Suppression Orders

Suppression orders essentially restrict the publication and reporting of a particular court proceeding or parts thereof. The courts can decide that a suppression order is necessary for various reasons, outlined specifically in section 69A (1) of the Evidence Act 1929 (SA). These reasons include: -

• preventing external influence from prejudicing the jury;
• protecting the safety of persons involved in the proceedings, whether it be the defendant, victim or witnesses; and
• preventing undue embarrassment or stress in particular matters, especially those involving sexual offences or family violence.

The inclusion of suppression orders in specific court proceedings are utilised in order to promote judicial principles, such as, ‘innocent until proven guilty’ and safeguarding against a, ‘trial by media’. Nevertheless, whilst attempting to preserve and maintain certain legal principles, an infringement on others arises, specifically the principle of ‘open justice’.

As outlined in Section 69A (2) (a), “a primary objective in the administration of justice is to safeguard the public interest in open justice and the consequential right of the news media to publish information relating to court proceedings”. Through the implementation of suppression orders, this principle is directly infringed upon. Therefore, there must be extensive consideration regarding the imposition of suppression orders by both the courts and parliament, ensuring that arbitrary administration does not occur.

South Australia, specifically, administers the most amount of suppression orders in comparison to the other Australian states. Thus, there are voices amongst the legal and media community, calling for section 69A of the Evidence Act 1929 (SA) to be amended and made less ambiguous, subsequently guiding judges in their decisions as to when the imposition of a suppression order is absolutely necessary for the proper administration of justice.

In March 2020, South Australian Parliament passed legislation, discontinuing the automatic imposition of a suppression order on proceedings involving people accused of sex offences. This decision is indicative of a contemporary shift towards open justice and a more transparent operation of the courts. Although these orders are becoming less common, there are still relevant scenarios where judges will administer proceedings to be suppressed.

If you require advice regarding the claim for a suppression order to be enforced, lifted, or just general information relating to its application, Straits Lawyers are here to help. We are now offering online services in both English and Chinese.

Simply book an online consultation with us via this link: https://straits-lawyers.square.site/product/online-consultation-/11?cs=true or email us at info@holawyers.com or call at 08 8410 9069 to arrange an appointment.

Straits Lawyers is evolving! With our recent growth and development, we have expanded and are excited to announce the launch of our new name HandO Lawyers. Stand by for the new age of legal representation brought to you by HandO!

Please note that this article does not constitute legal advice and HandO Lawyers will not be legally responsible for any actions you take based on this article.