Suppression orders or the right to know?

Our court system is back in the spotlight with plans to review the system under which "suppression orders" are granted. For anyone unfamiliar with the idea a "suppression order" can be requested and may be granted in order to prevent information becoming public knowledge. It can be in place for a short period or it can be permanent. There are almost always very good reasons for such orders.

Years ago, before the advent of social media as we have it today, the son of a very senior public servant committed suicide. He was alleged to have raped a girl and it was thought this allegation was what caused him to commit suicide. 

The word was all over the tiny section I was working in at the time but nobody else seemed to know about it. We all kept our mouths shut. We knew there was a suppression order was in place. It never reached the pages of newspaper. Nothing was said on air.

Nor should it have been. There was no truth in the allegation at all. It was made out of jealousy, something the girl admitted. Without a suppression order the boy's parents would have found the situation even harder to handle. I saw his mother recently. She is in a nursing home near here. We chat occasionally.  Only once has she mentioned her son and then it was to say, "We were so grateful to all of you for saying nothing."

It was none of our business. What goes on in court often is none of our business. We are all supposed to be equal under the law but the reality is that we are not. If you have money you can pay for the best legal assistance around. It can make an immense difference to the outcome. If you are a public figure though it is likely that any misdeed or alleged misdeed will become known very rapidly. Many people will say that is the price you have to be prepared to pay if you are a public figure. But what if you are not the one responsible? What if you are the son or daughter or brother or sister? What if, as has happened, you are a cousin? Where does the negative publicity stop? Why are we somehow seen as involved or, even worse, responsible? 

Isn't this why we need suppression orders...and don't those suppression orders need to be ongoing?

It is said that courts should be open. That is the way we can be as certain as we can that justice is served. I agree with that. Unless there is a need for protection then courts should, for the most part, be open. Anyone should be able to go and listen to proceedings. If there is something wrong they should be able to speak about it. 

There is however a vast difference between that and what is often called "trial by media". It can lead to the wrong outcome. Juries are not immune to public opinion. They won't always understand expert evidence. It has nothing to do with intelligence or lack of it rather a lack of knowledge and a natural human desire to sympathise with someone who has been labelled "victim".  If suppression orders also suppress public opinion then it may well be that the accused person will get a fairer hearing.

Whatever the outcome of the inquiry into the use of suppression orders we cannot afford to do without them entirely. That would lead to trial by the court of public opinion.