Victorian Courts Issue Highest Number of Suppression Orders Nationally

Victorian courts issued the highest number of suppression orders in Australia in 2023, averaging more than one per day. New research from Monash University indicates that Victorian courts were responsible for almost half of all suppression orders nationwide.

Key Statistics and Research Findings

In 2023, Victorian judicial officers issued 521 suppression orders, accounting for 47 percent of the 1,113 orders made across Australia. This figure exceeded the combined total from South Australia, Queensland, the Northern Territory, Western Australia, and the ACT. South Australia had the second-highest number with 308, followed by New South Wales with 133.

The research was commissioned by the Melbourne Press Club and based on data from the Alliance for Journalists' Freedom, alongside interviews with senior journalists.

Editors of Victoria's major newspapers and broadcasters have requested an urgent review of existing laws and the establishment of a media freedom act.

Concerns Regarding Application and Public Trust

Alicia McMillan, co-author of the Monash University report, noted that journalists frequently reported that suppression orders are disproportionately granted to individuals with significant financial resources.

"This practice can prevent the public from knowing that certain individuals have appeared in court."

Suppression orders are regulated by Victoria's Open Courts Act, which permits them under specific conditions, such as preserving an accused person's right to a fair trial, national security concerns, or protecting victims or witnesses. The Act also emphasizes the principle of open justice as fundamental for maintaining public trust in the legal system.

However, McMillan stated that the high number of suppression orders hinders journalists' ability to report, potentially undermining public faith in the transparency of the justice system.

Historical Context and Recent Cases

The application of suppression orders in Victoria has been subject to scrutiny previously. In 2018, extensive suppression orders were implemented during the sex abuse trial of Cardinal George Pell. While Australian media was barred from reporting, international outlets published information, highlighting challenges with modern suppression orders. Subsequently, several Australian media outlets faced significant fines for breaching these orders.

More recently, the system was examined during the rape trial of Tom Silvagni. Despite legal challenges from media outlets, suppression orders were granted and maintained, restricting the publication of names of family members or their connections to the AFL or media, citing a risk of psychiatric harm to the accused.

McMillan acknowledged that suppression orders have a valid role, such as in cases where naming individuals could jeopardize their lives (e.g., during the Melbourne gangland conflict).

"However, [there is concern] that orders are currently being sought and granted due to concerns about reputational damage, which... is not a sufficient reason for anonymity in serious criminal proceedings."