Open Courts Act section 18 is the legal lever frequently used to grant suppression, especially on safety or mental health grounds.

Media and expert voices have pressed for reform, noting cases where suppression protected perpetrators rather than victims and urging public accountability.

Victorian suppression orders are viewed as overly broad, fueling perceptions of preferential treatment and prompting a crisis in open justice.

Editorials argue suppression orders in Victoria are overused and eroding public trust in the justice system.

Labor unveils targeted reforms to suppression orders and victim protections, including banning convicted rapists from using suppression orders to hide identity and reviewing interim orders for broader, justified use.

The plan centers on ensuring suppression orders protect victim-survivors while balancing fair trial rights, guiding specific amendments through a comprehensive review.

Critics argue current practice under mental health or distress grounds creates unequal treatment and undermines open justice.

Independent experts warn psychiatrists’ ability to forecast future behavior is limited, and suppression orders may be granted beyond what is scientifically warranted.

Experts say prolonged suppression harms victims by casting doubt on credibility and eroding public confidence in the justice system.

Some stakeholders acknowledge necessity of suppression in certain cases but call for tighter scrutiny of when psychological evidence justifies secrecy.

Editorials acknowledge varied victim views but emphasize opposition to shielding abusers from public accountability and stress the importance of open justice.

Leaders frame changes as aligning with victims’ interests and open justice, though critics call for more concrete details.