R v BB (No 3)

The case of R v BB (No 3) involved the application for a suppression order concerning the name of a witness’ employer. The applicant sought to suppress the name of the employer on the basis that its publication would have a detrimental effect on the employment of, or future prospects of employment of, the witness. The application was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The court was required to determine whether the suppression order was necessary in the interests of the administration of justice and whether it would cause a problematic imbalance with the principle of open justice. The court had to weigh the need to protect the witness from harm against the public interest in open justice.

The court considered that the publication of the name of the employer would indeed have a detrimental effect on the employment of, or future prospects of employment of, the witness. The court found that the suppression order was necessary in the interests of the administration of justice, as it was necessary to protect the witness from potential harm. The court also found that the balance with open justice was not problematic, as the name of the employer did not impact on the public hearing of all relevant issues. The court concluded that the suppression order was appropriate in these circumstances.

The court granted the application for the suppression order, with the name of the employer to be suppressed in all publications. The court emphasised the importance of protecting witnesses from potential harm in criminal proceedings and the need to balance this with the principle of open justice. The court found that, in this case, the balance was appropriately struck in favour of the witness’ right to protection. The suppression order was granted, with the name of the employer to be suppressed in all publications, ensuring the witness’ anonymity and protecting their employment prospects.