Northern Territory v Griffiths [No 2]

In the matter of *Northern Territory v Griffiths [No 2]*, Nettle J of the High Court of Australia considered an application for suppression and non-publication orders concerning expert evidence admitted in native title proceedings. The dispute arose from compensation claims where gender-restricted evidence from senior males of the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples had been admitted. The applicant sought to restrict the publication and disclosure of this specific evidence.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether suppression or non-publication orders were necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice, as contemplated by the *Judiciary Act 1903* (Cth). This involved determining the scope of the Court's power to make such orders and the specific grounds upon which they could be justified, particularly in relation to sensitive or culturally restricted information.

Nettle J reasoned that the admission of gender-restricted knowledge in legal proceedings could, in certain circumstances, necessitate protective orders to ensure the administration of justice was not prejudiced. The Court applied the principles of s 77RE(1)(b)(i) and s 77RG(4) of the *Judiciary Act 1903* (Cth), finding that the orders were necessary on the ground specified in s 77RF(1)(a) to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice. The Court's reasoning led to specific orders restricting the publication and disclosure of the gender-restricted volume of evidence, with access limited to specific individuals, including male counsel and legal representatives, and male parties or officers of parties, for defined purposes and for a period of 10 years. Liberty was reserved for parties to apply for variation of these orders.