Smith v New South Wales Crime Commission (No 4)
Case
•
[2024] NSWSC 1656
•18 December 2024
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Smith v New South Wales Crime Commission (No 4) [2024] NSWSC 1656
[2024] NSWSC 1656
18 December 2024
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Smith v New South Wales Crime Commission (No 4) involved the applicant, who sought suppression and non-publication orders in relation to proceedings against the New South Wales Crime Commission. The applicant argued that such orders were necessary to protect the safety of the fourth defendant and her family, as well as to protect the public interest. The court had to decide whether the orders were necessary to safeguard the safety of the fourth defendant and whether they were in the public interest.
The court considered the fourth defendant's fear for her safety and the safety of her family, as well as the legitimate basis for her concern. The court found that the fourth defendant had a genuine basis for her fear of harm and that the orders being sought would have a limited impact on the principle of open justice. The court concluded that the orders were necessary to protect the safety of the fourth defendant and her family, as well as to protect the public interest.
Accordingly, the court made suppression and non-publication orders. The court found that the orders were necessary to protect the safety of the fourth defendant and her family, as well as to protect the public interest. The court emphasised that the orders were limited in scope and duration and would have a minimal impact on the open justice principle. The orders were made to protect the safety of the fourth defendant and her family, as well as to protect the public interest.
No further orders were made by the court. The court found that the orders made were sufficient to protect the safety of the fourth defendant and her family, as well as to protect the public interest. The court did not make any further orders in relation to the proceedings.
The court considered the fourth defendant's fear for her safety and the safety of her family, as well as the legitimate basis for her concern. The court found that the fourth defendant had a genuine basis for her fear of harm and that the orders being sought would have a limited impact on the principle of open justice. The court concluded that the orders were necessary to protect the safety of the fourth defendant and her family, as well as to protect the public interest.
Accordingly, the court made suppression and non-publication orders. The court found that the orders were necessary to protect the safety of the fourth defendant and her family, as well as to protect the public interest. The court emphasised that the orders were limited in scope and duration and would have a minimal impact on the open justice principle. The orders were made to protect the safety of the fourth defendant and her family, as well as to protect the public interest.
No further orders were made by the court. The court found that the orders made were sufficient to protect the safety of the fourth defendant and her family, as well as to protect the public interest. The court did not make any further orders in relation to the proceedings.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Standing
-
Discovery & Disclosure
-
Specific Performance
-
Injunction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
2
AB (a pseudonym) v CD (a pseudonym)
[2019] HCA 6
AB (a pseudonym) v CD (a pseudonym)
[2019] HCA 6
AB (A Pseudonym) v R (No 3)
[2019] NSWCCA 46