Full Court of SA Supreme Court to determine value, power of suppression orders in digital age
THE effectiveness of suppression orders in the digital age will be decided, after years of controversy, by South Australia’s highest court — and the outcome will determine your right to know.
Law and Order
Don't miss out on the headlines from Law and Order. Followed categories will be added to My News.
- Suppression orders surge by almost 50 per cent in 12 months
- Judge warns Facebook, social media ‘could wreck trials’
- ‘Suppression orders ineffective in digital age’ — judge
THE effectiveness of suppression orders in the digital age — and the importance of the public’s right to know — will be decided, after years of controversy, by South Australia’s highest court.
The Full Court of the Supreme Court will next month determine whether gags and secrecy orders serve any purpose in a world of social media and online publishing.
It will be the first time the court has considered whether it has any ability to control the way members of the public and the media share information online.
The court’s decision will not only set a precedent for SA, but will also influence the use of suppression orders in jurisdictions around Australia.
The hearing follows renewed debate over the number of suppressions which, after several years of declining use, spiked by 50 per cent to 206 publication bans in 2014/15.
It has been prompted by a landmark District Court decision, in August, that suppression orders had been “undermined” and “blunted” by technology.
Judge Stephen McEwen refused to ban reporting of an upcoming trial, saying key details were freely available online and could be read “irrespective” of restricting journalists.
He also cautioned judges against imposing suppression orders without first considering whether they would have any real effect.
“Social media and the internet undermine the efficacy of suppression orders (because) the public no longer need to review traditional media sources to obtain information,” Judge McEwen said.
“Lots of information is accessible, irrespective of it being suppressed, (because) there is a permanent record in cyberspace that cannot be removed.”
His decision ran contrary to prevailing judicial opinion that the internet disrupts trials and taints potential jurors by turning them into “Facebook detectives”.
The defendant in the case filed an appeal — his identity and all details of the case have been temporarily suppressed pending the outcome of his challenge.
On Friday, counsel for the man said their client would be represented by former District Court judge and renowned barrister Marie Shaw, QC.
They told Chief Justice Chris Kourakis that their client had originally wanted a Supreme Court hearing, but had since decided the matter was better suited to the Full Court.
Prosecutors said they did not oppose a Full Court hearing and “remained neutral” on the issue of whether the suppression order should stand or lapse.
Chief Justice Kourakis agreed the appeal should be heard, and the issue determined, by a bench of three judges.
He also granted The Advertiser — which opposed the order in the District Court — permission to present its case again to the Full Court.
The appeal will be heard in the court’s December sittings.