The tragic death of Faye Phelps in her Christchurch home has led to a significant legal development, as the historic suppression order regarding Elliot Cameron's past has been lifted. Cameron, who has now been jailed for the murder of Mrs. Phelps, was previously involved in a one-day jury trial in 1975 where he was found not guilty of murdering his brother, Jeffrey. This verdict was due to the defense's claim of mental health issues. The suppression order, which had kept the details of Cameron's past hidden from the public, was revoked by Justice Rachel Dunningham, who emphasized the public's right to know the full facts of the case for an informed debate about mental health care and risk management. The revocation of the order allows the media to report the full story, highlighting concerns about the adequacy of Cameron's care and the potential risks posed to the public by individuals with serious mental health conditions. Faye Phelps' family, particularly her daughter Karen, argued that the suppression of Cameron's past prevented public scrutiny and accountability, which could lead to necessary reforms in the mental health system. The case underscores the importance of transparency in the management of potentially dangerous individuals with mental impairments and the need for the public to be informed about such matters. Cameron's history, now made public, shows a pattern of behavior that has resulted in two tragic deaths, raising questions about the effectiveness of the systems in place to protect the community. The revocation of the suppression order is expected to facilitate a more comprehensive understanding of the case, promote public debate, and potentially lead to changes in how mental health patients are supervised and cared for in New Zealand. As the public interest in open justice and the principle of accountability takes precedence, the case of Elliot Cameron serves as a reminder of the challenges faced in managing individuals with serious mental health conditions and the importance of ensuring that such individuals do not pose a risk to the community.