The ongoing trial of Naveed Akram, accused of carrying out the deadly shooting at Bondi Beach, has revealed distressing details about the impact on his family. On Monday, the court was informed that Akram’s mother has been subjected to death threats and verbal abuse following the tragic attack that claimed 15 lives during a Hanukkah celebration in Sydney last December. This revelation came as part of a plea to shield the identities and personal details of Akram’s close relatives from further public exposure.
Naveed Akram and his father, Sajid Akram, stand accused of opening fire on the crowd gathered at the festive event. The attack ended with Sajid being fatally shot by police officers at the scene. Naveed now faces a series of grave charges, including terrorism, 15 counts of murder, multiple counts of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, and allegations of planting explosives. The severity and scale of the accusations have made this case one of the most high-profile terror incidents in Australia’s recent history.
During Monday’s hearing, Naveed Akram’s legal representative, Richard Wilson, emphasized the extraordinary public reaction to the attack, describing it as an unprecedented wave of grief and outrage across the nation. Despite the intense emotions, Wilson stressed that there is no evidence linking Akram’s mother, brother, or sister to the planning or execution of the attack. He pointed out that the accused allegedly prepared for the assault in a short-term accommodation facility, not at the family residence.
Akram himself appeared remotely via video link from a high-security correctional facility, remaining silent throughout the proceedings. The court heard disturbing accounts of harassment directed at his mother, who remains unnamed under a temporary court order. Two weeks after the Bondi shooting, she reportedly received a threatening phone call from an unknown man who ominously asked, “Are you still alive?” Around the same time, strangers reportedly knocked loudly on the family’s door late at night, and the home was vandalized, including an incident where a pork chop was thrown onto the family vehicle. The family has also endured passersby shouting profanities and driving by their house in a menacing manner as recently as February.
Wilson warned the court about the potential danger posed by vigilante actions targeting Akram’s family members, stating that the risk of physical harm or even fatal violence against them was real. The family’s financial constraints prevent them from relocating or hiring professional security, leaving them vulnerable to further attacks. This situation has raised serious concerns about the safety and privacy of relatives of individuals accused of high-profile crimes.
Opposing the request for suppression, a lawyer representing major Australian media outlets—including Nationwide News, Nine, and the public broadcaster ABC—argued that the names of Akram’s mother and brother, as well as the family’s home address, have already been extensively published both domestically and internationally. Matthew Lewis, counsel for the media, highlighted the importance of open justice and transparency, noting that comprehensive reporting on terrorism cases serves a therapeutic role for a grieving public and ensures accountability.
Magistrate Hugh Donnelly acknowledged the complexities involved and announced that he would deliver his decision regarding the suppression order on April 2. The ruling will determine whether the identities and personal details of Akram’s family members will continue to be protected from public disclosure as the trial progresses.
