Bold claim: the system’s hidden forces are shaping justice, and that secrecy is stirring a public controversy worth debating. Here’s a rewritten, clearer version that preserves all key information while making it accessible for beginners.
Victoria’s top legal official says she is trying to balance open courts with the right to a fair trial, following a report that warned of a crisis in open justice. But a former Supreme Court judge defends the current setup, arguing the real threat to transparency comes from psychiatrists who provide evidence for mental health suppression orders. She also noted that while some judges may be problematic, they are outliers in the profession.
The Age reported on March 2 that a Monash University study, commissioned by the Melbourne Press Club, found Victoria’s court system to be the least transparent in Australia. The study warned that the widespread use of suppression orders has hindered court reporting and called for reforms to the state’s Open Courts Act.
Attorney-General Sonya Kilkenny told reporters she would not be drawn into questions about whether the 13-year-old legislation should be reviewed. However, she emphasized the need to balance an open court system with individuals’ right to a fair trial and promised ongoing efforts to maintain that balance. She also cited recent changes banning certain “good character” references during sentencing, arguing that such references can influence outcomes and should be reconsidered. Kilkenny added that the government would continue listening to the voices of victim-survivors in its policy work.
Several senior judicial figures—Chief Magistrate Lisa Hannan, County Court Chief Judge Amanda Chambers, and Supreme Court Chief Justice Richard Niall—declined to contribute to the research, and no current judge participated in the Melbourne Press Club event where the study was launched.
At the event, former Supreme Court justice Betty King, KC, lectured that psychiatrists pose the greatest risk to court transparency by producing untested psychiatric reports that underpin suppression orders. She argued some psychiatrists abuse the system and that the mental health-based suppression orders themselves should be tested in court. King described the reports as persuasive and unchallenged in court, which creates a dilemma for judges when deciding how to respond.
King declared that the mental health suppression order is, in her view, wrong and a misinterpretation that needs careful re-evaluation of psychiatric reports. She emphasized that judges should scrutinize these reports more closely rather than accept them at face value.
The Monash study largely relied on conversations with working journalists and urged urgent steps to repair a strained relationship between judges and the media covering trials. King said she was surprised by the results, noting that most judges respect journalists, and she dismissed the notion of widespread contempt within the judiciary. She suggested that court media liaison officers should be the first point of contact for reporters facing issues.
King defended the broader use of suppression orders as necessary to ensure fair trials and prevent mistrials, while jokingly referring to herself as the “Queen of suppression orders” due to her past involvement in high-profile cases.
She argued that the aim is not to hide information, but to protect the integrity of trials and ensure juries can focus on the key issues without being unduly swayed by sensitive or adverse details. She also noted that any magistrate or judge’s decisions could be reviewed at higher levels of the judiciary, implying that an external reviewer would be unnecessary.
Courts Council chair Chief Justice Richard Niall expressed disappointment with the report, claiming it failed to reflect the courts’ positive engagement with the media across Victoria and did not adequately consult the legal profession about why suppression orders are used. He described portions of the report as misleading, with incomplete suppression-order data.
The Open Courts Act last underwent a formal review in 2018 by retired Supreme Court justice Frank Vincent, who found that the number of suppression orders had not notably decreased since the law’s introduction. He concluded that more effort should be directed toward educating judges on when and how to issue suppression orders.
If you’d like, I can tailor this rewrite for a specific audience (legal professionals, general readers, students) or adjust the balance between controversy and explanation. Do you want a version with a stronger focus on policy implications, or more on individual perspectives from the judiciary and media?
