Evidence related to the prosecution of William Tyrrell's foster parents over an unrelated assault will not be published under a gag order seeking to protect the administration of justice.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The foster mother, 56, and foster father, 54, each face one count of common assault against a child in a Sydney home this year.
Lawyers for the parents entered pleas of not guilty on Friday.
They also flagged the potential the parents would apply to have the charges dealt with under the mental health provisions at the next court hearing in February.
The identities of the foster parents and the child subject of the charge cannot be revealed for legal reasons.
The charges do not relate to William, who went missing aged three in September 2014 from a home at Kendall on the NSW mid-north coast.
William's disappearance, and the extensive media coverage of a recent search in Kendall for evidence related to that case, was a key contributor to the reason for the non-publication orders placed over the case on Friday.
While accepting the assault case was a matter of public interest, a magistrate questioned why it was, again pointing out her court sees dozens of assault cases each day.
She cited a recent headline about the case that carried a clear "but hopefully unintended" meaning that the foster parents are suspicious because "as child abusers they probably 'did it'."
"It's connecting two completely separate investigations," she said.
"With all due respect, that's the role of the investigators, not the media or the public."
She said all people charged with an offence are presumed innocent.
"That is a fundamental part of our justice system," the magistrate said.
Media organisations didn't oppose keeping a gag order for the foster parents' identity, addresses and other witnesses but objected to restrictions on evidence given in the proceedings.
However, upon viewing documents presented to the court by the foster parents and the "relentless attention" on William's case, the magistrate was satisfied there was a "very real risk of harm" to the couple without the broader restriction.
The non-publication orders will expire either at the conclusion of the assault case or the end of William's inquest - which is the latter.
The case was adjourned until February 22 for full service of the brief of evidence.
Australian Associated Press
