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.

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 said 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 said it was "unfortunate" that Akram's driver's licence had already been posted online but that his lawyers had not properly explained how an order could be enforced.

He also said he was not critical of an interview that Akram's mother gave to a local outlet but that suppressing her identity would do little, the ABC reported.

On the names and workplaces of Akram's siblings, the court said they were unlikely to be part of 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, the court heard that people had driven past Akram's family home, shouting abuse and death threats.

"We live in constant fear 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 organisations who opposed 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

Highlighted sentences link to their corresponding claims. Click any highlighted sentence to jump to its detailed analysis.
Highlight Colors Indicate Claim Quality:
✓ Healthy Claim - No fallacies or contradictions detected
⚠️ Minor Issues - Has contradictions or minor fallacies
🚨 Serious Issues - Multiple contradictions or severe fallacies
Quality Criteria: Claims are evaluated for logical fallacies and contradictions with other news sources. Green highlights indicate healthy claims suitable for reference.
Source