Mental Health Suppression Orders: A Threat to Transparency? A Former Judge's Perspective
In a recent development, Victoria's top law officer has acknowledged the delicate balance between transparency in the courts and the right to a fair trial, following a report highlighting a 'crisis' in open justice. However, a former Supreme Court judge has come to the defense of the system, arguing that psychiatrists providing evidence for mental health suppression orders are the real threat to transparency. While acknowledging that some judges may be 'dills', the judge emphasizes that they are outliers in the profession.
The Monash University study, commissioned by the Melbourne Press Club, ranked Victoria's court system as the least transparent in Australia. It warned that the widespread use of suppression orders has led to a crisis in court reporting and called for a comprehensive overhaul of the state's Open Courts Act. The study was based on interviews with working journalists, who expressed concerns about the relationship between judges and journalists.
Speaking to reporters, Attorney-General Sonya Kilkenny sidestepped questions about the need for a review of the legislation introduced 13 years ago. Instead, she emphasized the importance of balancing 'an open court system and a person's right to a fair trial'. She highlighted recent changes, such as the ban on 'good character' references in the state, as steps towards achieving this balance.
Former Supreme Court justice Betty King, KC, joined the discussion at a Melbourne Press Club event, where she suggested that psychiatrists pose the greatest threat to court transparency. She criticized the practice of psychiatrists writing untested reports, which often lead to suppression orders. King argued that some psychiatrists abuse the system, and their reports, along with the legislation, should be subject to scrutiny in court.
King expressed concern about the mental health suppression order, describing it as a misinterpretation. She urged the need to re-evaluate psychiatric reports, stating, 'They write compelling reports, saying, 'I am treating this person...'. Now, you've got that [psychiatric] report in front of you, and no one's contesting it.'
Despite the criticism, King defended the broader use of suppression orders as essential for ensuring a fair trial and preventing mistrials. She humorously referred to herself as the 'Queen of suppression orders', citing her experience in presiding over high-profile trials, including the trial of slain underworld boss Carl Williams.
The former judge also addressed the suggestion of an external reviewer or commissioner, arguing that all decisions made by magistrates or judges are subject to review by different levels of the judiciary. She concluded with a pragmatic statement, 'Let's get real.'
The report's findings have sparked a debate, with Chief Justice Richard Niall expressing disappointment, claiming it failed to reflect the courts' positive engagement with the media. He criticized the study for its misleading claims and selective citations, emphasizing the need for a more comprehensive approach to understanding the use of suppression orders.
