R v AB

AB has been charged with manslaughter and assault with intent to injure, and is awaiting trial. She seeks renewed interim name suppression, as does her parents and their businesses. The court was required to determine whether the requisite threshold for suppression was met, and if so, whether suppression was in the public interest. The court found that the social media commentary, while regrettably normal and ordinary, did not reach the threshold of extreme hardship. The court emphasised the importance of open justice and the right to freedom of expression, and noted that suppression does not make the defendant's identity secret, but only prohibits publication in the context of any report or account relating to the proceeding. The court also noted that the defendant's relatives and parents had already suffered fear, loss and pain from the social media commentary, but that this was not caused by publication of accounts and reports relating to the proceeding. The court declined AB’s application for renewed interim name suppression, and forbade publication of her name until the later of either expiry of the period within which to appeal the decision, or determination of any such appeal.