When George Pell was convicted of child sex abuse last December, it became one of Australia’s worst kept secrets.
Gagged by a court-imposed suppression order, media outlets dropped not so subtle hints at the big story they were unable to write about in detail. As a result, more than 100 journalists (including some at Crikey) were threatened with contempt proceedings. Crikey is no longer being pursued, but other publications are still facing charges.
Of course, suppression orders have been frustrating journalists since long before the Pell trial; many of Victoria’s biggest crime stories have been subject to a raft of restrictions.
The suppression capital
With the Pell conviction now out in the open, some attention has turned to the use of suppression orders in Victoria. Broadly, suppression orders are intended to ensure a fair trial by restricting information that could prejudice potential jurors.
It’s not hard to see why Victoria is termed the suppression order capital of Australia. In 2017, Victorian courts issued 444 orders — twice as many as NSW, which had the next most. Since the passage of the state’s Open Courts Act in 2013, orders have been increasingly used to close off courts in Victoria and create an air of secrecy. Now, Victoria’s suppression laws are under review by the Andrews government.
The underworld orders
Melbourne’s gangland killings, which captured the nation’s imagination during the early 2000s, also saw a raft of suppression orders; crucial details about the big players were hidden from the public eye, leading to a real sense of confusion.
In 2007 Carl Williams, the man at the centre of gangland killing spree, plead guilty to three murders. Those convictions saw even more suppressed information about Williams come to light. As it turned out, he was already serving 21 years years for a separate murder, which he’d been convicted of 18 months prior. In 2004, he had been sentenced to 25 years over a failed plot to murder a rival mob boss. Both charges, as well as the name of one of Williams’ victims, were suppressed until his plea in 2007.
Williams wasn’t the only underworld figure shrouded in the veil of secrecy provided by suppression orders. Details about Tony Mokbel, the former underworld figure who recently survived an attempt on his life in prison, were subject to a series of blanket suppression orders. Information about a murder acquittal in 2009 was not made public until 2011, when he finally pleaded guilty to a raft of drug trafficking charges. When making the orders, the trial judge tried to take down 1500 online articles (a restriction later overturned by the court of appeal).
When Channel Nine tried to bring the drama of Melbourne’s gang war to the small screen with the popular Underbelly series, it was halted by an order imposed in Victoria just days before the first episode was set to air. The order was imposed because former boxer Evangelos Goussis was about to stand trial for murder. That didn’t stop thousands of Melburnians downloading the show online. One Melbourne pub even faced contempt proceedings for showing the episode to punters via an interstate broadcast. Eventually, Goussis was convicted and the series went to air, but other impending trials meant it was still heavily edited in Victoria — scenes were cut out, and Tony Mokbel’s face was pixelated.
Suppression orders relating to the Melbourne underworld are still popping up. Last week, another badly kept secret was revealed when orders were lifted naming Nicola Gobbo as Lawyer X — the criminal lawyer who also acted as a police informer. Victorian police wanted the identity of Gobbo, who acted for Williams and Mokbel, to remain suppressed. But the Court of Appeal rejected their application, siding with lawyers for the royal commission into police informants (established in the aftermath of the scandal) who argued that her identity had to be revealed in order to meet their terms of reference.
Where else have they been used?
The Underbelly decision shows that suppression orders can touch areas beyond the scope of day-to-day reporting. For example, the Pell suppression order not only gagged journalists, but also meant ABC journalist Louise Milligan’s book Cardinal: The Rise and Fall of George Pell was pulled from shelves across the state from the start of the trial up until the lifting of the order last week.
Their application also stretches beyond the sordid world of Melbourne gangland killings. After Jill Meagher was murdered by serial rapist Adrian Bayley in 2012, the media could not report his name in relation to three later rape trials he faced, out of concern that it would prejudice a jury and deny him a fair trial.
And in 2014, Victorian courts put in place a year-long order suppressing the identities of former Malaysian prime ministers Najib Razak and Abdullah Ahmad Badawi over their involvement in a corruption and bribery scandal which embroiled the Reserve Bank. This followed an application from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, who argued the suppression order was necessary to protect Australia’s national interest.
Details were widely reported around the world, and WikiLeaks went so far as to publish the entire order, which was itself suppressed.
“It’s not hard to see why Victoria is termed the suppression order capital of Australia.” Victoria does not allow any choice between a hearing before a judge alone or a jury – there it is jury only. To prevent jurors being biassed by knowledge of previous cases, prior convictions or whatever else influences may exist courts issue suppression orders.
I cannot see how I was disadvantaged in any way by not knowing about Pell’s conviction on 12 December 2018 and having to wait until 26 February 2019. Some of the msm may have gotten their knickers in a knot but I’d rather not have a decision overturned because of claims that undue publicity influenced the jury.
Agreed.
It is not preferable for legal technicalities to overturn court findings just to appease news outlets and journalists. I think it is a mistake to reveal lawyer X identity and may cost her her life; is media reporting of her name really that important?
The problem is that in this day and age, suppression orders don’t even work. I found out Lawyer X’s identity with some quick-off-the-mark googling, and if an ordinary Crikey reader can , future jurors surely can too
Whilst Victoria may be the most backward State in the country closest inhabited capital to the South Pole [Tasmania is a beautiful national park and Hobart is really not a capital city in the real sense of the word , just a nice island town]- the goings on of the criminal activity being suppressed in Victoria is not really an affront to western civilisation, the quality of the journos that want to make a fuss is the equivalent of gossip columnists denied of publishable gossip.
As for Pell whether he himself was guilty or not, is irrelevant- what the major crime is that as a CEO – manager of Church business he merely moved the known culprits around [thus facilitating further crime] rather than reporting the crimes to local Police – thus makes him an intentional accomplice . Deserves what he gets.
There are many laws. Certainly most of them are designed to enforce the financial advantage of already well heeled groups. A huge number of laws have been put together simply to raise revenue for some level of government. These laws do not carry the wisdom of Solomon, they effectively control (enslave) the people.
The press is always on about “Freedom of the Press” and has great influence in our society. To imagine that “the press” and all its contributory parts, can have freedom whilst the remainder of society is controlled is primarily asking for a privilege. And our society is being crippled with privilege. Either all are free or none are free. All the pleadings and beautiful editorials on the subject are for nothing if they are not for all. “The press” has much to learn. There is much law affecting the press, left wing, right wing, whatever. But no laws telling them that they must not lie or use sophistry and they do that frequently.
You mention the Dowling case: Shane Dowling was merely using his right to free speech. Whether you believe he is right or wrong is immaterial. Someone didn’t like what he said so they called upon their mates, in fancy dress, armed with big sticks, to shut him up. About the same mentality as the MeToo movement! It is well to remember that “Power corrupts” and that applies to every facet of the law!
If you really want press freedom the starting place is the hiding place of all politicians, the Defamation Act.