Equal Opportunity Tribunal of New South Wales CITATION: Anon -V- Anon (No. 2) [1997] NSWEOT COMPLAINANT: Anon RESPONDENT: Anon Anor NUMBER: 15 & 56 of 1995 Mr David Bitel ( Judicial Member ) TRIBUNAL: Ms M Alt Mrs J Strickland GROUNDS OF COMPLAINT: Homosexuality in the area of education DATES OF HEARING: 07/18/1997 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/18/1997 Complainant: Anon LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: Respondent: Mr M Easton JUDGMENT IN FAVOUR OF: These matters are subject to a suppression order made on 31 July 1996: Pursuant to S 110 an order has been made that prohibits the publication and broadcasting, and disclosure of any information which identifies or may lead to identification of any person who gives evidence or any person who is referred to in such evidence or the school at which the events took place, and the suburb in which the school is located, and the firm of solicitors or any solicitors who have acted for either of the parties. The Tribunal has considered the submissions made on behalf of Law Press Australia but is not prepared to lift the suppression order that has been made in so far as it relates to the name of the firm of lawyers representing the Complainant and of course it continues the suppression order in relation to that firm as well as to the parties involved in the proceedings. The Tribunal has heard the submissions made by the Applicant for the lifting of the suppression order and it has heard the submissions made by Mr Bishop on behalf of the firm of lawyers. It agrees with the points made by Mr Bishop that indeed, given that the firm had not been given a real opportunity to respond to the comments made by the Tribunal and given further the terms of section 110A(1)(b), that it would not be appropriate in the circumstances to release the suppression order. Further the Tribunal notes that whilst neither the Complainant or the Respondent made submissions either way, the Tribunal is concerned that one of the primary reasons that the suppression order was made in the first place was to protect the identity of the two parties given that they were both minors at the time of the incidents complained of and given that there was a familial relationship between a member of the firm of solicitors and the Complainant. If the suppression order were to be released relating to of the law firm, that could lead to some subsequent identification of the Complainant, and through that the Respondent, and the Tribunal does not believe that it is appropriate that that be done. So that is a further reason why the Tribunal would not be prepared in the circumstances of the case to release the suppression order. Finally, I think it is important to note that as you say, Mr Easton, I believe the matters have not yet been referred because the case had not been finalised. Presumably a referral will take place and the Tribunal does not believe that it is appropriate for the suppression order to be lifted pending the completion of any investigations which may or may not take place. We do not believe it is appropriate for the firm to be prejudiced in the conduct of those proceedings given that they were not given the opportunity to respond as noted by Mr Bishop. That will be the order of the Tribunal. DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.