Naveed Akram: Family Lives in Fear – Lawyers’ Claims

A Sydney court has rejected a legal bid to suppress the identities of the family members of Naveed Akram, the man accused of carrying out a deadly attack at a Hanukah festival on Bondi Beach in December 2025. The ruling, delivered on Thursday, April 2, 2026, denies a request for a long-term suppression order that would have protected the names and addresses of Akram’s mother, brother, and sister.

Lawyers representing Akram had argued that his relatives lived in constant fear for their safety following the incident, which allegedly left 15 people dead. They sought a suppression order lasting 40 years, citing risks that family members could be targeted by vigilantes or subjected to further abuse. However, Local Court Judge Hugh Donnelly determined that the application did not meet the necessary legal threshold for such restrictions.

Court Denies Long-Term Suppression

The decision was handed down at the Downing Centre Local Court. Judge Donnelly ruled that the request for a 40-year suppression order did not meet the exceptional circumstances threshold required to override the principle of open justice. The ruling ends an interim suppression order that had been granted in early March 2026, which temporarily banned the publication of the family members’ names and addresses.

During the hearing, the court heard arguments from both the defense and a collective of media organizations that opposed the bid. Barrister Matthew Lewis SC, arguing against the suppression order, told the court that the proposed measures would be ineffective, futile and not enforceable. This opposition was supported by several major media outlets, including the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

Judge Donnelly noted that information regarding the family had already been widely circulated online in the immediate aftermath of the attack. Specifically, the court heard that an image of Akram’s driver’s licence had been posted on social media shortly after the December 2025 shooting. The judge reasoned that a suppression order would not successfully remove information that was already in the public domain.

Judge Cites Public Interest and Enforcement Issues

In his reasoning, Judge Donnelly highlighted the unprecedented nature of the case. He stated that the incident had attracted unprecedented public interest, outrage, anger and grief both in Australia and globally. The judge remarked that the case was exceptional due to the sheer magnitude and intensity of commentary on overseas platforms.

This case has unprecedented public interest, outrage, anger and grief.

Judge Hugh Donnelly

The court also considered the practical limitations of enforcing such an order. Judge Donnelly pointed out that a suppression order issued by an Australian court would have limited impact as it would not apply to international media outlets or social media platforms outside of Australian jurisdiction. He noted it was unfortunate that Akram’s driver’s licence had already been posted online but emphasized that his lawyers had not properly explained how an order could be enforced given the digital reality.

the judge addressed the relevance of the family members to the ongoing legal proceedings. The brief of evidence for the case has yet to be served, but Donnelly noted it was not anticipated that Akram’s brother or sister would be called as witnesses. He concluded that a fair and accurate report of any court proceedings would not name them because they have little relevance to the case.

Background of the Charges and Safety Concerns

Naveed Akram is currently facing 59 charges in connection with the attack on the Jewish festival on Bondi Beach. According to reports, he and his father allegedly killed 15 people during the event in December 2025. Akram remains before the court, charged with 15 counts of murder and other offences.

Public Defender Richard Wilson SC had argued on behalf of the family that the mother and siblings had endured death threats, stalking, and intimidation. They told the Sydney court last month there was a risk one of the relatives may be killed if misguided vigilantes took the law into their own hands. The defense maintained that the family had already experienced abuse and lived in constant fear for their mental and physical safety.

Despite these safety concerns, the court was required to take into account that a primary objective of the administration of justice is to safeguard the principle of open justice. The judge acknowledged the safety fears but weighed them against the public interest and the ineffectiveness of the proposed order.

The court also noted that while Akram’s mother gave an interview to a local outlet, suppressing her identity would do little to protect her given the existing circulation of information. The ruling ensures that media organizations are now permitted to publish the names and home and work addresses of Akram’s mother, brother, and sister, although standard ethical considerations regarding safety still apply to reporting practices.

As the case proceeds, the focus remains on the criminal charges against Akram. The denial of the suppression order marks a significant development in the legal proceedings surrounding the alleged Bondi terrorist attack, balancing the safety concerns of the accused’s family against the public’s right to know and the practical realities of digital information sharing.