Channel Seven Adelaide P/L & Ors v An Accused & Anor, Advertiser Newspapers P/L v An Accused & Anor

In the case of Channel Seven Adelaide P/L & Ors v An Accused & Anor, Advertiser Newspapers P/L v An Accused & Anor, the court was presented with an appeal against a suppression order made in committal proceedings in the Magistrates Court. The order suppressed until arraignment the accused's name and any matter that might tend to identify him. The accused was committed to stand trial on a number of counts of serious criminal offences of a sexual nature against two complainants. The possibility of severance of trials was raised, given the evidence was unlikely to be cross-admissible. The accused held a responsible public office, and the case was expected to attract extensive media coverage. The central legal issue for the court was whether the suppression order satisfied the requirements of the Evidence Act 1929 s 69A, while considering the common law and statutory provisions, the principles of open justice, and the accused's right to a fair trial.

The court reviewed the suppression order made in the Magistrates Court, which had ceased to have effect, and considered whether any order should be made in substitution. It was determined that it was inappropriate to place a finite duration on the order. The court concluded that there would be an order in the terms foreshadowed above but without limitation as to time. The court reviewed the interim order suppressing from publication any evidence given in the proceedings other than the fact of the appeal and the name of the first respondent in each of the appeals and of any other material tending to identify him. It was decided that the justification for the suppression of evidence was now the prevention of prejudice to the administration of justice in the trial or trials of the accused. The court also considered the publication of the reasons for judgment, and it was determined that while it would be undesirable to suppress publication of these reasons on a matter of substantial public interest, it was appropriate to continue in force a modified form of the order to prevent the linking of the accused's name with the facts and circumstances of the allegations concerning the charges.

The court proposed a modified suppression order that did not restrict publication of the identity of the accused but included suppression of the identity of the first respondent and any material tending to identify him as a respondent to this appeal in any publication of the reasons for judgment. This was to reduce the risk of linking the facts and allegations contained in these reasons with the accused. The final orders would be made by the District Court, which would determine what suppression orders, if any, should be made in respect of the proceedings in that court.