For a few hours, his name and photos were plastered across media reports.
Then they vanished, taken down in haste.
As things stand, it is a criminal offence for anyone to publish or broadcast the name of the person accused of murdering Victorian woman Samantha Murphy.
A nationwide, interim suppression order over the 22-year-old man's name, specific address and date of birth was granted by magistrate Michelle Mykytowycz on Thursday, minutes after he was brought into the Ballarat Magistrates' Court for a filing hearing.
Media outlets, including the ABC, are set to challenge that order in court on Friday, in a bid to tell the public more about the man at the centre of the high-profile case.
Why was the suppression order made?
According to Victoria's Open Courts Act, the principle of "open justice" is described as a "fundamental aspect of the Victorian legal system".
It promotes the notion the public is free to attend court to view proceedings, and media outlets are allowed to accurately report what goes on in the courtroom.
However, the open justice principle is regularly displaced, with defence lawyers and prosecutors using sections of the Open Courts Act to argue for certain information to be restricted, or on some occasions, to have entire cases held in secret.
That is what took place on Thursday, when lawyers for Ms Murphy's alleged killer applied for an interim suppression order covering the man's name, citing a potential risk to his fair trial, and concerns his safety and mental health.
"He may have significant mental health challenges, which then arise from now being charged with murder in what everybody understands is a very highly-publicised case," defence lawyer Michael Tamanika said.
Mr Tamanika was not required to provide any detailed evidence to the magistrate to back up claims of potential unfairness in the courts or dangers to the man's safety. The act states that an interim order can be granted without a court needing to be satisfied that any of the information provided is credible.
'The horse has already bolted'
Journalists covering the Murphy case addressed the court on Thursday afternoon, arguing against the interim suppression order.
"The horse has already bolted," The Age's crime and justice reporter Erin Pearson said.
"The names, details and photographs of the accused have been online for a number of hours now and continue to be published as we speak so it seems to be futile to be suppressing something that has already been widely publicised online."
Other reporters said that simply revealing the man's name and showing his photo would not be prejudicial, given that is standard practice in most court stories the media cover.
However, those arguments did not convince the magistrate, who sided with Mr Tamanika for the time being.
A follow-up hearing is scheduled for Friday, and will involve more detailed legal submissions from the media outlets and the accused man's lawyers.
It will then be up to a magistrate to decide whether to revoke the suppression order, alter it or leave it untouched. The magistrate could announce their decision on Friday or at a later date.
Suppression orders in Victoria
Suppression orders are the subject of constant legal battles between media outlets and people involved in Victorian court cases.
The gag orders can stop publication of a variety of details about a case or the people involved, and the orders can potentially stay in place permanently. Occasionally courts issue a suppression covering the existence of a suppression order, something commonly called a "super injunction" in the United Kingdom.
Often, the media and legal parties agree suppressions are needed to protect sexual assault victims, children and witnesses who could be in danger if their identities were revealed.
But, on other occasions, there are disputes about whether the restrictions are necessary, or even possible to enforce in an age where material is posted online and on social media.
In one recent case, lawyers for an alleged criminal called on a Victorian judge to order the take-down of all stories that had been written about their client over a lengthy period. The man's lawyers were unable to say how many stories had been written, or even provide a list of who had published them.
The judge denied the request.
In another high-profile matter involving a 12-year-old charged with murder, a Victorian government agency failed in a bid to keep secret details about potential failures in the state care system in the lead-up to the alleged crime.
Meanwhile, in a different case, media organisations, including the ABC are fighting to overturn an interim suppression order that bans publication of an accused kidnapper's name, nationality, religion or the political activism she has been involved in.
The identities of other accused criminals, including some charged with murder and very serious offences, are also currently suppressed in Victoria.
Breaching suppression orders can carry hefty penalties, with media companies and journalists facing the potential of large fines or potential jail time.
Friday's hearing for Ms Murphy's accused killer is shaping up as the latest chapter in a long list of Victorian suppression battles.
https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiXGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmFiYy5uZXQuYXUvbmV3cy8yMDI0LTAzLTA3L3NhbWFudGhhLW11cnBoeS1zdXBwcmVzc2lvbi1vcmRlci1leHBsYWluZXIvMTAzNTYxNzEy0gEoaHR0cHM6Ly9hbXAuYWJjLm5ldC5hdS9hcnRpY2xlLzEwMzU2MTcxMg?oc=5
2024-03-07 09:27:05Z
CBMiXGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmFiYy5uZXQuYXUvbmV3cy8yMDI0LTAzLTA3L3NhbWFudGhhLW11cnBoeS1zdXBwcmVzc2lvbi1vcmRlci1leHBsYWluZXIvMTAzNTYxNzEy0gEoaHR0cHM6Ly9hbXAuYWJjLm5ldC5hdS9hcnRpY2xlLzEwMzU2MTcxMg
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "Here's why the name of Samantha Murphy's alleged killer remains a secret — for now - ABC News"
Post a Comment