Login
Public cannot have every ‘juicy’ detail, Chief Justice says
In defence of suppression orders, Chief Justice Debbie Mortimer of the Federal Court has said the media and community should not feel entitled to “all the juicy details” in a proceeding.
Naomi Neilson
Amid recent criticisms of suppression orders in Australia’s major courtrooms, Chief Justice Mortimer stressed that behind every “juicy item” and request for open justice from journalists and the wider public, there is a “human being who may be personally affected”.
In the last financial year, 91 of the 1,830 judgments published online had a suppression order attached, with the majority related to proceedings in the court’s commercial and corporations practice area.
In 84 cases – the majority of which concerned applications by administrators, liquidators, receivers or managers – the orders were made solely on the ground that a suppression was “necessary to prevent prejudice to the open administration of justice”.
In the speech, delivered at the Seabrook Chambers Public Lecture, Chief Justice Mortimer criticised the term “open justice” for promoting the misconception that courts have operated a “secret injustice” whenever suppression orders have been made.
“No one on our court advocates secret justice,” the Chief Justice said.
“But we do believe in fair justice, and in a judicial system that recognises the tensions and challenges at a case-by-case level and a justice system level in ensuring fairness and avoiding harm.
“Accessibility to our work will come in our contemporary court from a wide range of sources, and the legal profession and the community should be confident of our court’s commitment to these values.”
Chief Justice Mortimer suggested a change to the term “accessible justice” because it embraces a “wide range of approaches” to achieve public confidence and trust in the judiciary system.
This includes using concise statements, creating online files, developing judgment summaries, live streaming trials and appeals, using remote hearing technology, and posting on social media.
In the last financial year, 89 listings were live-streamed, including Ben Roberts-Smith’s defamation action and the eSafety Commissioner’s proceedings against Elon Musk’s company, X.
Allowances have also been made for native title cases to ensure First Nations communities can watch “no matter where they are”.
“There is always more to do, and there is certainly more planned to ensure we remain faithful to the proposition that justice must be accessible so that our work can be better understood in a contemporary Australian society,” Chief Justice Mortimer said.
“Judges on the court are actively and enthusiastically engaged in contributing to innovative projects that will contribute further to these objectives. Technology and modern communications are key.”
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
