Reporting Guidelines
General Press Release No. 53 (February 1983)

Suppression orders

The Australian Press Council is concerned about an increasing number of instances of decisions being taken by courts in Australia to suppress the names of persons appearing before the court, or certain or even all evidence in a given case.

As a general principle, all aspects of court proceedings should be available for public dissemination. This is consistent with the important principle of the freedom of the press. This is not a privilege intended to benefit the press as such, but is the freedom of the people themselves to be informed on all matters of public interest.

Of course, this general principle must admit of exceptions. Those, in the view of the Press Council, should be under narrow and precise legislative provisions so that only where public or private interests substantially outweigh the general principle should suppression be permitted. The Press Council has already expressed the opinion to one state government that a provision permitting suppression on the grounds of "public decency and morality" was unacceptable because it was vague and involved intensely disputed concepts.

Further, the Press Council believes that in any application for suppression, reasonable opportunity to intervene should be made available to the press, and indeed the media generally. Such intervention occurs in some cases in Western Australia, and arrangements permitting it are found in some jurisdictions overseas. This is of especial importance when the application for suppression is by consent. Even in other instances, such intervention would permit the court to have the benefit of arguments presenting a wider community interest.

In this context the Press Council must record its regret concerning the refusal of a recent application by West Australian Newspapers Pty Ltd to review an order suppressing certain evidence in the preliminary hearing of charges against two Perth company directors. WA Newspapers Pty Ltd had not previously had the opportunity to express its viewpoint. On the other hand, the South Australian Attorney-General's intervention in a case, where the magistrate had previously ordered the court closed to the press, is a welcome development. That the enabling legislation is apparently to be reviewed is even more welcome.

The Press Council is most concerned in relation to this question and is monitoring a number of instances where such orders have been made. It will therefore shortly make appropriate representations to all Australian Attorneys-General and the Australian Law Reform Commission.

Note: GPR 50 addresses similar questions.

return to
Index of guidelines

[ return to top ]