Victoria's Suppression Orders: A Growing Concern for Press Freedom

In 2023, Victoria issued 521 suppression orders, accounting for nearly half of the 1,113 orders issued across Australia, according to a study commissioned by the Melbourne Press Club and conducted by researchers from Monash University. This significant figure raises concerns regarding court transparency and press freedom in the state. The report, titled *The State of Play – Limitations to Public Interest Journalism in Victoria in 2025*, highlights the implications of these orders for public interest journalism, particularly in a digital age where enforcement is increasingly challenging.

Victoria issues almost half of Australia’s suppression orders, study finds

The study indicates that suppression orders are often granted to individuals with financial resources, allowing them to shield their identities from media scrutiny. Alicia McMillan, a co-author of the report, noted that journalists expressed concerns about the fairness of these orders, stating, “Those entering the court with financial resources are more likely to secure a suppression order to keep their name out of the media.” The report criticizes the Victorian courts for frequently issuing interim suppression orders without adequate justification, suggesting that these orders are being used more to protect reputations than to prevent harm.

Victoria issues almost half of Australia’s suppression orders, study finds

High-profile cases, such as that of Cardinal George Pell, have intensified scrutiny on the use of suppression orders. While Australian media were restricted from reporting on Pell’s case, international outlets published details freely. More recently, suppression orders were central to the rape trial of Tom Silvagni, son of AFL great Stephen Silvagni. His legal team cited a risk of psychiatric harm in seeking a suppression order, which was granted, allowing reporting on the case but prohibiting the publication of his name and family connections.

Australian Associated Press (AAP)

Critics argue that the current application of suppression orders undermines the principle of open justice. Fotis Kapetopoulos, a journalist and board member of the Melbourne Press Club, emphasized that public interest journalism cannot thrive under suppression. He stated, “Suppression based on notions of mental health and/or ‘shame’ to family or community is an insufficient justification.” Michael Bachelard, Chairperson of the Melbourne Press Club, echoed this sentiment, asserting that the high number of suppression orders indicates systemic issues within the judicial process.

Victoria issues almost half of Australia’s suppression orders, study finds

The Courts Council of Victoria, led by Chief Justice Richard Niall, rejected the findings of the Monash study, describing the data as “incomplete and misleading.” Niall expressed disappointment with the report, stating that it failed to engage with legal professionals who apply for suppression orders. Victoria’s Director of Public Prosecutions, Brendan Kissane KC, defended the courts’ practices, asserting that the number of suppression orders is not excessive and that the criteria for issuing them are being applied appropriately.

Australian Associated Press (AAP)

The Monash study concludes that public interest journalism in Victoria faces significant barriers due to the increasing reliance on suppression orders. It calls for a review of the Open Courts Act, improved communication between courts and media, and broader reforms to freedom of information laws. Without these changes, the report warns that accountability and transparency within the justice system may continue to erode, further complicating the landscape for journalists and the public alike.

Victoria issues almost half of Australia’s suppression orders, study finds