J found this fell well short of establishing that his rehabilitation or reintegration had been, or would be, compromised. The court also found that the media reporting was fair and accurate, and no contrary submission was advanced by the applicant.

Issue 3: Affidavit evidence from third parties

Affidavits from the applicant's mother and another person, prepared for his sentence hearing, were tendered in support of the suppression application. Chen J found that the applicant's submissions did not identify any specific part of those materials that supported the orders sought. A psychologist's report was also tendered but not referred to in submissions at all. None of this material assisted the applicant.

Issue 4: Public interest in open justice

Even setting aside the failure on necessity, Chen J held that nothing advanced by the applicant supported a finding that the matters raised outweighed, let alone significantly outweighed, the public interest in open justice. This provided an independent and additional basis for dismissing the application.

Orders Made

  • The interim suppression order made on 13 July 2026 under section 10 of the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) was revoked.
  • The amended notice of motion filed 13 July 2026 was dismissed.

Key Takeaways

  • Under the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW), an applicant must demonstrate that an order is genuinely "necessary" to prevent prejudice to the administration of justice or to serve the public interest. A high threshold applies and is not easily met.
  • A convicted offender's subjective distress about accurate media coverage of proceedings in which he was named does not, without more, establish that rehabilitation or reintegration into the community will be compromised.
  • Affidavit evidence prepared for a sentencing hearing and later tendered in support of a suppression application carries little weight where the applicant's submissions do not identify specific passages said to support the orders sought.
  • The public interest in open justice remains a weighty consideration. In dismissing the application, the Supreme Court confirmed that personal discomfort with accurate reporting does not displace that interest.
  • Retrospective "take-down" orders, like prospective suppression orders, are subject to the same necessity requirement. The applicant's failure on the core threshold disposed of all categories of relief sought.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW)
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)

Cases
- AB ( A pseudonym) v R ( No 3) (2019) 97 NSWLR 1046; [2019] NSWCCA 46
- Attorney General for NSW v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (2007) 73 NSWLR 635; [2007] NSWCCA 307
- Australian Broadcasting Commission v Parish [1980] FCA 33; (1980) 43 FLR 129
- D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid (2005) 223 CLR 1; [2005] HCA 12
- Fairfax Digital Australia and New Zealand Pty Ltd v Ibrahim (2012) 83 NSWLR 52; [2012] NSWCCA 125
- Farrell v Super Retail Group Limited (Confidentiality Applications) [2024] FCA 954
- Hogan v Australian Crime Commission (2010) 240 CLR 651; [2010] HCA 21
- John Fairfax & Sons Ltd v Police Tribunal of NSW (1986) 5 NSWLR 465
- John Fairfax Group Pty Ltd v Local Court of New South Wales (1991) 26 NSWLR 131
- John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v District Court of NSW (2004) 61 NSWLR 344; [2004] NSWCA 324
- L ee v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (2023) 296 FCR 272; [2023] FCAFC 22
- Llewellyn v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (2006) 154 FCR 293; [2006] FCA 836
- Nationwide News Pty Ltd v JS and SD [2022] NSWSC 774
- Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Qaumi (2016) 93 NSWLR 384; [2016] NSWCCA 97
- PG v R [2017] NSWCCA 179; (2017) 268 A Crim R 61
- R v Dirani ( No 33) [2019] NSWSC 288
- R v Elomar (No 3) [2008] NSWSC 1443
- R v Fitton [2025] NSWSC 1103
- R v Fitton [2026] NSWSC 482
- R v Legal Aid Board Ex parte T (A Firm of Solicitors) [1999] QB 966
- R v Reid (No 1) [2021] NSWSC 170
- Rae v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 211
- Rinehart v Welker (2011) 93 NSWLR 311; [2011] NSWCA 403
- State of New South Wales v Kay [2024] NSWSC 993
- State of New South Wales v Loveridge (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 568
- Teece v R [2022] NSWCCA 265; (2022) 374 FLR 201
- Welker v Rinehart [2011] NSWSC 1094