FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Purcell (Examiner) v LAZ24 (No 2) [2025] FCA 498
File number(s): NSD 1773 of 2024 Judgment of: HILL J Date of judgment: 16 May 2025 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Principle of open justice – Suppression or non-publication order – Application to revoke previous suppression order – Whether order necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice – Whether order necessary to protect the safety of any person – application to revoke dismissed – Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), ss 37AF, 37AG(1) Legislation: Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth) ss 25A(9), 29A, 29B
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 37AF, 37AG(1)(a) and (c)
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)
Cases cited: AB v CD [2019] HCA 6; (2019) 364 ALR 202
Anderson v BYF19 [2019] FCA 1959
Australian Crime Commission v DTO21 [2022] FCA 288
Country Care Group Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (No 2) [2020] FCAFC 44; (2020) 275 FCR 377
Hinch v Attorney-General (Vic) (1987) 164 CLR 15
Kazal v Thunder Studios Inc (California) [2017] FCAFC 111; (2017) 256 FCR 90
Lee v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2023] FCAFC 22; (2023) 296 FCR 272
LHRC v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (No 4) [2015] FCA 70; (2015) 326 ALR 150
Lusty v DER22 [2023] FCA 255
Lusty v DEZ22 [2022] FCA 1581
Microsoft Corporation v Marks [1996] FCA 709; (1996) 69 FCR 117
Ogawa v President of the Australian Human Rights Commission [2022] FCAFC 160; (2022) 294 FCR 221
Purcell (Examiner) v LAZ24 [2025] FCA 413
R v Martinez (No 7) [2020] NSWSC 361
Sage v AYI23 [2023] FCA 1336
Division: General Division Registry: New South Wales National Practice Area: Federal Crime and Related Proceedings Number of paragraphs: 20 Date of hearing: Determined on the papers Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Williams Solicitor for the Applicant: Australian Government Solicitor Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Doherty Solicitor for the Respondent: Miers Legal ORDERS
NSD 1773 of 2024 BETWEEN: ANDREW PURCELL, AN EXAMINER APPOINTED UNDER S 46B OF THE AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION ACT 2002 (CTH)
Applicant
AND: LAZ24
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
HILL J
DATE OF ORDER:
16 MAY 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Respondent’s interlocutory application dated 6 May 2025 be dismissed.
2.The Respondent is to pay the Applicant’s costs of the application (constituted by a “notice of motion” dated 6 May 2025) to be agreed or assessed.
3.Pursuant to s 37AF of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), on the grounds in s 37AG(1)(a) and (c):
(a)These unredacted reasons for judgment not be published and not be made available to any person other than a party to the proceeding or their legal representatives otherwise than pursuant to an order of a judge of the Court for a period of seven days.
(b)Within seven days the parties inform the Associate to Hill J of whether the parties consider that any redactions to this judgment…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Purcell (Examiner) v LAZ24 (No 2) and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2025] FCA 498
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the application and dismissed it, finding no basis to deviate from the usual practice regarding costs. The judge noted that the substance of the application was considered, despite its form being deficient. The critical order under scrutiny was Order 1(a), which prohibited the disclosure of LAZ24's identifying information. The court found no compelling reason to revoke these orders, affirming that they remained necessary to uphold the principles of justice and protect the safety of individuals involved. The operation of Order 3, which governed LAZ24's identification during the proceeding, had already been completed.
The court's reasoning centred on the continued necessity of the suppression orders to prevent potential prejudice to the administration of justice and to safeguard the safety of individuals. Given the existing orders were still relevant and justified, there was no ground to revoke them. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the costs of the application were to be borne by LAZ24, to be agreed upon or assessed. Additionally, the court made provisions for the unredacted reasons for judgment to remain confidential for seven days, pending any agreement by the parties on necessary redactions before publication.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The Respondent’s interlocutory application dated 6 May 2025 be dismissed.
2. The Respondent is to pay the Applicant’s costs of the application (constituted by a “notice of motion” dated 6 May 2025) to be agreed or assessed.
3. Pursuant to s 37AF of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), on the grounds in s 37AG(1)(a) and (c):
(a) These unredacted reasons for judgment not be published and not be made available to any person other than a party to the proceeding or their legal representatives otherwise than pursuant to an order of a judge of the Court for a period of seven days.
(b) Within seven days the parties inform the Associate to Hill J of whether the parties consider that any redactions to this judgment are required and, if so, provide a proposed redacted version of the reasons for judgment which the parties consider is appropriate for publication, and indicate whether it is sought to extend the operation of the order in paragraph (a) above.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
For the following reasons, the application is dismissed. There is no reason to depart from the usual position as to costs. I will make similar provision as before for the parties to confer on whether any redactions should be made to this judgment before it is published.CONSIDERATION Suppression orders (Dec 2024): On 18 December 2024, Thawley J made consent orders, which included the following orders made under the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) to prevent the disclosure of certain information:·Order 1 ordered pursuant to s 37AF(1)(a) of the Act, on the grounds in s 37AG(1)(a) and (c), that until 5 December 2034 the disclosure (by publication or otherwise) of specified categories of information is prohibited. One category is the name, address and any other information that directly or indirectly identifies LAZ24 (Order 1(a)).·Order 2 provided that disclosure to and between specified persons was not prohibited by Order 1; for example, disclosure to and between the parties and judges of the Court.·Order 3 ordered that LAZ24 is to be identified by a pseudonym during the course of the proceeding and in any documents filed in the proceeding.·Order 4 ordered pursuant to s 37AF(1) of the Act and r 2.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) that all documents filed with the Court in the course of this proceeding are to be treated as confidential to the parties and marked as such on the Court’s electronic file.·Order 5 ordered pursuant to s 17(4) of the Act, on the grounds that the order is necessary in the interests of justice, that persons other than the parties, their legal representatives and members of staff of the ACIC be excluded from any hearing held in the proceeding. At the sentencing hearing, I varied this order to permit a number of persons (described to me as LAZ24’s family) to attend that hearing: see further [14] below. In a document titled “notice of motion” dated 6 May 2025 apparently under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), LAZ24 seeks to have the orders made by Thawley J in relation to suppression of his name vacated, replacing the pseudonym “LAZ24” with his name. In effect, he seeks to have Orders 1(a) and 3 revoked. The Court has focused on the substance of this document, not its deficient form. The critical order for these purposes is Order 1(a): the operation of Order 3 (which governed how LAZ24 was to be identified during the course of the proceeding and in documents filed in the proceeding) is spent. Suppression or non-publication orders – general principles: The power to make Orders 1 and 3 derives from ss 37AF and 37AG of the Act.·By s 37AF(1)(a), the Court may, by making a suppression order or non-publication order on grounds permitted by Pt VAA of the Act, prohibit or restrict the publication or other disclosure of information tending to reveal the identity of or otherwise concerning any party to a proceeding before the Court.·By s 37AG(1), the Court may make a suppression order or non-publication order on one or more of the grounds set out, which include: (a)the order is necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice;…(c)the order is necessary to protect the safety of any person;…