A Sydney court has rejected a request by the alleged Bondi gunman, Naveed Akram, to keep the identities of his family private. The decision allows the names and details of his mother, brother, and sister to be made public despite earlier protections.
Akram faces 59 charges in connection with a December attack on a Jewish Festival at Bondi Beach, which resulted in the deaths of 15 people.
The legal team of Akram argued that disclosing the identities of his family could expose them to vigilantes.
The Court considers public interest and online exposure
The family details were initially suppressed by the court. Several media outlets challenged the order, and it was eventually lifted.
He stated that this case had attracted a lot of public attention and was gaining global recognition.
The judge also pointed out that much information on the family was already online and would reduce the effect of any suppression orders.
The judge ruled that the 40-year suppression request did not comply with the legal standards for this protection.
Families raise safety concerns
The legal team of Akram said that the family was already facing harassment and threats.
According to reports, people drove past the family’s home shouting abuse and making death threats.
Members of the family also reported receiving threatening calls and messages.
Akram’s mom expressed her fear for the safety of herself and her children. She said that she lives in constant terror.
Court’s view on the Suppression request
He acknowledged that the judge’s concerns were valid, but said the suppression of information would only have a limited effect.
The judge pointed out that the order wouldn’t apply to platforms outside Australia, or globally.
Akram’s driving licence, for example, was already available online.
It was also less effective to try and restrict information in Australia.
It was also noted that Akram’s brothers and sisters were not relevant in the matter.
Media Opposition against Suppression
The media organisations argued the information had already been widely circulated and there were no immediate threats.
The public interest of the case was deemed to be greater than the privacy request.
