SA District Court Judge Stephen McEwen says suppression orders rendered ineffective by social media
EXCLUSIVE: Social media and the internet have blunted the power of suppression orders because the public commonly searches online for information about alleged criminals, a senior judge says.
- Judge McEwen: ‘Obstructive control freaks hijacked child protection’
- Suppression orders surge by almost 50 per cent in 12 months
- Judge warns Facebook, social media ‘could wreck trials’
SOCIAL media and the internet have blunted the power of suppression orders because the public commonly searches online for information about alleged criminals, a senior judge says.
District Court Judge Stephen McEwen has questioned the value of publication bans in the digital age — and the ability of courts to control the sharing of information online.
He refused a bid to suppress details about a defendant that are currently available on the internet, saying they will be read “irrespective” of any ban on newspaper, radio and TV reports.
“To a large extent, social media and the internet undermine the efficacy of suppression orders,” he said.
“The public no longer need to review traditional media sources to obtain information, and so lots of information is accessible irrespective of it being suppressed.
“There is a permanent record in cyberspace that cannot be removed.”
The decision runs contrary to prevailing judicial opinion that the internet disrupts trials and taints potential jurors.
It is now the subject of an appeal — stopping The Advertiser from publishing the information, and identifying the defendant, until that challenge is determined.
The use of suppression orders by the state’s courts has long been a source of contention between the judiciary, politicians, the public and the media.
In 2007, the State Government amended suppression laws to prioritise the public’s right to know and encourage greater transparency.
That prompted a decline in the number of orders annually, from more than 220 a year to 140 in 2013-14.
At the same time, Supreme Court Justice David Peek warned Facebook was turning witnesses and jurors into “amateur private investigators”, putting trials at risk.
The number of orders subsequently spiked, by more than 50 per cent, to 206 in 2014-15.
However, suppressed information — including the identities of Kapunda triple-murderer Jason Downie and Salt Creek kidnapper Roman Heinze — was routinely published on social media.
Last week, Judge McEwen refused the defendant’s application saying there was no “realistic or plausible risk” to justice because the information was already in the public domain.
He said judges must consider “the ubiquitous nature of social media and the internet” when determining what should be suppressed.
“The advent and exponential expansion of social media and the internet has a significant impact upon the application of processes relating to suppression orders,” he said.
“It’s commonplace that internet searches of defendants would reveal inadmissable or prejudicial material.
“If that material is already online, then a suppression order would not be efficacious in any event.”
He said he was satisfied the interests “of justice and public interest could be served” by allowing publication.
Counsel for the defendant asked the information be “temporarily” suppressed pending a Supreme Court appeal and Judge McEwen agreed.