World February 15, 2026

Accused Bondi Beach Gunman Appears by Video Link at Sydney Court

24-year-old faces 59 charges including 15 murder counts; hearing adjourned with next court date set for April

By Priya Menon
Accused Bondi Beach Gunman Appears by Video Link at Sydney Court

A 24-year-old man charged over a mass shooting at a Hanukkah gathering on Bondi Beach made his first court appearance via video link while held at a maximum-security prison. He faces 59 charges, including 15 counts of murder and a terror offence, and the matter was adjourned until April as legal teams await the prosecution brief.

Key Points

  • The accused, 24-year-old Naveed Akram, appeared via video link from Goulburn Correctional Centre and faces 59 charges, including 15 counts of murder, 40 counts of wounding with intent to murder and a terror offence.
  • Proceedings on Monday were procedural; Akram spoke only to acknowledge a discussion about extending non-publication orders protecting victim details. The next court appearance is scheduled for April.
  • Sectors directly referenced by the case include the legal and corrections systems, given the court procedures, remand custody at a maximum-security prison and the preparation of the prosecution brief.

A man accused of opening fire at a Hanukkah celebration at Bondi Beach, an attack that resulted in 15 deaths, appeared in a Sydney courtroom for the first time on Monday via video link from a maximum-security prison.

The accused, 24-year-old Naveed Akram, is charged with 59 offences related to the December 14 incident. The charges include 15 counts of murder, 40 counts of wounding with intent to murder and a single terror offence. Authorities allege he carried out the mass shooting alongside his father, Sajid, 50, who was fatally shot at the scene.

During a brief status mention, Akram was shown on a video feed from Goulburn Correctional Centre, located southwest of Sydney, where he is being detained on remand. He was wearing prison greens and remained largely silent throughout the proceedings, speaking only to acknowledge that he heard a discussion about extending non-publication orders that cover details of the victims.

Outside the courtroom, defence lawyer Ben Archbold commented on his client's condition and the early stage of the case. Archbold said his client was doing "as well as he can be" given the "very onerous conditions" he is facing in custody. He also said it was premature to indicate how Akram would plead, noting that he had not yet discussed the specifics of the alleged attack with his client.

"I haven’t spoken to him about the attack in that regard," Archbold told reporters. "All that we’re doing at the moment is starting the process ... we’re waiting for the brief to be served, there’s nothing more I can say."

Archbold confirmed he had visited Akram in prison and stressed the duties of legal representation. "He’s just a client, and he’s a client that needs to be represented. And we don’t let our personal view get in the way of our professional obligations. The matter has been adjourned, I have nothing more to say," the lawyer added.

The court session was procedural in nature and lasted only briefly. No plea was entered during the appearance. The matter is expected to return to court in April, while authorities continue to prepare the prosecution brief and related legal steps, including consideration of orders that limit publication of identifying details about the victims.

Details provided at the appearance were limited to administrative and procedural matters. Further substantive hearings will depend on the exchange of materials and the scheduling of future court dates as the case moves through the legal process.

Risks

  • Plea and defence strategy remain unclear - Archbold said it was too early to indicate how Akram will plead and that the defence has not yet discussed the details of the alleged attack with him. This legal uncertainty affects timing for substantive hearings.
  • Case progression depends on the prosecution brief - Archbold stated they are "waiting for the brief to be served," which creates uncertainty about scheduling and the pace at which the case will move through the courts.
  • Victim privacy and reporting restrictions - Courts considered extending non-publication orders for victims' details, introducing constraints on public reporting and information flow during the legal process.

More from World

Catholic clergy regain access to Broadview immigration center, distribute ashes and communion after court order Feb 20, 2026 Congress Poised to Vote on Curtailing President’s Authority to Strike Iran as Military Prepares Feb 20, 2026 Tentative Agreement Reached to End Six-Week Nurses Strike in New York City Feb 20, 2026 Trump Says He Is Weighing a Limited Military Strike on Iran Feb 20, 2026 Explainer: Possible Charge Facing King Charles’ Brother After Arrest Feb 20, 2026