Background
Nirmeen Noufl was to be sentenced for the unlawful killing of her husband in May 2023. Her guilty plea was accepted on 26 August 2026 in full discharge of a murder indictment. At that time, Hamill J made an interim order preventing publication of the names of the couple’s adult children.
Six of the eight children gave affidavits at the sentencing hearing. Their evidence described domestic violence in the family home and was important to understanding the context of the killing, the offender’s response to the victim’s attack, and psychiatric issues relevant to sentence. The defendant sought final protection for the children’s names; the prosecution neither supported nor opposed the application, and no media representative opposed it.
The Court’s Holding
The Court made a final non-publication order under s 7 of the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW), prohibiting publication of the names of the offender’s and deceased’s children in connection with the facts of the case.
Hamill J held that the order was necessary in the public interest under s 8(1)(e), and that interest significantly outweighed open justice. Although necessity is a high threshold and the children could not rely on the specific sexual-offence ground, their sensitive evidence and the risk that identification would compound distress and deter comparable witnesses justified the limited restriction. The order applies throughout Australia and expires on 17 September 2031 unless earlier varied or extended.
Key Takeaways
- Open justice remains paramount, but a narrowly tailored anonymity order may be necessary in the public interest.
- Protecting witnesses who give sensitive domestic-violence evidence can support the public interest in their willingness to come forward.
- The order restricts only the children’s names; reporting of the case, evidence, and sentencing issues may otherwise continue.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that adult children of parties in a serious criminal case may receive identity protection where their evidence is private, significant to sentencing, and publication would create a substantial risk of further trauma or discourage witness participation.
It also underscores the need for courts to assess necessity independently even when an application is unopposed, and to minimise any intrusion on the media’s ability to report criminal proceedings.