R v Maziyar John Soltani (No 2) - [2025] NSWSC 804

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Maziyar John Soltani (No 2) [2025] NSWSC 804
Hearing dates: 11 July 2025
Date of orders: 22 July 2025
Decision date: 22 July 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Schmidt AJ
Decision:
(1) Pursuant to s 8 of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW), upon the ground referred to in s 8(1)(a) of that Act, that the order is necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice, given the need to ensure that Mr Soltani’s trial is not prejudiced, there is to be no publication of the 25 June 2025 bail decision, other than to report that his bail was refused.
(2)   The previous order is to have effect throughout the Commonwealth until the conclusion of Mr Soltani’s trial.
(3)   The media applicant is granted access to the redacted version of Exhibit 1, MFI 5.
(4)   The above access is granted on condition that the applicant can report on the material contained in the document but cannot reproduce it, nor any feature of it, including photographs or personal identifying information.

Catchwords:
MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS – bail application – media application for access to application evidence and submissions – potential prejudice to any future trial – open justice – where proceedings took place in open court – access granted to redacted exhibit subject to conditions – application for suppression of bail judgment – suppression ordered

Legislation Cited:
Bail Act2013 (NSW)
Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act2010 (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act1986 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Dirani [2022] NSWCCA 89
R v Dirani (No. 33) [2019] NSWSC 288
R v Lalee (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 1336
Soltani v R (Unreported 25 June 2025)

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: M Soltani (Applicant)
Rex (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
D Dalton SC (Applicant)
Solicitors:
Gergis Lawyers (Applicant)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)

File Number(s): 2025/00129855

JUDGMENT

On 25 June 2025 I refused Mr Soltani’s application for bail: Soltani v R (Unreported 25 June 2025). Beforehand there was a media application for access to his bail application, the Crown bundle, his submissions and bail conditions, which Mr Soltani opposed.
Mr Soltani then brought a motion seeking orders under the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act2010 (NSW) in respect of that material, as well as the bail judgment. The Crown agreed with Mr Soltani in various respects. Having considered the cases the parties finally advanced, I have concluded that the media must be given access to a redacted version of the Crown case statement, but that the bail judgment must be suppressed until completion of Mr Soltani’s trial.
The motion was supported by the affidavit of Mr Soltani’s solicitor Ms Gergis, who referred to the information contained in the material to which access was sought; how it was considered that its publication before trial was likely to prejudice Mr Soltani’s trial, given what was likely then to be in issue; his likely separate trial…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Maziyar John Soltani (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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NSWSC 804
Decision Date: 22 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was an application by the media for access to evidence and submissions in a bail application and a subsequent application for suppression of the bail judgment. The applicant, Maziyar John Soltani, faced charges of foreign interference, espionage, and bribery. The media sought access to the evidence and submissions in the bail application to prevent potential prejudice to any future trial. The court considered the principles of open justice and the need to balance the right to a fair trial with the public's right to know. The court granted access to a redacted exhibit subject to conditions, and subsequently ordered suppression of the bail judgment to prevent potential prejudice to any future trial.

The legal issues before the court were whether the media's application for access to the evidence and submissions in the bail application should be granted and whether the bail judgment should be suppressed. The court considered the principles of open justice and the need to balance the right to a fair trial with the public's right to know. The court also considered the potential prejudice to any future trial if the evidence and submissions were made public. The court found that the media's application for access to the evidence and submissions should be granted subject to conditions, but that the bail judgment should be suppressed to prevent potential prejudice to any future trial.

The court held that the principles of open justice were important, but that they must be balanced against the need to ensure a fair trial. The court found that the media's application for access to the evidence and submissions in the bail application should be granted subject to conditions, as the public had a right to know about the charges against the applicant. However, the court found that the bail judgment should be suppressed to prevent potential prejudice to any future trial. The court held that the suppression order was necessary to protect the applicant's right to a fair trial and to prevent any potential prejudice to any future trial.

The court ordered that the media's application for access to the evidence and submissions in the bail application be granted subject to conditions, and that the bail judgment be suppressed. The court found that the suppression order was necessary to protect the applicant's right to a fair trial and to prevent any potential prejudice to any future trial. The court held that the principles of open justice were important, but that they must be balanced against the need to ensure a fair trial.

Orders