Rocco Fazzari/Getty Images

A sketch shows alleged Bondi gunman Naveed Akram on Tuesday

The family of alleged Bondi gunman Naveed Akram live in “constant fear” and have received death threats, a lawyer has told a Sydney court in a bid for their names to be suppressed.

The 24-year-old faces 59 charges over the 14 December attack on a Jewish festival, allegedly committed alongside his father Sajid, who died at the scene.

Akram’s lawyer has asked for the names, addresses and places of work of his mother, brother and sister to be suppressed and removed from any previous coverage.

A magistrate last week granted a temporary suppression order while he considers the request, citing global interest in the case, but noted that the name of Akram’s mother had already been widely published.

In the Downing Centre Local Court on Tuesday, Richard Wilson said the “outpouring of public grief, public outrage, and public anger” over the shooting – which killed 15 people and police say is the nation’s worst terror attack – was “absolutely understandable”.

“However, there is no suggestion the defendant’s mother, brother or sister had anything to do with it.”

He said continuing to allow details identifying them to be published could result in vigilante violence.

In statements provided to the court, Naveed Akram’s mother described how vehicles would drive past their home shouting abuse and death threats. In one incident, a group of men knocked on her door late at night but left before police arrived. Eggs and pork chops were thrown at the home.

The family has also received threatening texts and phone calls, with one caller asking Akram’s mother “Are you still alive?”

“We live in constant fear someone will harm us or set our house on fire. I fear for my life and the lives of my children,” she wrote in her statement.

During the hearing, Akram appeared via video link from the high security prison where he is being held, sitting with his head bowed. He spoke only to confirm he could hear proceedings.

Australian news organisations including News Corp Australia, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and Guardian Australia have challenged the request for a suppression order, arguing that it would be ineffective as the information was already public.

“The cat is well and truly out of the bag,” a lawyer for the media, Matthew Lewis, told the court.

He also argued that the incidents recounted in the family’s affidavits had decreased over time and that there was no evidence of an imminent risk to them.

Transparency in the case was of the utmost importance, he said, as it can help the community come to terms with the shooting – which police have declared the worst terror attack in the nation’s history.

A decision on the suppression order is expected on 2 April.