Naveed Akram’s family members could be killed if their identities aren’t suppressed, court told

Lawyers for alleged Bondi Beach gunman Naveed Akram have argued the names of his family members should be suppressed due to fears “one or more of them may be killed” after they received death threats.But legal counsel for media organisations, who are challenging the suppression order request, argued there was no evidence before the court of an imminent risk.A Downing Centre local court magistrate last week granted Akram’s mother, brother and sister an interim suppression banning the publication of their names and addresses to protect their mental and physical safety.The public defender Richard Wilson SC told the court on Tuesday that a narrowed version of the order should be made permanent to mitigate risks of harm to the family.Wilson said they couldn’t afford to move and the “police are saying the family had nothing to do with it [the mass shooting]”.Akram, 24, appeared in court via video link from Goulburn supermax, where he has been remanded in custody.He and his father, 50-year-old Sajid Akram, allegedly killed 15 people after opening fire at a Hanukah festival at Bondi Beach on 14 December.Naveed Akram, who survived a shootout with police, has been charged with 59 offences, including 15 counts of murder and one count of committing a terrorist act that investigators allege may have been “inspired by ISIS”. Sajid Akram was shot and killed by police at the scene.Wilson told the magistrate Hugh Donelly that the family was seeking media organisations edit any existing stories to remove names and addresses.“The defendant, who is the applicant, is charged with the most serious and the most notorious terrorist attack this country has ever seen,” the barrister said.“The outpouring of public grief, public outrage, and public anger at what he and his father allegedly did are unprecedented, extraordinary and absolutely understandable.”“However, there is no suggestion that the defendant’s mother bother or sister had anything to do with it.”“There is no suggestion of suppressing the name of the defendant or suppressing any evidence in the case.”Rather, names and addresses which were “peripheral information” would be suppressed.Wilson argued the order was not futile, despite the names of Akram’s mother and brother already being widely reported.“Continued publication of the details of the family and their home address provides a focus for misguided people who may be tempted to join in and do what others have already started to do and take the law into their own hands,” he said.Wilson acknowledged that if the court granted a permanent suppression order, it wouldn’t apply to international media publications.He told the court that Akram’s mother had received a phone call from an unknown number in the days after the attack. The caller allegedly said: “Are you still alive?”The court heard she had also received a text message calling her a “Pakistani cunt”.Akram’s brother allegedly received a text three weeks after the attack from an unknown number saying: “We’re going to kill you.”The court heard that people had driven past the house yelling “die, cunt, die”, and in another incident, people in a ute parked across the driveway and yelled: “Cunts, we’ll come and kill you.”The court heard that one night, several men knocked on the door, and the family then saw the men move to the side of the house before they called the police.In another incident, the court heard that Akram’s mother heard a sound outside their house and the following morning her car did not start.The court heard their home was egged and a pork chop was thrown onto their car.“At worse, the risk is one or more of them may be killed,” Wilson said before acknowledging the court may consider this a “low risk”, but one that would have a “catastrophic outcome”.He said there was a high risk of continued victimisation, including acts of stalking.Matthew Lewis – acting on behalf of a collective of news organisations including Nine, News Corp Australia, the ABC and Guardian Australia – argued there was no evidence there was an imminent risk, and fear did not make an order necessary.“In the immediate aftermath of the attack, there were a number of incidents which they pointed to in their evidence, but in the past three months those incidents have become less frequent,” Lewis told the court on Tuesday.He said the “cat is well and truly out of the bag” on the Akram family’s home address because a picture was leaked online showing Akram’s license in the hours after the 14 December attack.Lewis noted news organisations would generally publish the suburb and not the street name or number.“In this case, the defendant’s mother has conducted media interviews with at least the Sydney Morning Herald, and that interview has been reported on widely, including … internationally,” Lewis told the court.“The defendant’s brother has equally been identified due to an incident that took place while visiting the defendant in prison.“Needless to say, their identities, insofar as their names, have been widely reported not only in Australia but also in the US, the UK, India, Pakistan, as well as in New Zealand.”Donelly reserved his judgment until 2 April.