D1 v P1

This matter concerned an appeal from interlocutory orders made by Fullerton J concerning suppression and non-publication orders sought by the applicants under the *Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010* (NSW). The applicants sought to suppress information regarding the pendency and subject matter of proceedings, arguing such orders were necessary to protect the safety of a person. The appeal was heard by Bathurst CJ, McColl JA, and McClellan CJ at CL.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were the nature of an appeal from orders made under section 14 of the *Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010* (NSW), specifically whether it was a de novo appeal, and the proper interpretation of the word "necessary" in section 8 of the Act in the context of an application for suppression orders. The Court also considered the operation of sections 7 and 8 of the Act.

The Court determined that an appeal under section 14 of the Act was not a de novo appeal, but rather an appeal on the merits of the decision made by the primary judge. Regarding the interpretation of "necessary," the Court held that it required a high degree of certainty that the harm would occur if the order was not made, and that the order must be proportionate to the risk. The Court varied the primary judge's orders, extending the suppression period and granting liberty to apply to vary the expiry dates, while otherwise dismissing the appeal. The Court also made orders for the future suppression of parts of its judgment and directed the parties to indicate which parts should continue to be suppressed.