Secret Legal Guide for Case Suppression Exposed in Victoria, Sparking Transparency Concerns

Confidential 'How-To Guide' Comes to Light

A confidential legal guide, reportedly detailing strategies for barristers to suppress criminal cases in Victoria, Australia, has been exposed, igniting a fresh wave of debate over transparency and the integrity of the state's justice system. The guide, described as a 'lawyer's how-to guide on keeping criminal cases out of the spotlight,' reportedly offers advice on securing suppression orders and collaborating with police. It suggests tactics such as 'potentially seeking psychiatric reports for your client' during court proceedings or even after police interviews, and emphasizes the importance of acting 'before the horse has bolted' when no media reporting has yet occurred.

Victoria's Prolific Use of Suppression Orders Under Scrutiny

Victoria has long been noted for its high volume of suppression orders compared to other Australian states, a practice that has consistently raised questions about the principle of open justice. These court directives are intended to prohibit or restrict the publication of information related to legal proceedings. While suppression orders serve legitimate purposes, such as preventing prejudice to justice, protecting national security, ensuring personal safety, or avoiding distress to witnesses in sensitive cases, their application in Victoria has drawn criticism.

The Open Courts Act 2013 (Vic) governs these orders, and changes to its wording, specifically broadening the grounds from protecting a person's 'physical safety' to simply 'safety,' have been identified as a key factor in the increased frequency of suppression orders. Legal experts argue that this broader interpretation has created a 'legal loophole' that can be exploited.

Recent Cases Fuel Controversy and Calls for Reform

The exposure of the guide coincides with recent high-profile cases that have intensified scrutiny on Victoria's suppression order regime. The lifting of a suppression order in December 2025, which allowed the public naming of convicted rapist Tom Silvagni, son of a prominent AFL figure, highlighted how mental health arguments are being used to secure such orders. Silvagni's lawyers successfully sought suppression multiple times, citing concerns that media coverage could lead to a deterioration of his mental health. Legal expert Justin Quill, a partner at Thomson Geer, has criticized this trend, stating that it has become 'common in Victoria for people to argue mental health as a reason for needing a suppression order' and that such orders can 'silence the victims who want to tell their story.'

This situation echoes broader systemic concerns previously highlighted by the 'Lawyer X' scandal, involving barrister Nicola Gobbo, who acted as a police informant against her own clients. The Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants found that Victoria Police's conduct was 'reprehensible' and 'debased fundamental premises of the criminal justice system,' leading to calls for significant reforms. The Victorian government's recent introduction of legislation to limit civil liability arising from the 'Lawyer X' saga has also been met with accusations of undermining the rule of law.

Demands for Greater Transparency and Legislative Change

Critics argue that the proliferation of suppression orders, particularly those based on broad 'safety' grounds, undermines the fundamental principle of open justice and public confidence in the legal system. Concerns are also raised about the effectiveness of such orders in the digital age, where social media can quickly spread information, leading to 'rumor and innuendo.' There are growing calls for legislative reform, including proposals to revert the 'safety' clause in the Open Courts Act to specifically 'physical safety,' and for greater scrutiny of applications for suppression orders by legal teams. The ongoing debate underscores a critical need for balance between protecting individual rights and upholding the public's right to transparent judicial processes.