Court Denies Suppression of Family Names in Bondi Shooting Case

Thu Apr 02 2026 13:14:40 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time)

A Sydney court refused the alleged Bondi gunman Naveed Akram's bid to keep the names of his family members confidential, citing their prior notoriety and public safety concerns.

Naveed Akram, the alleged gunman involved in a deadly attack during a Jewish festival in Bondi, lost his court attempt to suppress the identities of his family members, who have received threats following the incident. The court emphasized the public interest in the case and ruled that measures to protect his family were insufficient. Akram's attorneys expressed concerns for their safety, but the court found existing information about them online, undermining the protection request.

The alleged Bondi gunman has lost his court bid to suppress the names and addresses of his mother, brother, and sister due to fears over their safety.

Lawyers for Naveed Akram - who is facing 59 charges over December's attack on a Jewish festival on Bondi Beach that killed 15 people - argued that his family could be targeted by vigilantes and had already experienced abuse.

Last month, details of Akram's family were suppressed under an interim order, but on Thursday, a Sydney court lifted it after several media outlets opposed the move.

The case had attracted unprecedented attention in Australia and globally, the judge ruled, and information about the family was already widely available online.

This case has unprecedented public interest, outrage, anger, and grief, Judge Hugh Donnelly told the court.

He said the request for a suppression order lasting 40 years did not meet the exceptional circumstances threshold and would have limited impact as it would only apply in Australia and not social media platforms or international media outlets.

The judge stated that the case was exceptional by virtue of the sheer magnitude and intensity of the commentary on overseas platforms, according to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC).

Donnelly noted, however, that it was unfortunate Akram's driver's license had already been posted online and indicated that his lawyers had failed to adequately propose how an order could be enforced.

He refrained from criticizing an interview Akram's mother gave to a local outlet but mentioned that suppressing her identity would yield little effect, the ABC reported.

Regarding the names and workplaces of Akram's siblings, the court determined they were unlikely to be involved in any court proceedings as they had little relevance to the case.

Akram, 24, appeared in court via video link from the high-security prison where he is being held.

During a hearing last month, it was revealed that individuals had driven past Akram's family home, shouting abuse and death threats.

Family members have also reported receiving threatening texts and phone calls, raising concerns for their safety.

We live in constant fear that someone will harm us or set our house on fire. I fear for my life and the lives of my children, Akram's mother wrote in a statement.

Lawyers for the media organizations opposing the suppression order argued that the details of his family were already widely known and there was no evidence of an imminent risk to them, according to the Guardian Australia.