Public’s right to know demands open justice and transparency in courts

The dismissal of an alleged serial rapist’s attempt to have his identity suppressed for 20 years is yet another reminder of the increasing use of suppression orders and the importance of holding courts to account on open justice principles.

The Herald yesterday won a legal bid to publicly name Anthony Stevo Glumac, who used social media to meet women before he allegedly committed a series of violent and degrading attacks in Sydney and Wollongong leading up to his arrest in December 2020.

Glumac, 29, has pleaded not guilty to 45 charges against 17 alleged victims from January 2014 to December 2020, and his judge-alone trial began on Monday. But an interim non-publication order last week prevented him from being identified. Glumac wanted his name and image protected for up to two decades, claiming he was assaulted three times while on remand and that threats to his safety intensified whenever there was media coverage.

Anthony Glumac, 24, is facing 47 charges. Credit: Nine News

Lawyers for The Sydney Morning Herald and the Crown opposed a permanent order in Downing Centre District Court on Wednesday, arguing there was no evidence Glumac’s self-reported assaults resulted in injury, and that any risk to him could be mitigated.

Judge Michael Smith declined to protect Glumac’s identity and was not satisfied the non-publication order was necessary. He said there was “insufficient evidence to allow me to conclude the risk of harm is imminent”.

Suppression orders are intended to keep matters out of the news, but the orders themselves have made headlines recently, and the Herald has been in the forefront in the fight against court secrecy.

Last August, we unmasked the so-called North Shore Rapist, Graham James Kay, after a court protected his identity four years earlier. Kay had served prison time for the rape of six women and girls at knifepoint in the 1990s and the attempted rape of two others. Following his release in 2015 Kay complained about media attention, and a judge suppressed his identity in 2020 to assist his rehabilitation. But in 2022 Kay offended again, indecently assaulting a young woman. Crucial details of this disturbing story were only made public after we won a legal bid to name him.

Journalists are increasingly prevented from reporting on legal proceedings because of suppression orders. These orders are frequently flimsy, sometimes baffling and often come without time limits.

Justice Michael Lee, the Federal Court judge who presided over former federal political staffer Bruce Lehrmann’s defamation trial, has warned court secrecy is increasing, despite laws to promote transparency in the system, and cited reports that suppression orders made in Australia rose from 859 in 2017 to 1113 in 2023.

New laws not withstanding, limits on the information journalists can access have tightened while governments have been slow to address the issue of creeping secrecy in our legal systems.

Our courts must be as transparent as possible and for that reason, the Herald will continue the fight for open justice, not least because such secrecy works against the public’s right to know.

Bevan Shields sends an exclusive newsletter to subscribers each week. Sign up to receive his Note from the Editor.