Reporting Guidelines
General Press Release No. 50 (August 1982)

Suppression of Names

The attention of the Press Council has recently been drawn to instances involving the suppression of the names of persons involved in court proceedings.

The Press Council recognises that in any given case there may exist exceptional circumstances where the interests of an individual or a class of individuals may be such that it far outweighs the right of the public to be informed. Without wishing to limit those exceptional circumstances, the Press Council supports the tradition in newspaper circles not to name the victim of a rape in her lifetime. Again, the legislative restrictions on the publication of the names of children involved in lower and family court proceedings, whether as parties or witnesses, would seem to be supported by prevailing community standards. In the view of the Press Council, the interpretation of the present New South Wales law to the effect that it would absolutely forbid the publication of the name of a deceased child, the victim of a notorious crime, would be difficult to justify. The public there would presumably be rightly interested in the trial of any person charged with the commission of that crime.

The Council believes that, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the public has the right to be informed as to the names of persons appearing before the courts, especially in criminal matters. This is, generally speaking, in the interest of the parties as well as the proper administration of justice. In the view of the Council, membership of a particular calling or profession does not in itself constitute an exceptional circumstance which would justify suppression of the name of a person appearing before a court. To accept such a proposition would be tantamount to declaring that such a person belongs to a privileged elite enjoying special rights not generally available to other members of the public. The Press Council must therefore express its serious concern in respect of a submission from a most responsible source to the effect that professional persons in South Australia "appear to have decreasing difficulty in having their names suppressed in lower court hearings". The Press Council is obviously not in a position to test the veracity of this proposition; that it has been made and has also been the subject of public comment in the State constitute sufficient grounds for disquiet.

The Press Council believes that the powers and procedures concerning the suppression of names in court hearings should be the matter of precise statutory provisions. Where a discretion to suppress exists, there should always be a presumption that publication would be in the public interest. The onus should be on those seeking suppression to show there is an overriding interest which would justify suppression. Moreover, the press, and indeed other media, should have the right to make submissions, and even to appeal, in respect of an application to suppress the publication of a name. The justification for such a role for the press is that it should be seen as a trustee of the public interest in these matters.

As with other areas of the law touching upon the press and the media generally, the Press Council sees considerable merit in the law on this subject being made uniform throughout Australia. It therefore suggests that the Attorneys-General of the Commonwealth, the States and the Northern Territory could usefully investigate this question. Indeed it might be appropriate that this be the subject of a reference to the Australian Law Reform Commission.

Finally, the Press Council and its Freedom of the Press committee would welcome submissions on this question, whether of a general nature or, from time to time, on specific instances involving the suppression of names.

Note: GPR 53 addresses similar questions.

return to
Index of guidelines

[ return to top ]