Victoria's Attorney-General reviews secrecy in courts after suppression order crisis
Victoria's top legal official is overhauling the state's Open Courts Act after public outcry over widespread use of suppression orders that keep accused people's identities secret.
Victoria's Attorney-General Sonya Kilkenny has committed to reviewing how the state's Open Courts Act operates, responding to mounting concern that courts are imposing secrecy orders too often and too loosely.
The review follows two high-profile episodes that triggered public scrutiny. The first was the revelation that Tom Silvagni, a convicted rapist and son of football legend Stephen Silvagni, obtained a suppression order hiding his identity on mental health grounds. The second was research by Monash University academics suggesting Victoria issued more suppression orders than almost every other Australian jurisdiction combined — though the research has since been debunked.
Even with that statistical correction, experts agree that Victoria faces a genuine problem. "Secrecy is widespread, and judicial disdain and scepticism for the media's role in open justice is rife," according to analysis in The Conversation by Australian academics who reviewed the state of the system.
Why open courts matter
The principle of open justice — that court proceedings should be public and transparent — underpins the rule of law. Publicity ensures judges act fairly, impartially and according to law, and holds the system accountable to the public it serves.
Secrecy in Victoria's courts is widespread enough that open justice in the state is "at crisis point"
Without transparency, the legitimacy of courts depends on public trust. And that trust erodes when cases disappear behind suppression orders, particularly when accused people with financial means appear to receive special protection.
Mental health orders drawing fire
One focal point for reform is suppression orders granted on mental health grounds. These orders are meant to spare accused people from psychological harm caused by publicity, but critics say the logic is flawed.
How can any psychiatrist confidently separate the effect of publication from the effect of being accused, charged, discussed within one's family or community, exposed to gossip or social media, brought before a court, or ultimately tried and convicted?
According to one psychiatrist cited in the reporting, even if an accused person is genuinely vulnerable, it is difficult to establish that being named — rather than the act of prosecution itself — is the decisive factor driving harm. Yet such orders are granted regularly.
The result is a perception, if not a reality, that wealthy defendants who can afford expensive lawyers and psychiatric reports receive special treatment in Victoria's courts.
Interim orders need time limits
A second reform opportunity lies in "interim" suppression orders — short-term orders meant to preserve the status quo until a court can consider a full suppression application.
In South Australia and New South Wales, interim orders are statutorily limited to a few days. In Victoria, they routinely persist for weeks or months. One interim order remained in place for nearly six years, according to the reporting.
Placing statutory time limits on interim orders would prevent them from becoming de facto permanent secrecy, forcing courts to rule on the merits rather than allowing the status quo to calcify.
What comes next
Kilkenny's review of the Open Courts Act provides an opening to address these systemic issues. The scope and timeline of the review remain unclear, but the academic analysis suggests at least three areas demand attention: tightening mental health suppression orders, imposing time limits on interim orders, and reviewing the use of pseudonyms and other concealment methods.
Implementing such reforms would require significant work, but advocates argue it is necessary to restore public confidence in Victoria's courts and protect the principle that justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done.