The Feeder Club
Club Legend
- Sep 8, 2023
- 2,563
- 6,989
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
Like the Geelong player case, it didn't take long for the usual people to again come out supporting suppression orders over the principle of open justice.
I hope this article by Justin Quill tonight gives them pause for thought, but I'm not holding my breath
As it might be behind a paywall and I believe we're not supposed to post the full articles anymore on BF, here's a few relevant snippets for them
I hope this article by Justin Quill tonight gives them pause for thought, but I'm not holding my breath
As it might be behind a paywall and I believe we're not supposed to post the full articles anymore on BF, here's a few relevant snippets for them
For the past 18 months, the suppression order fight has waged and involved about a dozen different hearings – that’s a dozen hearings just dealing solely with Silvagni’s demand for secrecy.
Silvagni has had two separate counsel teams in this case – each led by distinguished and well-credentialled Kings Counsel. One team dealt with the criminal case, one dealt with the suppression order fight. That’s not something the average punter could afford.
You might think this is an unusual or unprecedented case. Unfortunately, not in Victoria. Suppression orders are so common in that state that this year there are more suppression orders made there than in all the other states combined.
Let that sink in – there are more suppression orders in Victoria than the rest of the country combined.
Mental harm is the new battle ground in the fight against suppression orders and a big reason for the large number of suppression orders made in Victoria. Defendants visit a psychiatrist and tell them some “facts” about their mental wellbeing. The psychiatrist isn’t required to test their patient’s “facts”. They accept them.
Then the “facts” appear in the psychiatrist’s report submitted to the court and effectively become unchallenged evidence.
It’s impossible for the media to test that “evidence” and the judge usually proceeds on the basis it’s all true, even though the defendant was never cross-examined on it.




