SA’s use of suppression orders to be reviewed by SA Law Reform Institute, with retired Judge Geoffrey Muecke participating

A top trial judge has joined SA’s best legal minds to put courtroom secrecy on trial – and they’re calling on the entire community for the review.

South Australia’s controversial history of courtroom secrecy orders is being put on trial by our top legal minds – including a retired judge who once ran the District Court.

Former Chief Judge Geoff Muecke has joined a team of SA Law Reform Institute researchers studying the use of suppression orders, which have again hit record highs.

The Institute will hear from judges, lawyers, journalists, social media commentators and the public in a review of how and when gag orders are imposed.

Mr Muecke told The Advertiser a “satisfactory balance” must be struck between a defendant’s right to a fair trial and the public’s right to know what goes on in the courts.

Former Chief Judge Geoff Muecke during his career on the District Court bench.

“After nearly 18 years as a judge, I am a passionate supporter of open justice and every citizen’s right to a fair trial – both are vital aspects of the Rule of Law,” he said.

“I am convinced that we can achieve both with appropriate laws and practices regarding suppression orders.”

Court suppression orders skyrocketed to as many as 328 a year prior to 2007, when the state government rewrote legislation to prioritise the public’s right to know.

That successfully curbed the number of orders made for more than 10 years but, as the decade changed, the imposition of orders intensified once more.

In January, The Advertiser revealed SA’s courts imposed 277 suppression orders last year – the heaviest application of censorship since the “bodies in the barrels” serial killings.

That number represented an increase on 2021’s figure of 245 orders, making SA the only mainland state that had intensified, rather than reduced, court secrecy orders in 2022.

While Operation Ironside and the marathon NCA bombing trial resulted in many suppression orders, the overall number imposed increased even without their contributions.

The Institute is based at the University of Adelaide – its director, Professor John Williams, said suppressions played an important role in the justice system.

“However, this must be weighed against the impact on open justice and, in turn, public confidence in the administration of justice,” he said.

Lead researcher Jemma Holt said SA had recorded “the highest number” of suppression orders “in 20 years”, making the review “timely”.

“Whilst a high number of suppression orders itself is not necessarily problematic, it is difficult to assess without a comprehensive inquiry,” she said.

“Our research intends to look beyond the numbers.”

Mr Muecke says there must be a balance between suppression orders and the public’s right to know.

The Institute plans to run round table discussions involving members of the judiciary, legal profession and media, as well as survey the opinions of the general public.

It will also undertake an in-depth examination of orders imposed by the courts, including how they are phrased and enacted, by accessing each jurisdiction’s own records.

Institute Deputy Director David Plater said independent suppression order reviews were also being conducted in Victoria and NSW.

“We are committed to an impartial, active and inclusive process of gathering the views of people in Adelaide and especially regional SA,” he said.

“Suppression orders affect accused persons, victims, witnesses, litigants, the courts, the legal profession, the media and the community in unique ways.

“We want to hear from people from a variety of backgrounds.”

To participate, read the project fact sheet and answer the online survey before September 30.