The alleged Bondi gunman has lost his court bid to suppress the names and addresses of his mother, brother, and sister due to fears over their safety. Lawyers for Naveed Akram - who is facing 59 charges over December's attack on a Jewish festival on Bondi Beach that killed 15 people - argued that his family could be targeted by vigilantes and had already experienced abuse.
Last month, details of Akram's family were suppressed under an interim order but on Thursday, a Sydney court lifted it after several media outlets opposed the move. The case had attracted unprecedented attention in Australia and globally, the judge ruled, and information about the family was already widely available online.
Judge Hugh Donnelly highlighted the public interest in the case, which had generated outrage and grief, stating that the request for a 40-year suppression order did not meet the exceptional circumstances threshold. He noted that the order's effectiveness would be limited to Australia and provide little protection against international media or social media.
Comments from the court indicated that Akram's family's identities had already been compromised with his driver's license circulating online. Meanwhile, Akram's family, enduring constant threats and harassment, expressed fears for their safety, stating, We live in constant fear someone will harm us or set our house on fire. Despite their concerns, the judge maintained that the public's right to know was of paramount importance in this high-profile case.
Last month, details of Akram's family were suppressed under an interim order but on Thursday, a Sydney court lifted it after several media outlets opposed the move. The case had attracted unprecedented attention in Australia and globally, the judge ruled, and information about the family was already widely available online.
Judge Hugh Donnelly highlighted the public interest in the case, which had generated outrage and grief, stating that the request for a 40-year suppression order did not meet the exceptional circumstances threshold. He noted that the order's effectiveness would be limited to Australia and provide little protection against international media or social media.
Comments from the court indicated that Akram's family's identities had already been compromised with his driver's license circulating online. Meanwhile, Akram's family, enduring constant threats and harassment, expressed fears for their safety, stating, We live in constant fear someone will harm us or set our house on fire. Despite their concerns, the judge maintained that the public's right to know was of paramount importance in this high-profile case.
