Naveed Akram's public defender, barrister Richard Wilson SC, sought suppression and non-publication orders over the identity of the alleged gunman's mother, sister and brother at a Sydney court on Monday. The 24-year-old is accused of Australia's deadliest terror attack.
Wilson acknowledged that the identity of Akram's mother had already been published, with magistrate Greg Grogin asking, "Hasn't the horse bolted on that?" Yet Grogin indicated sympathy for the core argument."There is absolutely no reason why the relatives of the accused Naveed Akram should have their life put in the arena both within Sydney, NSW and now the world," Grogin said.
An interim order preventing any publication of the three names is in place until Grogin presides over a full hearing on 17 March. The decision balances competing principles: the presumption that close family members bear no responsibility for an accused person's alleged crimes, against the public right to information and scrutiny.
The request reflects broader tensions in how courts manage identity and privacy in high-profile criminal proceedings.News Corp is seeking to block the proposed suppression order, with its legal counsel Benjamin Regattieri calling the proposed orders futile, saying that extensive publication had already occurred in Australia and internationally. This argument carries weight; the names are already in circulation.
The case also emerges against the background of the original attack itself.On 14 December, an antisemitic Islamic State-inspired terrorist attack occurred at Bondi Beach during a Hanukkah celebration, when two gunmen, allegedly Sajid and his son Naveed Akram, killed a total of 15 people including 11 men, three women and a 10-year-old girl.Sajid, an Indian national and permanent resident of Australia, was shot dead by police; his Australian son was treated for wounds at a local hospital and survived.
Naveed is now on remand in Goulburn Correctional Centre awaiting trial for 15 murders and 44 other offences.Police allege Sajid and Naveed Akram acted alone and were not living at home at the time of the shooting.
The suppression order raises a genuine dilemma. Akram's relatives appear to have no involvement in the planning or execution of the attack. Yet the high-profile nature of the case and the intense public emotion surrounding it creates real risks of vigilante targeting or media harassment. Courts have long recognised this tension when deciding whether to protect the identities of families of accused persons in notorious cases.
The magistrate's interim order suggests the bench recognises the legitimacy of privacy concerns even whilst remaining sceptical about whether suppression orders can be effective once names are widely known. The March hearing will be significant in testing whether Australian courts believe they can meaningfully protect identities post-publication, or whether they should focus instead on preventing harmful speculation and vigilantism through other means.