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

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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 application; relevant earlier suppression orders which remained binding; why various information in the material would not be admissible at his trial; and why access to matters affecting Mr Soltani’s family, which were having an impact on his mental state, was opposed.

4. The Crown’s position was that Mr Soltani’s application was a matter for the Court. But it agreed that access to all that had been sought had the capacity to prejudice Mr Soltani’s trial and that if any access was granted, the complainant’s name had to be redacted in order to comply with an existing suppression order and that other identified matters should be redacted, to ensure that the trial was not prejudiced.

5. To advance his case Mr Soltani relied on Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Dirani [2022] NSWCCA 89, where the Court made a non-publication order in respect of evidence, submissions and judgment on the Director’s successful detention application. There it was concluded that it was necessary to protect Mr Dirani’s trial by ordering that the evidence, submissions and reasons not be published until his trial had been determined: at [53].

6. Johnson J had come to a similar view in R v Dirani (No. 33) [2019] NSWSC 288, during the course of the trial. His Honour there explained the fundamental principle of open justice and the provisions of s 314 Criminal Procedure Act1986 (NSW), which regulates access to court documents in criminal proceedings and the Court’s applicable practice note, SC Gen 2 – Access to Court Files: at [36]-[56]. It empowering an interested party to be notified before the application is dealt with: at [16].

7. Johnson J also discussed the many factors which arise to be considered when the Court is asked to exercise its discretion to give such access, including the grief and distress which may result for the family of victims of violent crimes; that proceedings are not “entertainment” and ought not be the subject of repeated electronic reporting unless there are proper reasons unconnected with entertainment; the privacy of persons not said to be involved criminally in the events in question; and that even in the case of a fair and accurate report, visual or audio evidence ought not to be available on the internet or other social media platforms for replay and rebroadcasting, with no realistic prospect of control or recall, given the lack of current controls on further use of electronic material: at [59].

8. His Honour thus refused that application, for further detailed reasons there given.

9. I agree with his Honour’s observations about the competing considerations on an application such as this, particularly in relation to visual and audio evidence. I have concluded that they must result in a refusal to give access to the CCTV footage tendered on Mr Soltani’s bail application, which has been returned to Mr Soltani and no longer remains on the Court file. That being the agreed position between the parties.

10. In R v Lalee (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 1336, on another media application for access to materials on a bail application, Dhanji J granted limited access to certain of the materials to which access was there sought, having referred to the decision in Dirani (No. 33). His Honour also had regard to the open justice principle and the important role the media played in reporting court proceedings, the documents in issue also having either been tendered in open court or reflecting what had then happened: at [7]-[10]. I also agree with those observations.

11. But still Dhanji J concluded that there had to be some restrictions on the access granted. Also observing that “providing access to a court file in no way provides any indication as to what it is appropriate to report. Any journalist granted access to material remains of course bound by any order prohibiting publication, together with their own ethical obligations”: at [11].

12. His Honour also concluded that privacy concerns in relation to personal and medical information of family members outweighed the need to ensure open justice. The orders made reflected other non-publication orders and granted access subject to the condition that “the applicant can report on the material contained in the documents but cannot reproduce it, nor any feature of it, including photographs or personal identifying information, such as handwritten signatures, letters, residential addresses, phone numbers, or bank account details.”: at Order 6.

13. Access was delayed in that case for 72 hours to allow the parties to consider their positions and prepare a bundle reflecting the orders: at [16].

14. In this case I concluded that the weighing of all the relevant matters which arose for consideration in Mr Soltani’s case had to result in a similar outcome. Accordingly, that media access to some part of the documents sought, not including the CCTV footage in evidence, had to be allowed. But that their consideration also had to result in a suppression order in respect of the bail decision, albeit not its outcome, namely, that Mr Soltani was refused bail.

15. That balancing the requirements of open justice, adherence to existing suppression orders and the need to ensure that Mr Soltani would have a fair trial.

16. The parties were directed to produce redacted versions of Exhibit 1, the Crown bundle and Mr Soltani’s written submissions, to redact the matters which they had agreed would prejudice his criminal trial.

17. They produced a redacted version of Exhibit 1, which I have marked MFI 5, but Mr Soltani contended that it should be further redacted to remove photos which showed other accused persons, with which the Crown did not agree. His case being that it would be unfair to redact photos of the complainant but not those of accused persons.

18. I do not agree. The redactions of photographs of the complainant must be made not to achieve claimed “fairness”, but to comply with an existing order in respect of the complainant. Like in Lalee, the condition which I will impose on the access order will help ensure that there is no reproduction of the photos it contains.

19. Mr Soltani also contended that reference to the alleged sexual assault of the complainant by other accused should be removed from Exhibit 1, because it was inflammatory and highly prejudicial if read by potential jurors before trial. I do not agree, accurate reporting having to indicate that it was not an allegation advanced against him.

20. The parties’ common position in relation to Mr Soltani’s written submissions was finally that access should not be given to them, given that they were largely concerned with matters and information which would not be admissible at his trial and which also disclosed his family’s circumstances and his mental health conditions. Given the privacy concerns which also have to be considered on an application such as this, I concluded that the parties’ agreed position had to be accepted and access to Mr Soltani’s written submissions refused.

21. Having considered the requirements of the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act in light of the parties’ joint position, I have also concluded that a suppression order must be made in respect of the bail decision, given all that it had to deal with, in weighing whether the bail application could be granted, given the requirements of the Bail Act2013 (NSW). That conclusion was particularly driven by the assessment which had to be undertaken of the strength of the Crown case, a matter which cannot be put before the jury at trial.

Orders

22. For these reasons I now order that:

1. Pursuant to s 8 of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act2010 (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.

**********

Decision last updated: 22 July 2025