Re WD (No 2)

The case of Re WD (No 2) involved an application for a suppression order made by the Secretary to the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing on behalf of a 12-year-old girl charged with murder. The girl was subject to a "care by Secretary" order under the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 (Vic). The extensive media coverage of the alleged offence raised concerns about the girl's safety and well-being, prompting the application for a suppression order under the Open Courts Act 2013 (Vic). The court was tasked with determining whether the suppression order was necessary to protect the girl's safety, and the utility of the suppression order in this context.

The court considered the interaction between section 8(1A) and (3) of the Open Courts Act 2013 (Vic) and section 534 of the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 (Vic). It was established that the court was precluded from making a suppression order in respect of information the publication of which was already prohibited or restricted under the separate legislative scheme. Additionally, the court examined the availability of treatment, care, and supportive services, as well as the protective measures already in place for the girl. Ultimately, the court determined that the suppression order was not necessary, as the existing legislative framework and protective measures provided adequate safeguards for the girl's safety and well-being.

The court also considered an application for a declaration that media reporting containing certain details would contravene section 534 of the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 (Vic). The court found that the scope of the declaration was not limited to existing publications or publications in Australia, and that the declaration was directed towards a legal controversy rather than a hypothetical question. However, the court determined that the declaration was imprecise and overly broad, and therefore, it was not appropriate to make the declaration. The court's decision was based on the understanding that the existing legislative framework provided sufficient protection for the girl's identity and well-being, and that the declaration would not have provided any additional benefit.

The court did not make a suppression order or a declaration in this case. The decision highlights the importance of balancing the need for open courts with the protection of vulnerable individuals, such as children charged with serious offences, and the role of existing legislative frameworks in providing appropriate safeguards.