Suppression Orders: What They Are and How They Work

When Tom Silvagni was found guilty of rape in December 2025, media outlets ran carefully worded headlines such as: "Man from high-profile Victorian family found guilty."

His surname was known to many AFL fans and Victorians, but the media could not print his name during the trial.

The reason was a suppression order, and only after it was lifted, shortly after the verdict, could his identity be made public for the first time.

What They Are

A suppression order is a court directive that restricts or prohibits the publication or other disclosure of details in legal proceedings.

A non-publication order generally restricts publishing information to the public, whereas a suppression order is broader, preventing the disclosure of information entirely, whether by publication or otherwise.

In practice, courts often address both forms of order under the same statutory framework and apply the same “necessity” test.

Courts can grant these orders to protect the administration of justice, the mental health or safety of a person, the identity of a child accused, or national security.

In some circumstances, a court my also order that proceedings be heard in closed court, excluding the public and media entirely.

Open Justice

Plaintiffs, defendants, victims, complainants and the accused may find it intrusive or distressing that their names are published in the media, or that there is footage of them entering and leaving court.

They can be named and reported because open justice is a fundamental principle that ensures court proceedings are public and allows fair reporting. Transparency and public scrutiny are essential to accountability.

Former NSW Chief Justice James Spigelman has described open justice as one of the most fundamental aspects of the justice system, and the public conduct of court proceedings as vital to Australia. This reflects a central proposition: court proceedings are presumptively open, and suppression orders are the exception, not the rule.

Accurate documentation of court proceedings educates the public about their rights and the administration of justice.

When are they Granted, and How to Apply

A person's desire for confidentiality, or embarrassment about details that emerge from proceedings, is not enough to obtain an order.

Anyone seeking an order must convince the court that it is necessary and that a less restrictive option would not achieve the same result, because of the principles of open justice.

In NSW, the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) governs when courts can restrict access to information.

The statutory test requires that an order be “necessary” to achieve one of the recognisedd purposes, such as to protect a person's safety, ensure a trial is not prejudiced, or preserving genuinely confidential information.

There has been criticism over the years that only the rich and powerful can obtain suppression orders.

Criminal and Civil Applications

Criminal - Tom Silvagni

When a suppression order is lifted, it often attracts significant media attention.

On 17 December 2025, Tom Silvagni, the son of football great Stephen Silvagni and television personality Jo Silvagni, was jailed for more than six years after being found guilty of two counts of rape.

Despite being charged in June 2024, the media were unable to name him due to a suppression order. The order had been granted on the basis of psychiatric evidence that media coverage of the trial would affect his mental health, including an identified risk of self harm.

When Silvagni was found guilty on 5 December 2025, the suppression order meant media reporting was confined to headlines such as: "Man from high-profile Victorian family found guilty of rape."

On 11 December 2025, Victorian County Court Judge Andrew Palmer lifted the suppression order, on the basis that it was no longer necessary after the conviction and that Silvagni's mental health would be closely monitored in custody.

The Crown Prosecutor had raised concerns that the court would be brought into disrepute and viewed as giving special treatment if the order was maintained.

Silvagni is now appealing.

Criminal - Erin Patterson, the "mushroom murders"

After Erin Patterson was found guilty of triple murder, the Supreme Court of Victoria lifted a suppression order which allowed the media to report details that had not been provided to the jury in her marathon trial.

One argument presented in court but not to the jury was that Patterson had allegedly previously attempted to poison her husband Simon with rat poison before the murders. Simon had given evidence in pre-trial hearings about his wife's alleged previous poison attempts.

To avoid prejudicing the jury, a suppression order prevented the media from reporting this material. Once the trial was over, the media were able to report on the poison allegations.

This illustrates the role of suppression orders in protecting trial fairness, rather than permanently concealing information.

Civil – The King's School

The dispute between Sydney's The King's School and its former headmaster shows how suppression and non-publication orders work in practice, and when a court will refuse them.

Anthony "Tony" George took the school's council to the Federal Court in late 2025, suing for breach of contract and bringing an adverse action claim under the Fair Work Act after an incident involving a student in a class.

An external investigation into the incident found it did not amount to reportable conduct under child safety laws.

The parties settled out of court in January 2026 on confidential terms. The council then asked the court to suppress almost every document that had been filed in the case, arguing that publication would undermine the settlement.

Justice Wigney refused most of those orders.

The Court noted that while interim suppression orders had been in place, journalists had been unable to access the filed documents, and media coverage had largely been confined to reporting that a "secret deal" had been struck rather than what the underlying dispute was actually about.

When the judgment came out in April 2026, it revealed details the school had been trying to keep under wraps. These included a second workplace investigation, instigated by comments George had made at a staff farewell, which the court said appeared to have contributed to the decision to sack him.

Public or Private Interest

Suppression and non-publication orders exist as an exception to the principle of open justice. They are available only where a court is satisfied that an order is necessary to protect something the law recognises as worth protecting, for example a fair trial, a person's safety, a child's identity, or confidential information.

The relationship between suppression orders and the media is a reality of the judicial process. Court reporting by journalists, the so-called "fourth estate", is how the public sees the courts in action, and a suppression order tells reporters which details they must leave out.

Each case weighs up the public interest and the right to know against the concerns of the people involved.

The critical question is not whether publication is uncomfortable, but whether restriction is legally necessary.

The content in this Article is intended only to provide a summary and general overview on matters of interest. It is not intended to be comprehensive nor does it constitute legal advice. It should not be relied upon as such. You should seek legal or other professional advice before acting or relying on any of the content.