‘Cheat seat’ document helping lawyers secure suppression orders and protect high-profile clients such as Tom Silvagni

The instructional presentation came from a leading practice management and clerking office and says that while there are a number of reasons for applying for proceeding suppression orders, fairness of an anticipated trial or risks to the accused’s mental or physical safety were the most common.

One of the three authors of the document was the junior barrister who appeared in Tom Silvagni’s rape case. All three were contacted for comment.

In a section of the document titled “practical tips”, lawyers are advised to start plans for an order before the case first gets to court, including by obtaining medical reports.

It says they should “consider asking your psychiatrist to provide an opinion” on four matters including the likelihood and gravity of harm if an order was not made.

The authors also suggest telling police it would be “inappropriate for the media to be informed of the matter” before they have a chance to suppress the case, volunteering to bring a client into the station for interview, and negotiating court attendance with police at the time charges are being filed.

This had the potential to make “life easier” for police, and maximise the chance of being able to obtain a gag order before the media becomes aware of the case, the authors stated.

But it cautions against applying for an order that is “bound to fail” because it will “instantly draw media attention to your client’s case”.

“The majority of cases are not reported on. It is often surprising the cases that escape media attention,” the document reads.

An investigation by this masthead last year found information on people charged with serious criminal offences – including child sexual abuse and murder – was increasingly being withheld from the public, often absent of any evidence supporting their fight for anonymity.

Jason Bosland, an associate professor at the University of Melbourne who has published material on cases including suppression orders made in the trial of the late Cardinal George Pell, said the state had seen a “massive increase” in mental safety suppression order applications over the past 12 months.

Loading

“It is a real problem,” he said. “If you are an applicant who can afford to get psychiatric reports to say, ‘I’ve assessed the person and any publicity could lead to disastrous consequences’, you’ve got a guaranteed order. It’s not acceptable.”

Bosland is sceptical of how any proposed harm from media reporting could be separated from the mental anguish caused to a person by being charged with a serious offence and the prospect of years in jail. He said the applications placed magistrates and judges in difficult positions when the consequences of not making an order could prove disastrous.

In 2024, 475 suppression orders were made in Victoria, compared with 222 in South Australia and 140 in NSW. In 2023, 521 suppression orders were issued in Victoria, 308 in South Australia and 133 in NSW.

This data suggests Victoria issues more suppression orders than any other state or territory or the federal courts.

The primary reasons suppression orders are granted in Victoria is to protect the administration of justice, and a person’s physical and mental safety. Though certain conditions must be met, the decision to grant or deny an order ultimately rests with the judge or magistrate.

Loading

Once granted, orders can be broad and cover entire proceedings, or specific and suppress specific information only. Some remain in place for short periods, including until the return of a jury verdict, while others can remain in place for decades. Other cases cannot be revealed at all owing to the strict wording of court orders.

Most of the 12-page document is a legal explainer on the different types of orders, the grounds they can be made upon and information on previous cases that can be relied on.

The executive director of the Victorian Bar, Amanda Utt, said the principle of open justice “is one of the most fundamental aspects of the system of justice in Australia” and must prevail unless the circumstances of a case made it necessary to be overridden.

Utt noted the law suggested there must be a risk of psychological damage, and not merely psychological distress or embarrassment, for a suppression order to be granted.

“The court will only make a suppression order if it is satisfied on the basis of evidence or sufficient credible information that the grounds for the order are made out,” Utt said.

“The court must also consider whether the concern raised can be addressed in any other way. It is only if all those steps are satisfied that the court can make one of these orders, and it can only make it for as long as reasonably necessary to achieve its purpose.”

In November, Geelong Football Club’s Tanner Bruhn was unmasked as the player who spent the 2025 season fighting charges, after a suppression order banning the publication of his name – applied for by Bruhn and lifted at his request – was torn up so he could let the public know the rape case against him had been dropped.

The 23-year-old had applied for the media blackout months earlier on the basis that it was needed to protect his safety.

As in Silvagni’s case, Bruhn’s defence barrister told the court the suppression order had failed to stop his client’s name being shared on social media by members of the public during the period of secrecy.

Loading

Media lawyer Justin Quill said the community should be concerned about the risk of wealthy litigants obtaining suppression orders where others couldn’t.

He said open courts promoted the transparency and understanding of the court process and truthful testimony. Without this, Quill said there was a serious risk of rumour and false information permeating through the community and justice being undermined.

“The more suppression order applications are made, the more suppression orders that will be made,” Quill said.

He called for legislative change to redefine safety in the Open Courts Act as physical safety.

Support is available from the National Domestic Family and Sexual Violence Counselling Service 1800RESPECT (1800 737 732) and Victims of Crime Helpline (1800 819 817).

Be the first to know when major news happens. Sign up for breaking news alerts on email or turn on notifications in the app.