Bold claim: Our justice system is at a crossroads where openness could clash with fairness, and the debate is far from settled. And this is the part most people miss: the real tension isn’t simply about more transparency, but about ensuring every case protects the rights of victims and the due process of defendants.
Here’s a rewrite of the original piece in clear, uniquely worded English that preserves all key points, adds a touch of context for clarity, and stays friendly, professional, and informative.
Victoria’s top law officer says she is seeking to balance two fundamental principles: maintaining transparency in the courts and protecting a defendant’s right to a fair trial. This comes after a commissioned report warned of a crisis in open justice due to widespread suppression orders.
However, a former Supreme Court judge argues that the bigger threat to transparency comes not from judges, but from psychiatrists who provide evidence for mental health suppression orders. She suggests that while some judges may be outliers, they are not representative of the profession.
The Age reported that a Monash University study, commissioned by the Melbourne Press Club, judged Victoria’s court system to be the least transparent in Australia. The study warned that the frequent use of suppression orders has hampered court reporting and called for an overhaul of the state’s Open Courts Act.
Attorney-General Sonya Kilkenny told reporters she would not be drawn into questions about whether the current law, introduced 13 years ago, should be reviewed. She emphasized the need to strike the right balance between an open court system and a person’s right to a fair trial, and she pledged ongoing efforts to maintain that balance. Kilkenny also noted the government’s recent move to ban “good character” references from sentencing considerations, explaining the goal is to ensure sentencing remains fair and focused on the relevant facts.
She added that, as demonstrated, the voices of victim-survivors must be listened to, and that work on this balance will continue.
At the Melbourne Press Club event launching the report, senior court figures did not participate; Chief Magistrate Lisa Hannan, County Court Chief Judge Amanda Chambers, and Supreme Court Chief Justice Richard Niall declined to comment or attend. The event featured The Age editor Patrick Elligett and Herald Sun editor Sam Weir, alongside Betty King, KC, a former Supreme Court justice.
Betty King argued that psychiatrists pose the greatest risk to transparency because they produce psychiatric reports that go unchallenged in court, which can lead to suppression orders. She warned that some psychiatrists may abuse the system and urged testing these reports—and the underlying legislation—in court.
King described the situation as a misinterpretation of mental health suppression orders and urged closer scrutiny of psychiatric reports. She noted that judges must assess such reports carefully, especially when they are presented as treating clinicians’ determinations.
According to King, the most disquieting issue is the mental health suppression order itself, and she believes it should be examined more thoroughly. She also highlighted that interactions between the judiciary and journalists have room for improvement, though she was surprised by the study’s portrayal of widespread tension and said most judges respect journalists.
King reminded readers that media liaison officers operate in all courts and should be the first contact if any problems arise. While she defended suppression orders as a necessary tool to ensure fair trials and avoid mistrials, she warned against overreliance on untested reports and stressed the importance of cross-examination and verification.
The Monash study, which drew largely on interviews with journalists, called for urgent steps to repair a strained relationship between judges and reporters. King expressed surprise at the findings but reiterated the need for due process and robust scrutiny of psychiatric evidence used to justify suppression.
Historically, the Open Courts Act was last reviewed in 2018 by retired Supreme Court justice Frank Vincent, who found little evidence that the number of suppression orders had fallen since the law’s enactment. He called for better education of judges about how and when to apply suppression orders.
Chief Justice Richard Niall, who chairs Courts Council, publicly expressed disappointment with the report, arguing it failed to reflect the courts’ positive engagement with the media across Victoria and did not adequately consult legal professionals about why suppression orders are sought.
The article notes that the broader conversation about transparency, accountability, and the appropriate use of suppression orders remains ongoing. The goal is to protect fair trials without unduly shielding information from the public eye.
Would you support a more frequent, transparent review of suppression orders, or do you think the current safeguards already strike the right balance between openness and fairness? Share your thoughts in the comments.
