News Digital Media Pty Ltd v Mokbel

News Digital Media Pty Ltd, the publisher of two websites, sought leave to appeal against the decision of a judge of the Trial Division of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appeal related to orders made by the judge, which suppressed information about the first respondent, who was involved in criminal proceedings, and ordered the removal of material from the applicants' websites. The applicants argued that the orders were unnecessary to protect the trial process, that the order to remove material from their websites was futile, and that the suppression orders were an unjustifiable interference with their freedom of expression. The court was required to decide whether the appeal was competent under section 17(2) of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) and whether the restriction in section 17A(3) of the same Act operated to prevent an appeal from an order of a Trial Division judge. The court was also required to consider whether the order to remove material from the applicants' websites was necessary to protect the trial process and whether the suppression orders were an unjustifiable interference with the applicants' freedom of expression.

The court found that the appeal was competent under section 17(2) of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) and that the restriction in section 17A(3) did not operate to prevent an appeal from an order of a Trial Division judge. The court found that the order to remove material from the applicants' websites was necessary to protect the trial process and that the suppression orders were not an unjustifiable interference with the applicants' freedom of expression. The court found that the suppression orders were necessary to protect the fairness of the trial and that the public's right to know was not paramount in this case. The court found that the orders were proportionate and reasonable in the circumstances.

The court allowed the appeal in part and set aside the orders of the trial judge. The court held that the suppression orders were necessary to protect the fairness of the trial and that the orders to remove material from the applicants' websites were necessary to prevent the dissemination of prejudicial information. The court held that the orders were proportionate and reasonable in the circumstances and that the applicants' freedom of expression was not unjustifiably interfered with. The court refused leave to appeal in respect of the suppression orders and granted leave to appeal in respect of the orders to remove material from the applicants' websites.