A research report commissioned by the Melbourne Press Club has renewed debate about court secrecy in Victoria, after finding the state issued almost half of all suppression orders made across Australia in 2023 — a level researchers warn is weakening open justice and public trust.

The Monash University analysis, based on data from the Alliance for Journalists’ Freedom and interviews with senior court reporters, found Victorian judges and magistrates made 521 suppression orders in 2023 — 47 per cent of the national total of 1,113. South Australia recorded 308 and New South Wales 133.

Suppression orders can prevent publication of an accused person’s identity, specific evidence, or even entire proceedings. Under Victoria’s Open Courts Act, they are only meant to be made on defined grounds — including protecting a fair trial, national security, or the safety of victims and witnesses — and the Act also recognises open justice as fundamental to maintaining public confidence in the courts.

But the report’s co-author, Alicia McMillan, told the media that journalists repeatedly raised concerns that suppression orders were being sought and granted in ways that favoured “people of means”, shielding reputations while leaving the wider community unaware that a serious matter had even reached court.

The findings have prompted editors from major Victorian outlets to call for an urgent review of suppression laws and the creation of a media freedom act, while the Courts Council which oversees courts and tribunals, has rejected the report as “misleading”.

Why the issue lands differently in multicultural Victoria

For Victoria’s migrant and multicultural communities, court reporting is not just a public-interest principle — it is often the only reliable bridge between families, governments and legal systems across borders.

When major incidents occur, information gaps are quickly filled by rumours circulating in diaspora networks, encrypted messaging groups and overseas media. Community advocates say that when Australian reporting is limited — whether because a matter is before the courts, details are suppressed, or basic access is restricted — the result can be confusion and distress for families trying to understand what has happened and what justice looks like in Australia.

That impact was felt keenly after the Daylesford pub crash, which killed five people in November 2023, including migration agent Pratibha Sharma, her nine-year-old daughter Anvi, Sharma’s partner Jatin Chugh (also reported as Jatin Kumar in some court reporting), and father-and-son Vivek and Vihaan Bhatia.

In the immediate aftermath, the driver was publicly described only as a “66-year-old Mount Macedon man” while he remained in hospital and police inquiries continued, leaving families — including relatives overseas — with limited clarity during the first critical weeks.

Charges were later laid, and the driver, William Swale, was named when Victoria Police alleged he had received multiple warnings about low blood glucose levels in the lead-up to the crash.

The case then became a high-profile example of how complex legal processes can collide with public expectations. In September 2024, a Ballarat magistrate dismissed all charges, finding Swale’s actions were involuntary due to a severe hypoglycaemic episode — a decision that prompted families of those killed to question the justice system and what accountability can mean when a medical episode is central to the legal findings.

In this context, the Melbourne Press Club-commissioned report is being read by some multicultural Victorians as more than a media-industry complaint. They see it as part of a broader conversation about how the justice system communicates with the public and whether the system works equally well for communities who may already feel distant from institutions, unfamiliar with legal terminology, or dependent on Australian media to keep extended families informed.

‘Open justice’ versus a system built for the pre-digital era

The Monash analysis arrives amid wider arguments that suppression regimes were designed for an era when information moved slowly, but now operate in a world where overseas publishers, social media users and influencers can circulate content instantly — including material that Australian outlets may be legally barred from reporting.

The George Pell trial remains a cautionary example: while Australian media faced strict suppression orders, international reporting and online chatter meant the proceedings were widely known long before local restrictions were lifted, exposing the difficulty of keeping major cases “quiet” in a global information environment.

Researchers argue that excessive secrecy can also undermine the very aim suppression orders often claim to protect: public confidence in a fair and transparent system.

The Courts Council disputes that characterisation, describing the Melbourne Press Club/Monash University report as selective and not reflective of broader court-media engagement.

Still, the numbers have sharpened a key question: if suppression orders are meant to be exceptional, why is Victoria using them at a rate far above the rest of the country?

What reform could look like

Editors and media advocates calling for reform argue the goal is not to remove suppression orders entirely, but to tighten how they are made and reviewed — including clearer reasons on the record, time limits, easier mechanisms for media to challenge orders, and stronger consistency across courts.

For multicultural communities, the stakes are practical as well as philosophical. When tragedy strikes, whether a family loses loved ones in a public disaster or communities are affected by violence and fear, timely, accurate reporting shapes how safely and confidently people navigate the system.

The Melbourne Press Club report has put that tension squarely back on the agenda: protecting fair trials and vulnerable witnesses, while ensuring justice in Victoria remains visible enough for the public in all its diversity to trust it is being done.

Support our Journalism

No-nonsense journalism. No paywalls. Whether you’re in Australia, the UK, Canada, the USA, or India, you can support The Australia Today by taking a paid subscription via Patreon or donating via PayPal — and help keep honest, fearless journalism alive.