![\"Kieran](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/86735c7bac2cd7f09154b840a117e8d67976362c.png\")
Save<\/p>\nSave<\/p>\n
You have reached your maximum number of saved items.<\/p>\n
Remove items from your saved list<\/a> to add more.<\/p>\n AAA<\/p>\n The proliferation of suppression orders in the justice system is being reviewed by the Allan government amid widespread concerns they are being applied too frequently, particularly on mental health grounds.<\/p>\n Attorney-General Sonya Kilkenny has asked the Department of Justice and Community Safety to provide her with additional information about use of suppression orders across all Victorian courts.<\/p>\n Consulting with the media, lawyers and the courts, the department will collect information on current enforcement periods applied on interim and final suppression orders, common reasons they are granted, and how to best balance the principle of open justice with mental health concerns.<\/p>\n The use of mental health grounds to secure suppression orders has come under increased scrutiny in recent years, particularly after being used in the 2025 rape trial of Tom Silvagni, a member of a famous footballing family<\/a>.<\/p>\n Silvagni\u2019s name was suppressed during criminal proceedings after a judge accepted publicity about his case would risk negatively impacting his mental health.<\/p>\n The order was lifted after conviction, against which he is appealing, but the revelation of Silvagni\u2019s identity sparked a public debate about whether the orders are unfairly protecting wealthy or high-profile individuals.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Major media groups, including The Age, campaigned in March alongside victims of crime to change current legislation to make it harder to obtain suppression orders on mental health grounds.<\/p>\n An analysis conducted by The Age of suppression orders issued last year by Victorian courts found that a \u201csafety\u201d ground \u2013 which in recent years has been used by defence barristers to protect the mental health of their clients \u2013 was more frequently cited than any other criteria in the Open Courts Act.<\/p>\n Of the 477 suppression orders granted for which the media received notification, 146 were made on safety grounds (30 per cent). This includes orders granted to protect both the physical and psychological safety of defendants and other people involved in criminal proceedings.<\/p>\n Related Article The act states that a suppression order may be made \u201cto protect the safety of any person\u201d. However, Robert Clark, the attorney-general who introduced the act in 2013, has said<\/a> the provision was designed to protect people from threats of violence or similar safety issues, \u201cnot about claims of psychological distress\u201d.<\/p>\n But they are still regularly used, and some defence lawyers have provided their colleagues with guidance on how to use the mental health argument<\/a> to shield their clients\u2019 identities.<\/p>\n The attorney-general said in March she would consider the matter \u201cwith some urgency\u201d and has now commissioned the department to examine the matter.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s crucial for our justice system to strike the right balance between open justice and every person\u2019s right to a fair trial, the safety and privacy of victims and witnesses and the proper administration of justice,\u201d an Allan government spokesperson said.<\/p>\n Related Article \u201cOpen justice helps maintain public confidence in the courts and the media plays an important role in upholding that through fair and accurate reporting.<\/p>\n \u201cThe question of whether mental health is an appropriate basis for suppression orders is a significant issue that warrants careful consideration. It\u2019s important that any discussion in this area is informed by evidence, not assumptions.\u201d<\/p>\n Australian Lawyers Alliance spokesman Greg Barns, SC, said the rise of social media and online commentary on news articles meant clients were more frequently exposed to prejudice and publicity damaging to their mental health.<\/p>\n \u201cAs someone who has acted for people who\u2019ve had their mental health markedly [and] adversely impacted by media coverage, particularly social media, you can understand why lawyers apply for suppression orders,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n \u201cWe all have clients who are unused to any form of publicity, but of course, at the end of the day, an open justice system is essential component of the rule of law.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s a complex area. We should move cautiously and take account of the fact that there are many interests to be balanced.\u201d<\/p>\n Start the day with a summary of the day\u2019s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter<\/a>.<\/p>\n Save<\/p>\n You have reached your maximum number of saved items.<\/p>\n![\"Attorney-General](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/9468664eeb7f7067953b6998324f7ec704deb1e5.jpeg\")
Attorney-General Sonya KilkennyEddie Jim<\/p>\n![\"Suppression](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/74fd23f128d3a877129617b0d07cc05d9a1a86069d6c9c2c99542d402953eb94.jpeg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"Hundreds](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/858a2103ffd84087847ab3262ff351cb90a49c29.jpeg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n